Is there scientific proof that darwin's theory on evolution is false?

Question

Is there scientific proof that darwin's theory on evolution is false?

Answer 1

Yes in fact there is. Because Darwins theory is just a theory. Here is the definition to the word theory.

Theory-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Here are some links.

http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Co...

http://www.icr.org/article/493/

Answer 2

None whatsoever.

Answer 3

The question should be, Is there any evidence that evolution happened at all?  The answer to this would be no.

Unless you are talking about variation of a kind of animal. It is true all the dogs probably had a common ancestor. I bet you it was a dog. All the birds probably had a few common ancestors. I bet it was a bird.

See what you have is bait and switch. They show you a minor variation and then make you swallow the whole package. Darwin did this to himself. He saw some different finches and then concluded that the birds and the bananas were related. Is that science?

All of the evidence for evolution is either false or just speculiative. Because naturalism is the evolutionist religion, they HAVE TO interpret all evidence under the moral law of natural evolution, without question.

They will say the follow is evidence, I will show how it is not.

1. Fossils ( You find bones in the dirt, you can't prove those bones had any kids, you can't prove they had different kids, why would you think a bone you found in the dirt can do something no animal has done for the entire span of recorded history, that is have different kids.)

2. DNA, (This one is silly. Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA told scienctists that they MUST CONSTANTLY keep in mind that what they see wasn't designed but rather, evolved. Thats because DNA is the most amazingly complex informational code in the universe. This alone should point directly to the Creator. There is no other information in the universe other than created information. All sorts of other molecules are interacting and natural selection and variation should work equally well for them but it doesn't, do you know why. Because it is mathematically impossible for life to spontaneously generate.

3. Homology.  (This argument is rediculous. It is purely subjective and provides no proof for anything. Every similarly designed item has similar features. If it works well why would you choose to adopt a completely different design. So the smart people of this world would not think they evolved from a worm maybe.

4. Embryology. (This line of evidence should have been aborted apon conception. It was made up it the 1800's by a fraud liar Earst Hackel. He forged drawings of embryos and was actually convicted of fraud by his own university. They still use the argument cuz it tricks a lot of people real good.

5. Vestigial organs.  ( This is a lie. There are no vestigial organs. There were origionaly over 180 organ on the list. Since they have learned more the list has dropped down to only a few. They have remained on the list, despite finding functions for them, because it is a good argument to trick people. Even if there were vestigial organs (which there aren't) that is not proof for how we got here. What we lost everything till we got it all.

See there is no hard proof for evolution. There is more that securly falsifies it then even remotely proves it. They , because the evil governments and bankers and business men, have all the money. They are funded billions and billions. They own all the media and all the education. All these things were originally created by Godly people, but the evolutionist came and leached and stole everything. The evil governments are setting this world up for a big change. One of the biggest jobs to do is to rid God out of the hearts and the minds of the people. These people are religous fundementalist, just that their religion is naturalism.

I think its a silly religion to believe that we all evolved from a rock 3.5 billion years ago and if we keep getting bigger and better and smarter that one day we will be flying around the galaxy settleing new planets and stuff.

Trust God, Trust Jesus. Repent today.

Answer 4

NO--There is only small debates about small portions.  The entire concept is not open for debate.  It is readily accepted as fact.

Answer 5

Not yet..and maybe there will never be, but all theories are contingent..that is the strength and beauty of scientific thought...it doesn't have all the answers but constantly raises new questions...and that's a good thing!

Answer 6

It's not a theory, it's a model.

It won't become a theory until we can travel backwards in time.

There are however, astronomers, scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and geologists with Ph.D.s on both sides of the debate.

It's just a question of whose bias and assumptions you agree with more.

Answer 7

Just to be clear, Darwin isn't the last word in evolution.  Just as discoveries in physics have made tremendous progress since Newton, biological evolution has come a long way in the past 150 years.  Darwin didn't know, for example, about the details of DNA.  But evidence keeps confirming the general model that Darwin proposed (common ancentry, natural selection, etc.)

But as far as evolution in general goes: so far, no, absolutely no counter-evidence that it's false.  If there was any, somebody would have published it by now.  It would be like finding evidence that E=mc^2 was wrong.  They'd be guarenteed a nobel prize.

Sure, there are lots of evangelical Christian websites out there with claims that evolution is false.  But all of their arguments either show a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is, or are simple false.  Read these:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconce...

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Answer 8

None that it's false.  At least not *scientific* evidence (there's plenty of cherry-picked data, out of context quotes, unsupported supernatural assumptions, and misinformation though).

He was off the mark a little bit, since back in his time, they hadn't discovered the mechanisms behind inheritance yet (let alone the genetic code).  Overall, though, his general idea was sound.  Scientists have refined and improved it, much like how modern scientists have a much better understanding of gravity than Newton did.  

I should point out that it isn't called "Darwin's theory of evolution" anymore, unless you're talking about it in a historical sense.  It's just the "theory of evolution," since it's been greatly refined since Darwin's time.  It's so well supported by modern fossil, DNA, biochemical, and morphological evidence that if you were to omit Darwin's contributions in their entirety, the theory would still stand strong.  In other words, he got the ball rolling, but his actual data is insignificant compared to what we've learned in the past 150 years.

Answer 9

Evolutionists no longer subscribe to Darwin's gradualistic approach. It is now accepted that evolution takes place in short sporadic bursts.

However, Darwin was right about Variation, Selection, and Inheritance being the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. This concept has repeatedly been confirmed by experimentation and observation, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Answer 10

There are scientific proof that prove some parts to be false, but not all of it. The Bibile's probably the biggest enemy against the evolution theory.

But then why can't people think that God USED evolution to shape the world? To bring forth the world we live today? To bring about the changes that made the animals we humans see possible? I don't really know if I God exists, but if he did that'd be my argument. Fine then think about it. Why would God want unfit organism living on Earth? They can't anyway! Things have to make sense! For example, there are cactus in the desert because it fits to survive in that environment and a lot of other life can't! And why is the cactus able to live there? Because of evolution! Cactus weren't around forever! It had to come from someplace else! And why aren't polar bears in the desert? Because they aren't fit enough, so they die off. LOL imagine polar bears living in the desert; that wouldn't make sense would it?

Answer 11

In some ways, yes actually.  Darwin's theory was incomplete and inaccurate.  For example, he had no idea how inheritance worked.

Fortunately, science doesn't work on the ideas of one individual.  Since Darwin's days, the theory of evolution has been modified to include genetics, genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, evodevo, and other fields.  His original theory has been corrected according to all available evidence.

The modern theory of evolution is accurate, while Darwin's original idea, while true in some regards was also not complete.

The current theory is still not perfect.  It will be fine tuned as we learn more, but the fact remains evolution happened, all we have to do is figure out how.

Answer 12

No, just that it was incomplete.

As it was expected to be. Darwin didn't have the scientific tools 150 years ago that we use today to describe the process of evolution on more of a microscopic level.

Answer 13

Darwin wrote 150 years ago.  

Surely you recognize that science has learned a lot since then?

But the modern theory of evolution, which covers a lot more ground, and in far greater detail, is not disproven by any evidence, or scientists wouldn't keep using it.

Answer 14

Just The Bible, if you believe that sort of thing.  And that's far from scientific.  For without faith, God is nothing.