Disprove evolution

Oh go on...Somebody?




MelT

 

lmao, I would say that no one is going to make a serious reply to this thread....but then, I see some of the other threads that are in this forum, and now Im not so sure....

as a result, im going to watch, for entertainment purposes only

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is Wrong, False, and Impossible.

Meh. Anybody that attempts to disprove evolution has very crude understanding of it, and biology. They think that one day a monkey had a baby and it was a human. Then another monkey had a baby and it was human too. Then the two monkey/human babies grew up and fucked and made every one else.

They have a basic understanding of micro-evolution, or survival of the fittest. Like in the link above the guy attempts to explain why a new species can never be formed because dogs can only be selectively bred to be different dogs, not cats. Really wtf? So yes, the only people who appose evolution are going to be relatively close minded religious people. Who are unfortunately blinded by religion, and rely on out dated religious texts for scientific knowledge.

So don't expect a logical argument to be made against the disproving of evolution. Expect an argument that tries to disprove the current popular theory of evolution, yet still argues for another, off-shoot theory of evolution if you will.

 

Evolution is a theory. Everything in science that we hold to be fact, technically, is a theory. Because science fact (if there were such a thing) would simply be something that has evidence supporting it, and has yet to be "disproved." This is coming straight from last years biology text book (not word for word, obviously).

Therefore all you can do is offer opinions and scattered evidence showing something opposite from what the theory of evolution posits.

That said, I do believe in evolution to some extent. I don't, however, feel that the origins of life on earth are completely understood and I think evolution is just one of many factors that has and does affect life on earth.

Wow, forgot where I was going with this...

Edit: Still don't remember where I was going with that yet, but here is another thing:
Do I believe we evolved from apes? No. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution. I believe that we evolved from more primitive forms of what we are now. Just like apes evolved from more primitive forms than they are now. Two separate species, both attempting the evolutionary "perfection" that we enjoy today, yet only one (humans) were biologically lucky enough to achieve it.

 

I don't think evolution was ever meant to describe the origin of life on Earth. Abiogenesis is the study of how life could've come from inanimate matter. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

 

I worded that wrong...I meant to say the origins of life as in, the things that everything else evolved from and how evolution started. Not how life arose to begin with. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Some people are going to OWNED in this forum

 

It is impossible to disprove evolution, just like it is impossible to prove evolution. Evolution is a theory, and although widely accepted, it still remains just that.

 

Its impossible to disprove evolution because it is basically a religion now.

It is a theory but not really falsifiable because any evidence you could submit to an evolutionist would simply be rejected.

Scientist found soft tissue in a T-REX bone recently and they didn't even ponder the possibility of that particular specimen being younger then hundreds of millions of years old. They did not even bother to rule it out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG5B7x_uDlE]YouTube - T-REX BONE: BLOOD CELLS AND SOFT TISSUE?[/ame]

 

Just like man made global warming, the proof of "man's decent from apes" has contained its fair share of fraud.

​

Piltdown Man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later.

The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down.

​

Nebraska Man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey. A body covered with hair and a primitive face was fabricated to show his closeness in appearance to an ape. Volumes have been written about his physical and mental capabilities.

Years later another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

​

Java Man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

​

Orce Man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey.

Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like.

(source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

​

Neanderthal Man: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets.

Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow.

(source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, # 20)

 

I don't believe that the Earth is six thousand years old. I don't believe that the Bible says that it is. Christians who belive this are thinking too hard. They don't take in to account that there is no way to tell by scripture how many years Adam may have lived before the fall of man. Until sin and death Adam could have lived with God a very long time.

Human history is about six thousand years old. Written history and civilization seems to be about six thousand years old but I acknowledge that the Earth may be much older.

If there were genetically similar humans populating the Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago I believe we would find cites and artifacts that old as well.


Stalagmites, stalactites as well as five columns eleven feet tall are found in the basement.
This building was forty years old when these pictures were taken.


How does a tree fossilize while it is still standing?


The Creation Evidences Museum acquired a fossilized human finger in the mid 1980s. It was found by a landowner where road gravel was being quarried from the Cretaceous Walnut Formation of the Commanche Peak limestone. Recent advances in C.T. scanning techniques have yielded some astounding pictures of the interior of this fossil. These pictures and other studies show that this is indeed the finger of someone who was rapidly buried in a catastrophic event long ago.

 

Actually, gravity is a law, not a theory. There's a significant difference. Gravity is not falsifiable, in any way, because all you need to do to prove it exists is throw a pencil across the room, the fact that it falls to the ground is proof it exists. As opposed to evolution, which, while it has considerable evidence to back it, can possibly be falsified, given the right evidence.

I know what you mean though, we really have no idea what causes these forces, even though we know they exist.

As far as disproving evolution, maxrule has a point, evolution isn't regarded as a theory by most people, the same way the big bang theory isn't regarded as a theory, people take them as proven facts, and it does cloud interpretations of new evidence.

Personally, from a spiritual standpoint, i'm more concerned with learning about the origins of the universe, not the origin of life on a tiny little planet in an insignificant galaxy in a sea of billions

 

The difference between evolution, and a religion, is that evolution does not need us to have any faith in anything at all, merely to extract data for an accurate interpretation.

I think some people have trouble distinguishing religion from superstition.

That may be because the definition of "Faith" and "Superstition" are identical.

What textbook are you getting this shit from?

Argue all you want with the skull and bones society, but leave my T. Rex alone.

 

So if i make up a religion and it proves to be foney, does that make all religions fake? No it does not. Plus theres a name for attacking an arguer rather than the argument, some latin term i forget. But anyways that goes to prove that religious people have little to no understanding of evolution. For one man did not come from neaderthal nor monkey. You fail, sorry

 

Never trust text books. When they are wrong they usually stay that way for decades.

Evolution is a religion because people are willing to put all their faith in the notion that God is not necessary for life to exist yet the evolutionist can not prove other wise.

Even though the evolutionist can not prove other wise he is usually convinced that the case against God has already been provided and is willing to hang his hat science in-spite of the fact that science can never be 100% sure and that it has often been been plagued by fraud.

If a rabbit fossil was discover in the Jurassic layer of rock the evolutionist would first ignore or dismiss it. If forced to acknowledge it he would quickly formulate a theory about how this could happen, no experiment necessary, and his theory would support his previously held beliefs and dogmatic world view every single time.

There is nothing open minded about an evolutionist point of view. There is no evidence that one could present to an evolutionist that would change his view of the evolutionary process as a theory. The theory itself has become non falsifiable.

Most evolutionist are mistakenly convinced that they are the only people in the world with out a built in bias.

A hypothetical question. What evidence would be required to disprove the general theory of man's decent from apes or a more simple life form?