Now that Darwinian evolution has been disproven, what new improved theory will evolutionists make up?

Answer 1

Numerous factors prove that Darinism is false.

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Pick which one you like best.

Answer 2

What I find really interesting is when you apply Darwinist theory to religions themselves. There are more than enough accounts of religious evolution. Like in Darwin's theory, the traits that are most suited to the propagation of the species are the ones that are passed on. The same works for religion throughout history.

If you take a look at some of the ancient religions that we all know well from our elementary school "mythology" lessons, you can see what I mean. When the Romans conquered the known world, Jupiter was the King of Gods across the Eurasian continent and Northern Africa. However, with the collapse of the Roman empire, other religions with more "desirable" traits such as a single, all-powerful god and a single, dogmatic text. Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam didn't need an army to spread it's message (although violent transmission wasn't uncommon), it merely needed someone with arms and the ability to read.

But then take a look at the Darwinian evolution of Christianity. The followers of Jesus began as a close-knit but very small group. The message spread and the religion grew. It continued to grow until a hierarchy developed and congratulations, we have the Catholic church! Eventually some new traits appeared (a la Martin Luther, Henry VIII, etc.) and various Protestant religions developed and themselves grew in a very organic manner. Then take Christianity and isolate it from the rest of the world... Send it over to America. With its weakened connections to the greater population of the species, new forms emerged - welcome to the stage the Church of Latter Day Saints. Then in very recent days you see what happens when two variants on the species vie for the same territory. Northern Ireland was a tragic case of similar but clearly distinct species competing for survival.

That all being said, I'm not entirely sure that one can both look at the data that countless man hours of research have provided us and believe that evolution is all a hoax. Religion and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, and a happy synergy can always be found between the two, if one is willing to look at shades of grey, and differences in meaning.

Answer 3

I could just as easily set my own bait by asking "Now that The Bible has been disproven, what new improved theory will Creationists make up?"

I think you will find (if you honestly look) that modern evolutionary biology has a sound basis in scientific method. After all, it is the Creationist school of thought that is trying to make their ideas sound more scientific, not the Evolutionist school of thought trying to make their concepts sound more Biblical. (Or is this another attempt by Christianity to sanitise the beliefs of others in an attempt to convert them?)

You may be better off just respecting the beliefs of others rather than sowing misinformation. Good luck with your baiting though...

Answer 4

All hail Darwin. I am waiting for natural selection to kick in and de-select the stupid people who think that science HAS to be wrong because the Bible has a different version.

Religion and science don't even serve the same purposes, so comparing them is like trying to compare an apple to a Volkswagen. Science tells you how and religion tells you why. Evolution tells you how humans came to be, but for some people, knowing how is not enough. Those people turn to religion to get the "why" and to give the "how" meaning. So though evolution tells us how we are here, religion tells us why we are here and what we are supposed to do while we are here.

Knowledge of evolution is valuable in the world of science and medicine. Predtending evolution is wrong to satisfy some sick "My beliefs are better than your beleifs" righteousness is like asking us to give up any advancements we may make because of it. What kind of person would want to DE evolve science? Show me who has scientifically disproven science, and you will have shown me an idiot.

Answer 5

no longer all and sundry gets offended and that i'm particular you have greater religious human beings get offended once you attempt to disprove the god hypothesis. in case you reallyhave some good information and information approximately why darwinian evolution is misguided, i could be happyto hear it and any respected scientist might probably opt for to hearken to it to boot. human beings, although, do get pissed off that creationists often distort the concept of evolution or ask questions that are incredibly answerable in the event that they simply learn the concept in a severe college biology e book or p.c.. up a school e book on it. and that i agree that, the concept could be incorrect, although maximum scientists agree that the evolution concept is the main supported, and ultimate concept we've so a ways. in case you would be able to arise with a greater effective supported and thoughtout concept then the medical community might gladly hear you out. between the answerers stated that individuals are intellectually lazy whilst they settle for existence with out purpose. That evolution is misguided because of the fact a existence with out purpose does no longer be healthful for a individual. This arguement fails on the basis of correlation yet no longer reason/impression. whether it have been actual that evolution teaches human beings to be lazy, this has no longer something to do with no count if evolution is misguided or no longer. it incredibly is a pitfall in good judgment which you would be able to desire to observe out for whilst debating. Correlation does not = causation. it could be like asserting, if maximum cancers sufferers believed that they have got not got maximum cancers it would cause them to sense happier, all maximum cancers sufferers shouldn't believe that they have got maximum cancers. whether you opt for to believe you have not got maximum cancers as a maximum cancers affected person. the actuality of the situation is which you will nevertheless have maximum cancers.

Answer 6

When was it disproven exactly?

Has the Nobel Prize commitee been notified? This years Nobel Prize in Biology needs to be revoked and given to the person who did it, because disproof of evolution would effectively shatter 90% of currently known biology.

Answer 7

Darwin can't be disproven, any more than many parts of the bible, koran, or whatever text.
To deny a beginning for life is to actually to deny the bible version. it states that adam was made from the earth, and eve from his rib.
Isn't everyone entitled to his own belief unless he/she is trying to shove something down another's throat.
Myself, I believe in the message of the bible, the logic of darwin and evolution. prove me wrong.

Answer 8

Not to be funny; look at the probes they are sending to Mars, etc. Life came from water... will be next.
Look at the bible:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

They are slowing getting back to God.
The first breathing life was from the waters, fish, water animals

One Day thier microscopes we be turned to relieze it was God

Scripture for That:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Evolution theory is man made and God told you that thorugh Paul Romans 1:25

Answer 9

Wow... the greatest, most comprehensive scientific theory of all time has been disproved??? You would think they would have put that in the paper or something (at least on page 2).


Were you home-schooled?

Answer 10

I think panspermia and extraterrestrial intervention are next. Well anything makes more sense than a man with a beard creating the world, or seaweed somehow developing fins.