| Subject: Re: How to Properly insult a Muslim with their own terrorist history |
Author:
Zardoz
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:51:27 03/08/16 Tue
Author Host/IP: host109-153-49-214.range109-153.btcentralplus.com/109.153.49.214
>TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION
>
>I came across this page while doing some research on
>the internet. As it documents a few of evolution's
>flaws,
>
>TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISED
>by Randy Alcorn (with additional editing by Jim
>Darnall). I wrote the following article many years
>ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and
>updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some
>important new information.
>
>
>1.The complexity of living systems could never evolve
>by chance葉hey had to be designed and created. A
>system that is irreducibly complex has precise
>components working together to perform the basic
>function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple
>example.) If any part of that system were missing, the
>system would cease to function. Gradual additions
>could not account for the origin of such a system. It
>would have to come together fully formed and
>integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision,
>blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you
>assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex
>to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are
>almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They
>could not be random葉hey simply had to be designed and
>created.
>
>
>2.The high information content of DNA could only have
>come from intelligence. Information science teaches
>that in all known cases, complex information requires
>an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of
>the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
>DNA is by far the most compact information
>storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a
>billion times more information capacity than a
>4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan
>the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for
>relatively simple signal patterns that might have
>originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the
>incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence
>built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to
>hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar
>communication, we're ignoring those built into us.
>
>
>3.No mutation that increases genetic information has
>ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic
>information would be the raw material necessary for
>evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require
>a massive net increase in information. There are many
>examples of supposed evolution given by proponents.
>Variation within a species (finch beak, for example),
>bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people
>born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of
>the examples demonstrate the development of new
>information. Instead, they demonstrate either
>preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing
>information, or even loss of information (natural
>selection and adaptation involve loss of information).
>The total lack of any such evidence refutes
>evolutionary theory.
>
>
>4.Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the
>second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics
>states that all systems, whether open or closed, have
>a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic
>state"). There are some special cases where local
>order can increase, but this is at the expense of
>greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate
>the complex systems in living things, or the
>information required to build them. Undirected energy
>just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a
>building-up process, suggesting that things tend to
>become more complex and advanced over time. This is
>directly opposed to the law of entropy.
>
>
>5.There is a total lack of undisputed examples
>(fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional
>forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be
>true. Evolution does not require a single missing
>link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by
>a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized
>as one particular life form. But we don't see
>this葉here are different kinds of dogs, but all are
>clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of
>horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the
>verge of being some other life form. The fossil record
>shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and
>there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds."
>Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it
>would require millions of transitional forms. He
>believed they would be found in fossil records. They
>haven't been.
>
>
>6.Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are
>extremely subjective and based on evolutionists'
>already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply
>contrived. The series of pictures or models that show
>progressive development from a little monkey to modern
>man are an insult to scientific research. These are
>often based on fragmentary remains that can be
>"reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is,
>many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes.
>Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men"
>would be able to have children by modern humans, which
>makes them the same species as humans. The main
>species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is
>thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human
>fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in
>reality there would have to be millions of them) is
>still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions
>of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the
>bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually
>nothing can be determined about hair and the look in
>someone's eyes based on a few old bones.
>
>
>7.The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to
>assign millions and billions of years to rocks are
>very inconsistent and based on unproven (and
>questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use
>radioactive decay to determine age assume that
>radioactive decay rates have always been constant.
>Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change
>according to the chemical environment of the material
>being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased
>in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such
>dating methods also assume a closed system葉hat no
>isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it
>formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal
>waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees
>Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals
>move easily from one rock system to another. In fact,
>this process is one of the excuses used by
>evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their
>expectations. What's not commonly known is that the
>majority of dates are not even consistent for the same
>rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often
>register dates in the millions to billions of years.
>There are many different ways of dating the earth, and
>many of them point to an earth much too young for
>evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods
>rely on unprovable assumptions.
>
>
>8.Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover"
>body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and
>vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of
>evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an
>organ is useless, because there's always the
>possibility that a use may be discovered in the
>future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly
>useless organs which are now known to be essential.
>Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs.
>It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer
>needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it
>would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary
>hypothesis needs to find examples of developing
>organs葉hose that are increasing in complexity.
>
>
>9.Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous
>generation預 concept ridiculed by biology. When I was
>a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian,
>my biology class spent the first semester discussing
>how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave
>rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now
>disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation."
>Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from
>life葉his is the law of biogenesis. The next semester
>we studied evolution, where we learned that the first
>living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving
>material (where that nonliving material came from we
>were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another
>way of saying "spontaneous generation"様ife comes from
>nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy
>science long ago proved to be impossible.
>
>
>Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary
>progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that
>given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes
>possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of
>getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is
>unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long
>enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I
>flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even
>100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads
>is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me
>flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and
>legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No
>chance. Given billions of years, the chances would
>never increase. Great periods of time make the
>possible likely but never make the impossible
>possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will
>not become alive.
>
>
>10.The scientific method can only test existing
>data擁t cannot draw conclusions about origins.
>Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small
>scale, is observable. But evidence for
>macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is
>conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility
>of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact
>original conditions. Even when it proves something is
>possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since
>no man was there to record or even witness the
>beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis
>of interpreting presently available information. If I
>put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red.
>
>In the name of Allah.
You see, liar I was raised as a Jehovahs Witness and I know that what you have just blabbered is lifted straight from the "Creation" book. I have the misfortune of working with other lying muslims, such as yourself. One once tried to show me a video of a cleric spouting this plagiarism. Thankfully I woke up and realised what I was taught was incorrect unfortunately you are clearly to stupid to come up with and original thought. Hopefully it being 2016 you went off on a Jihad and got yourself painfully and slowly killed. Oh and in 2016 by the way muslims are now generally even less liked than they were in 2012.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 