Is Evolution a hoax, a fact, or what? Are there cracks in its proofs?

Question

CRACKS ON PROOFS OF EVOLUTION

At best the debate between creation and evolution will be a lively one replete with name calling on both sides. Supporters of evolution shout that it is no longer a theory but a fact. However, scientific arguments against it seems to be rising and with good reasons. Here are some reasons why.

1.DEFECTIVE DATING METHODS. Most of the dating methods used to argue that the earth is at least a billion years old are inaccurate to say the least. Meaning there is no real means to prove that the earth is just a few thousand years old, or it’s age runs into the billions of years.

2. EVIDENCE FROM OUR SOLAR SYSTEM that our solar system is quite young:
Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist.

3. MISSING LINKS STILL MISSING. The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed. Too, there have been many forgeries ( eg the Piltdownman , the horse series in most biology books) of so called proofs of evolution.
4. PROTEIN, THE BASIC INGREDIENT OF LIFE, CAN ONLY BE MANUFACTURED BY LIVING ORGANIZMS, NOT BY NON-LIVING ONES. The Miller-Urey Experiment only succeeded in making the ingredients of protein, not protein itself.
5. HOMOLOGY IS MORE OF EVIDENCE OF DESIGN RATHER THAN BY CHANCE. Briefly, homology, is the similarities in structures ( vertebrae for example) among animals.

Darwin’s followers rely on homologies to arrange
fossils in branching trees that supposedly show ancestordescendant
relationships. In his 1990 book, Evolution and
the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra compared the
fossil record to a series of Corvette models: “If you compare
a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and
a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is
overwhelmingly obvious.”

But Berra forgot to consider a crucial, and obvious,
point: Corvettes, so far as anyone has yet been able
to determine, don’t give birth to little Corvettes. They, like
all automobiles, are designed by people working for auto
companies. In other words, an outside intelligence. So
although Berra believed he was supporting Darwinian evolution
rather than the pre-Darwinian explanation, he unwittingly
showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with
either. Law professor (and critic of Darwinism) Phillip E.
Johnson dubbed this : “Berra’s Blunder.”

Thanks to 'science nut' and nonevangelis. But, I have e-mailed to you reasons why your observations are not that credible.

I feel its not just proper to post those e-mail here as it would unnecessariyl lenthen this post.

But, thanks anyway. I hope you don't treat me as garbage unlike the guy at the bottom who pretends to be someone else.

Answer 1

your question was too long so I didn't bother reading it...

As for the subject you were talking about, evolution is just as good a theory as any other THEORY!

Answer 2

I've shot down 4 of your five "cracks" in past questions. I haven't shot down #2 yet. There is evidence for some changes in solar diameter. A 1567 solar eclipse was annular when a fixed solar diameter would have made it total. Of course, if the Sun were shrinking at the 2 arcseconds per century, most historically recorded total eclipses should have been annular.

At the 1979 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Eddy and Boorzman presented an analysis of data from the solar meridian measurements at Royal Greenwich Observatory from 1836-1953. Their analysis which was never published in peer reviewed fashion is the source for the 2 arcseconds per century number.

Around the same time, S. Sofia, J. O'Keefe, J. R. Lesh and A. S. Endal published a peer-reviewed article in Science, using the same data source from 1850 and 1937, and came up with 0.5 arcseconds per century, one-fourth Eddy and Boornazian's rate. Analysis of data from eclipses and transits of Mercury, gave even lower values.

Of course, these numbers assume a constant rate of collapse. Several groups have documented oscillations in the diameter of the Sun ranging from 76 to 80 year periods.

Despite the fact that there are no extra annular eclipses in history other than 1567, despite the fact that the number needed to make the case is anomaly, despite the fact that Creationists reject extrapolations in other areas of astrophysics, geology and biology, and despite the fact that since 1980 the solar diameter has remained essentially unchanged, Creationists have latched onto this one cherry-picked result that they can make a story from.

Answer 3

I am so sorry, but you are totally misinformed on all of this. Just for starters, one of the most effective dating methods is the Potassium/Argon method, which uses the radioactive decay of Potassium-40 to Argon-40. Potassium is a solid mineral, whereas Argon is a gas. When a Potassium-40 atom that is locked into a rock's crystal lattice decays into an Argon-40 atom, it becomes a gas molecule trapped inside the matrix of the rock. It could not possibly have formed there when the rock was first formed. The amount of Argon found in a given rock will very precisely determine when that rock came into being in its present form. Usually the date arrived at is measured in many millions of years. This is not a difficult concept. This is very easy to see for any intelligent person.
.........Albert Einstein once said that "all of science is simply the intelligent application of plain common sense". I agree with this wholeheartedly. I believe you are an intelligent person. I think you should start trying to be more objective in your thinking process. I know you can do it, just stop listening to your emotions.

Answer 4

You'll never find a crack in religious creationism because it's something you can't see, feel or touch. It's faith.
Science can always be questioned. At least it's methodology or results.
I personally believe in/lean towards evolution. It's logical and assumes a particular path. I can put my hands on it.
I'm not an atheist but, I have no faith in anyone but myself. At least until someone gives me something solid to hold on to.
In all the years I've been alive, I have yet to be persuaded in the direction of creationism or disuaded from evolution.
Some people you just can't get through to.

The debate rages on for everyone else but me. Show me the proof of either and I'll change my belief system. Until then.... I continue to lean.

Answer 5

Why bother asking this question? You're only going to listen to the answers you agree with. There is no proof against evolution. All the "theories" against evolution rely on holes in evolutionary theory. Evolution is very complex, and it will take a long time before it is understood well. We do know that evolution is real.
And by the way, people like you are starting to get really annoying here. All you're doing is trying to get people riled up. Get over yourself.

Answer 6

You do not have the mindset to even begin to understand science and why it is that scientists accept the models of how things work in the universe. I could go on for pages and pages to refute your ignorant claims but it would do neither one of us any good. Try not to inflict your cancerous faith on others and persecute those that do not agree with your creation myths.