Evolution: who thinks he can prove it wrong?

Question

Don't prattle about Scripture, give me sound scientific data (and not a link) that completely disproves Evolutionary theory. And don't say something stupid like "academic titles mean nothing to me".

Answer 1

I found a marsupial fossil in Dorset that I dated accurately to be seven billion years old.

Joke. No seriously there is none.

Answer 2

academic titles mean nothing to me..............................

.....uhh..they really don't.

Answer 3

SCRIPTURE!!! SCRIPTURE!! THE BIBLE IS RIGHT BECAUSE IT SAYS IT IS!!!

REPENT!!!! REPENT!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 4

Cats don't give birth to monkeys....

Answer 5

You don't have to prove something false that has never been proven true... It has never ever ever been observed for one species of animal to produce anything other then it's kind. Variations with in a species to adapt , Mutations and copying errors are not what I call evolution... I'm sorry....Hope this helped..God bless you !

Answer 6

You can tell from eating a banana.

- Kurt Cobain

Answer 7

evolution is fact. It can't be proven wrong.

Answer 8

Many of today's science books discuss evolution as if scientists know what happened at creation years ago. But God once asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" (Job 38:4)

Scientists have only one way of learning things. They observe things and develop hypotheses. Then they run and rerun experiments to test the hypotheses. Does water boil at 212 degrees? Test it and see. Of course, there's no way to experiament with creation or evolution. So this "best way" can't be used by scientists to find out what happened long ago.

"Where were you?" is still a good question to ask when scientists talk as if they know for sure how the earth came to be. It's good for everyone to remeber that while scientists weren't there, God was.

Answer 9

I have got something for you:

If we eveloved from apes why aren't we still eveloveing?

No other animal has comon sense so did we just magically get it? No it was a gift.

Answer 10

I am a Catholic Christian.  I have a scientific education from a Catholic college.  I do not have any problems with evolutionary theory.   I think it seems pretty reliable.

Answer 11

The Theory Of Darwinian Evolution says that complex creatures evolve from simple creatures over time.This theory is not a fact;It has not been proven and cannot be replicated in a laboratory.

Darwins followers say that life forms became more and more complex through a gradual process.However Some Scientist Have Given Up On That Notion Of Gradual Change.They insist that there is simply not enough time since the beginning of the universe  for all the required changes to have taken place gradually.

It is virtually impossible to produce important life molecules,such as proteins from simple molcules.Proteins in all living things are assembled from the same basic alphabet of 20 amino acids.Each Different Type of proten is formed from a unique arrangement of these chemical letters.To form a protein that actually works the amino acid letters must be arranged in precise sequences like letters in a sentence This Precise Sequence Creates A Certain Protein That Has A Specific Protein In The Cell.The Odds That All Of These Factors will occur on there own is statistically impossible.  

Paleonyologists generally state that The Foosil Record  Does Not Support  Darwins Theory In Two Major Ways:

1.Animal Types tend to appear suddenly in the fossil record,Therefore each animal type is missing a linkto its former ancestor.

2.Animals Tend To Remain Relatively unchanged throughout their time on Earth.

According to most mathmatical calculations even a universe 100 billion years old is not old enough for the development of a single cell.

Answer 12

Evolution could be false but that doesn't prove that God did it.

Religionists ask atheists to defend evolution in order to save themselves the trouble of defending a non-existent god. And the pity of it is that most atheists instantly fall into the trap.

Answer 13

There are hundreds of scientific facts that deny evolution. You should read "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains all these facts, and it reads like an encyclopedia, and facts are highlighted in bold and separated according to topic. All sources are cited. You can get it for about $5 at your local bookstore. It's a fascinating read!

Answer 14

I'm sure that nobody can prove evolution wrong. All attempts to do it are ridiculous.

Answer 15

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes around? If everything evolved, then why haven't the alligators, crocodiles, and sharks? They have been the same for millions of years. They haven't evolved at all. They are just the same as the good lord made them. Evolution is just a false.....

Sorry...couldn't get thru that without laughing.  

Answer 16

I hear that if you hold down 'B' while one evolves it stops the evolution process. An Everstone also works.

Answer 17

has anyone proved evolution? Wheres that missing link?

Im pretty sure the news would be everywhere....

In fact, I remember reading an article a while ago about some peoples desperate attempt to prove evolution by putting together bones from a human and bones from an ape.. which was of course found to be fake and was discredited.

Answer 18

The fossil record. go here:

http://us1.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDe...

http://us1.fmanager.net/api_v1/productDe...

Answer 19

Since evolution is a scientifically testable, observable process, anyone who thinks they can disprove it is clearly unacquainted with the nature of reality and living in an illusion.

Answer 20

Where do they get their information?

The Evolution Cruncher consists of nothing by ridiculous statements and straw man attacks.  h**l, it still uses the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument.

Lightandtruth is also very much wrong.  Yes, current organisms could not have arisen in their current state, but no one claims that.  The first lifeform was more primitive.

Genetic analysis of genomes almost fully supports phylogeny derived from fossils.  This is one of the greatest pieces of evidence in favor of evolution.  

There were some surprises in a few groups, the most notable being that whales are more closely related to hippos than any other living animal.  Since then, fossils have been found that further confirm the genetic phylogeny.

Answer 21

Millions of years of evolution and people still can not use gender inclusive language; fascinating.  Please don't refer to women as he, most don't appreciate it.  I as a Christian affirm humanity as equal, but even most Christians and atheists alike still do not.  Thanks.

Answer 22

I doubt anyone can : /

Also, TLM LOL, love the pokemon reference lol

Answer 23

Well, no matter what I say in response, you would not believe me. If God himself came down to earth, sat down with you, and told you evolution was false, you would not believe him. The reason you put this question on here was to cause people to argue and fight over a controversial issue. Scientific Method suggests that in order to accept something as scientific fact, one must observe said theory in action. Micro evolution cannot prove macro evolution because in micro, a species is adapting to its surroundings. In macro, it is changing species altogether. Creation, by the same logic, cannot be proven right, because no one was there to see it happen.  One can say that in order to evolve, one would have to increase the number of genes they have, and science has no evidence of this taking place. Since humans have more than twice the gene count of simple single-cell organisms, there would have to be some evidence of an organism adding to its gene count. Every mutation that has ever happened has resulted in a loss of information. One big question in evolution is where did the original "primordial soup," if you will, come from? If it was always there, then how did it get there. Evolutionists try to apply finite concepts to an infinite God. We, as humans, cannot comprehend the infinite, so there is no way to comprehend the existence of God, except through faith, which is what it all boils down to. If you want to believe that we came from slime, then you put your faith in that. But most people believe in evolution because they don't want to admit that they are not the ones in control of their lives, they want to feel as though they are the pinnacle of physical existence.

Answer 24

Consider this

Mysteries In Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOo...

The Young Age of the Earth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZK...

The Origins of Life

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record - Part 1 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvy...

Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897...

Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w...

Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp1...

Atheist's NightMare: Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnV...

Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

Answer 25

Take the woodpecker his tognue goes down his throat up his nose through his nostril and out his mouth there's no other animal like that so if evolution was true how could one other animal turn into that it's impossible.

Also the Chicken needs perfect timing to live or else the egg would die so he can't evolve or else they would be wiped out right now. so they can't have evolved and so it had to be right there and then.

Answer 26

Evolution is a scientific fact. It just didn't happen both the way Christians and Evolutionists think it has.

Answer 27

Christians think they can, with their books and their jeebus.

Answer 28

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.a There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.

Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolved—but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, seemingly coordinated, virtually miraculous events have happened for each of millions of species?a

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20–30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system.

Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.

Proteins. “Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution.

An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man. Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions.

DNA and RNA. Comparisons can also be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated to any others. Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life   fish   amphibians  reptiles  mammals.e Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated.

Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected. Those differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements.” Although it’s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information.  They conflict in major ways.