Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open

The Myth of Evolution

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Topic Appreciation
To appreciate this topic, click 'Appreciate Topic' on the right.
Yasin's avatar
Yasin's avatar
#1 [Permalink] Posted on 8th May 2012 21:19
Interesting read... I've always been fascinated by how much they believe in evolution in the west and how they've got every child believing it to be true rather than a theory in public state schools.

Not sure who author is but I know he's Christian

Evolution, it seems, is ingrained into the educational and informational fields of our society. As a consequence, until a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that evolution was possible, and likely was the path of which everything living today took en-route to existence. I have believed in God my whole life, but I had thought that evolution somehow fit into Christianity. After all, public schools teach it, it's displayed in museums, and it's reported in the news. How could all of these people possibly be misled?

Then one particular day, I caught a news headline: "Creationists build museum dedicated to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old."

My initial response was something along the lines of "Less than 10,000 years?? They're crazy! After all, 'everyone knows' that the Earth is billions of years old, and it's common knowledge that we probably evolved from simpler life-forms. Those crazy creationists."

The phrase to make note of here is "everybody knows." It occurred to me that I believed evolution was true because other people believed in it. I had never seen or read of any evidence for it, but because people referred to it as fact in public schools, science textbooks, publicly funded museums, and many magazines, I accepted it as an established fact.

I have always appreciated and enjoyed science, so I decided that if I'm going to adhere to a theory about where humans came from, I should base it on some reliable, provable, scientific evidence. So, with the preconceived notion that evolution was probably true, I set out to discover why it was true, and come up with the scientific evidence supporting it. After all, who in their right mind could possibly believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

The logical way to approach this research project is to start from the beginning. Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism. Where did the single-celled organism come from? Evolutionists say primordial soup. All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and how it was formed, and we'll have the origin of the single-celled organism.

This proved to be rather impossible. As it turns out, evolutionists all believe in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever existed. They do not know what chemicals it could have been, and it has never been successfully reproduced in the lab. People are still searching for a way to explain it. Well that presents a fundamental problem, doesn't it? I guess we're off to a bad start. Since no college professor, "scientist," or anyone else has any idea about the first phase of evolutionary theory, lets move past that issue and try to figure out the next steps instead.

Next, the unknown inanimate matter morphed into a simple, single-celled organism. Sounds feasible enough, since "everyone knows" that single-celled organisms are the simplest form of life. All we have to do is research their limited complexity so we can figure out how non-living matter formed life.

As it turns out, single-celled organisms are extremely complex. Did you know that a single-celled organism can have thousands of parts, can reproduce, eat, expel waste, move, and respond to stimuli? There's no way I'm going to ever figure out how inanimate matter can suddenly turn into a multi-thousand part, self propelled, eating, moving, reproducing, structured, organized cell. But it looks like I'm not alone.... evolutionists can't begin to explain it either. This is probably because it's genetic information would take up all the pages in a 1,000 page book, and have to be laid out in the right order. How much genetic information do rocks and other non-living matter have? None, of course. That's akin to using zero letters of the alphabet, and watching that turn into the first 2 Harry Potter books, all by random chance. That's a pretty impossible leap, but that is what evolutionists claim happens. Non-living matter would've had to jump from no genetic material to over a thousand pages of it, a cell structure would've had to somehow spontaneously form all at once, and the cell structure created would've had to magically come alive. This is what evolutionists believe in, although they cannot explain how it happens or why. With all the millions of dollars put into the varieties of science experiments studying this issue, never before has life formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists just believe it happens.

I guess we'll chalk that down as another leap of faith by the evolutionists, and keep going. Nobody knows what primordial soup is, and nobody has ever observed or proven that non-living matter turns into life; they simply believe in it. But, let's keep going. We're bound to find some evidence eventually.

Evolutionists also say that people, plants, and animals evolve into completely different things over time. If that's true, we should find an abundance of evidence, transitional species all over the place, and someone in the history of science must have observed this happening. After all, with all the trillions of creatures that exist on this planet, at least one of them should be evolving right now!

Interestingly enough, that is a dead end as well. All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There's no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. But we find none of that. The evolutionists' theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. If evolution were true, we'd be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists. Everything would be a transitional species, and we'd find abundant evidence for it. In reality, there is nothing anywhere close to that scenario. The fact that there is absolutely no evidence for such transitional species is illustrated by the articles published in 1999 by National Geographic, about the "missing link" fossil that was finally discovered that proved dinosaurs (lizards) evolved into birds. It was shaped like a lizard, but it had wings like a bird. They published a huge article with photos and great fanfare, and newspapers reported it with excitement across the country. Months later, it was revealed that someone just glued parts of different animals together in China and passed it off as a real fossil. Why would evolutionists be so excited over a single, glued-together, fake fossil? It almost seems as if they are completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever.

Read more:
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
abuzayd2k's avatar
abuzayd2k's avatar
#2 [Permalink] Posted on 10th April 2020 12:30
Yasin wrote:
View original post

There is scientific consensus on some aspects of evolution. There are other aspects as yet unexplained by science. It's important to make this distinction. To completely deny the scientific basis of the theory of evolution will result in automatically being labelled "anti science." The article above uses language that the scientific community recognises as "confrontational" and will discourage scientists from engaging in dialogue.

We must remember that science only deals with finding answers to "what, when, and how." The answer to "why" is beyond the scope of the scientific method. For that we have revelation.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Agree x 1
back to top
Yasin's avatar
Yasin's avatar
#3 [Permalink] Posted on 10th April 2020 12:52
Evolutionists have no interest in dialog. They mix their religion with real science. Absolutely no part of evolution is based on the scientific method. Variations is not evolution. That's the thing they hold on to and call ot science. They extrapolate beyond belief.

I for one won't be bending over backwards to get their approval and convince them I'm not anti-science. The Qur'aan alone proves Islam is not anti-science. The scientific method itself came from us.

Accepting evolution won't stop us being labelled.

Also there isn't scientific consensus on some aspects of evolution as you claim. There is consensus on evolution as a whole in the scientific community.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Like x 5Agree x 2
back to top