Final installment of the series, more on evolution
3. Proof of failed evolution
There is evidence from the ground that evolution is false, or at least evolutionary time. Carbon-14 is used for radioactive dating. Its half-life(time it takes for half of it to decay) is 5730 years. This means that it can only be used to date things that are 60,000 years and below (after the 10th half-life, there is no more carbon-14 to test). So, everything containing Carbon-14 should be less than 60,000 years old. However, every single source of oil in the world has been found to contain. Oil is supposedly created via anaerobic decay of million-of-years old fossils (hence fossil fuels), these should be more than 60,000 years old. So, by the reasoning that only 60,000 years and younger things contain Carbon-14, Oil is less than 60,000 years old, and so are dinosaurs.
One more problem is how continents still stand. Water covers 70% of Earth, it also erodes away land. The land currently available on Earth is not constant and decreases over time. At the current rate of erosion, the entire area of land known to man would have eroded away in a few hundred million years. The evolutionary time scale is a few billion years, so there should not be any land here at all. Why is there land? Because something is wrong with evolution
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Evolutionary failures 2
Next about this topic, more problems with the theory
2. Progress
One tendancy of the universe is that it degenerates, and does not increase in complexity. As time passes by, things decay and go generally downwards instead of upwards. This trend is true with life. Evolution requires new information, as a man obviously is more complicated than an amoeba. As information is passed down in genetics, nothing passed down can possibly be new. Therefore the only way life can progress is if mutations can increase the complexity of life. But think about it. Mutation is a bad thing. Mutated things are degenerated, not more complex. Mutations are mistakes and mutated creatures tend to be deformed. So far there has been no record of a complexity-increasing mutation.
Problems with current examples of evolution. One very famous example and proof of evolution is how some beetles were put on a windy island. Because the wind blew away the beetles that had wings more than mutated beetles which did not have wings, eventually the wingless beetles became the dominant species of the island as they did not get blown away so often. Now, is this evolution? No. Why? Because evolution requires progress and more information. Beetles losing their wings is a decrease rather than increase of information. This kind of adaptation is natural selection and not really evolution.
The illustration of a mousetrap is used to explain "irreducible complexity". Picture this. A mousetrap consists of a base, spring, catch, etc. If any of these parts are not present, the mousetrap will not work. A trap without bait will not catch mice, neither will a semi-evolved creature be able to survive. The problem with evolution is the "intermediate stages" where the creatures are not fully formed, and are more disadvantaged than the original and so the evolutionary process will be broken
2. Progress
One tendancy of the universe is that it degenerates, and does not increase in complexity. As time passes by, things decay and go generally downwards instead of upwards. This trend is true with life. Evolution requires new information, as a man obviously is more complicated than an amoeba. As information is passed down in genetics, nothing passed down can possibly be new. Therefore the only way life can progress is if mutations can increase the complexity of life. But think about it. Mutation is a bad thing. Mutated things are degenerated, not more complex. Mutations are mistakes and mutated creatures tend to be deformed. So far there has been no record of a complexity-increasing mutation.
Problems with current examples of evolution. One very famous example and proof of evolution is how some beetles were put on a windy island. Because the wind blew away the beetles that had wings more than mutated beetles which did not have wings, eventually the wingless beetles became the dominant species of the island as they did not get blown away so often. Now, is this evolution? No. Why? Because evolution requires progress and more information. Beetles losing their wings is a decrease rather than increase of information. This kind of adaptation is natural selection and not really evolution.
The illustration of a mousetrap is used to explain "irreducible complexity". Picture this. A mousetrap consists of a base, spring, catch, etc. If any of these parts are not present, the mousetrap will not work. A trap without bait will not catch mice, neither will a semi-evolved creature be able to survive. The problem with evolution is the "intermediate stages" where the creatures are not fully formed, and are more disadvantaged than the original and so the evolutionary process will be broken
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Evolutionary failures 1
I am a creationist, if you did not know. I can debate against evolution because I discovered a website which made me realize all of evolution's flaws. As an avid creationist, I can prove that evolution is not a valid explanation for life.
1. Origins
Starting from the beginning, we have already found a problem. Although it seems that the evolutionary proposition of primordial soup spawning life, this has been proven to not work at all. The experiment was very controlled, and did not accurately represent the real state of primordial Earth. And the only amino acids produced were very common and insignificant ones. The rest of the product was just formic acid, the chemical that makes ant bites painful. So this definitely could not have started life, it is not feasible. In fact, evolutionists are offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can suggest a feasible solution.
Oxygen is crucial for our survival now, but this was not the case last time. Oxygen tends to destroy long chains of molecules, which are the basis of cellular life. O2 is actually lethal to life. In our case, our bodies have already incorporated oxygen into our respiration, and cells have protection that does not allow oxygen to destroy the long chains of molecules. So, if life in the beginning had to begin without oxygen, how would it have formed in an environment which definitely had oxygen present? that is a very good question.
UV rays have two categories, good and bad. Good ones are completely neccessary for the formation of long chains of molecules. Bad rays destroy these chains. Unfortunately for evolution, bad UV rays account for about 99% of the rays that reach Earth. In order for evolution to work, the molecules must have somehow been exposed to only the precious 1% of UV rays. This is incredibly unlikely, so we can tell that this part of evolution has failed as well.
1. Origins
Starting from the beginning, we have already found a problem. Although it seems that the evolutionary proposition of primordial soup spawning life, this has been proven to not work at all. The experiment was very controlled, and did not accurately represent the real state of primordial Earth. And the only amino acids produced were very common and insignificant ones. The rest of the product was just formic acid, the chemical that makes ant bites painful. So this definitely could not have started life, it is not feasible. In fact, evolutionists are offering $1,000,000 to anyone who can suggest a feasible solution.
Oxygen is crucial for our survival now, but this was not the case last time. Oxygen tends to destroy long chains of molecules, which are the basis of cellular life. O2 is actually lethal to life. In our case, our bodies have already incorporated oxygen into our respiration, and cells have protection that does not allow oxygen to destroy the long chains of molecules. So, if life in the beginning had to begin without oxygen, how would it have formed in an environment which definitely had oxygen present? that is a very good question.
UV rays have two categories, good and bad. Good ones are completely neccessary for the formation of long chains of molecules. Bad rays destroy these chains. Unfortunately for evolution, bad UV rays account for about 99% of the rays that reach Earth. In order for evolution to work, the molecules must have somehow been exposed to only the precious 1% of UV rays. This is incredibly unlikely, so we can tell that this part of evolution has failed as well.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Contemplation on humans
Sometimes I enjoy writing on slightly deeper topics, this time it will be about humans
Humans are idiots.
Case closed.
History has proven many times that humans are generally selfish, inhumane(ironically), power-hungry and generally stupid.
Before I get labeled as a hypocrite for insulting my own race, I would like to point out that humans are proud creatures who dilike criticism.
All the great people of history, people like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and whatnot, are those who recognized the flaws of humans and decided to change the world, overcoming problems with society and people in general.
Very nice and perfectly workable plans like communism are ruined by the greed of humans, and the flaw of power corrupting people so easily. Stalin ruined the communist Russia, for although productivity was high, which is a strong point of communism, people were completely disregarded by the government. How sad it was that everything was ruined by the flaws of human nature.
More about humans, we tend to trick ourselves into a box. Limitations. If you say something is impossible and believe it, it becomes impossible. Similarly, if you truly believe that you can do something, you will be able to do it. This probably sounds very corny but it is true.
Overall, the human race is more or less hopeless, and is degenerating. Fast. I cannot say that I am spotless, but now I have acknowleged my weaknesses, I can try to correct them.
Humans are idiots.
Case closed.
History has proven many times that humans are generally selfish, inhumane(ironically), power-hungry and generally stupid.
Before I get labeled as a hypocrite for insulting my own race, I would like to point out that humans are proud creatures who dilike criticism.
All the great people of history, people like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and whatnot, are those who recognized the flaws of humans and decided to change the world, overcoming problems with society and people in general.
Very nice and perfectly workable plans like communism are ruined by the greed of humans, and the flaw of power corrupting people so easily. Stalin ruined the communist Russia, for although productivity was high, which is a strong point of communism, people were completely disregarded by the government. How sad it was that everything was ruined by the flaws of human nature.
More about humans, we tend to trick ourselves into a box. Limitations. If you say something is impossible and believe it, it becomes impossible. Similarly, if you truly believe that you can do something, you will be able to do it. This probably sounds very corny but it is true.
Overall, the human race is more or less hopeless, and is degenerating. Fast. I cannot say that I am spotless, but now I have acknowleged my weaknesses, I can try to correct them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
