Refutes against evolution

[Noogah]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I have tried to keep this thread as unbiased as possible. If I made any scientific errors in this thread, please note them, and they will be corrected as soon as possible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will not always be present to respond, so if you don't get a response immediately, don't say it's because I have none. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay now. I made a post that had nothing to do with evolution, and somehow it turned into an evolutionary debate. So I says to myself, "Noogah, if you can post something thats not about evolution, and get replies about it, then you will get even better replies if you post something about evlution." Instinctly, I had planned on labeling this thread "proof against evolution" But just as there is no (undebatable) proof for evolution, I don't really think that there can be any (undebatable) proof against evolution. Quoting isegoria1 from youtube.com(youtube.com/isegoria1) "If there was it would sink the very nature of the scientific method. No one ever claimed that it was perfect or unchallenged." That is to say, nobody who fully understands the theory of evolution, or creation can say that the theories are perfect and/or unchallenged. Thus the following are only refutes that make evolution less likely. They are meant to be discussed, and debated. --THE BIG BANG-- The big bang is one of the big problems with evolution. It has been the topic of much debate, and some evolutionists have denied the big bang for that fact. The theory: According to the big bang theory, around 12 billion years ago, all the matter that exists today was all floating around in the fabric of space and time existed. Over the course of time, the matter began to clump together and became very large and dense. What resulted was a black hole effect. Matter was pulled into it, and became denser, and heavier. Eventually, all the matter that exists today had clumped together into a tiny pellet. The titanic ammount of stress on the inside of the pellet became so intense, that an elastic rebound occured, resulting in the greatest explosion in the history of the universe. Within a split second of the explosion, hydrogen nuclei began to form. Within a few minutes, very basic elements were formed. Hundreds of thousands of years later, stars had formed, and blew in supernovas resulting in many of the complex elements that we know of today. Several problems. 1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins. 2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter. 3.Even if it could be squeezed that densely, there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity. 4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars. --EVOLUTION-- Now for the monkey business itself! The theory: Life began with single celled organisms that had been created due to the extremely wealthy mineral supplemments that early earth boasted. This, mixed with oceans, and pools of water formed a sort of soup. Frothy disgusting pools brimming with minerals, supplements, and all sorts of goodies! All the bubbling yuckies resulted in molecular bonding in the minerals. What proceded was the first single celled organism. This happened on several different occasions, until cells were created with repoductive abilities. Essentially, this became the very first species of life. The mineral rich oceans were an oasis for the little guys, and they took to the sea. Variations occured within the breeds, eventually resulting in fins, gills, and other common traits found in sea creatures. Well, this pleasant environment wouldn't last long. The water began to dry up, and land became more abundant. Animals near the shore didn't fare well, but they did farewell.(Cheesy pun intended.) The only species that actually were able to survive along the shorlines were species that had gone through yet more genetic mutation, enabling them to survive on land. The species mated, and reproduced bringing forth the first land apt animals. The cycle continued for millions of years. Genetic mutations continued. The species better suited to land were the species which survived. The other ones died off, or stayed in the oceans. Tiny genetic mutations accumalted over millions of years, bringing BIG changes. Bigger animals, animals with wings, animals with four legs. Continuing, brought forth primates, and eventually brought about humans. Now the big key to evolution is natural selection. This is how natural selection works, and I will be using an analogy to demonstrate. Plausible scenario of how girrafes came to be. Hundreds of four legged animals existed. Genetic mutations occured that made various neck sizes. Necks shorter than a humans, and necks taller than skyscrapers(okay, that's an exageration.) The girrafes with necks taller than trees had a hard time, and died quickly. The ones with necks smaller than trees, also died quickly, due to the inability to harvest food. The ones with necks the same size as trees were just right! And they were the ones to survive, and pass the traits to their children. In a nutshell, mutations that work better last. Mutations that work poorly are quickly exterminated. This is what powers a species development, and according to evolution this is how we came to be. Here are some problems with the theory: 1.Impossible. Unfortunately, despite how intelligent natural selection seems at first glance, it is impossible. Why? Because even though genetic mutations that caused a girrafe to have a long neck may be beneficial, they cannot be passed down to offspring. This is because even though the animals own genes have changed, his reproductive cells have not. Thus, the offspring will carry the same traits as the parents had before the mutation. Thanks to A roxxor for correcting this. 2.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial. a.WHy do we have two legs? ALthough they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? FOur legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits. b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it. These two reasons suggest a guided developement. SOmething that saw the bigger picture ahead. WHy would we not need fur? Because we have the brains to stay warm in negative zero degree weather. Why do we need two limbs? As far as a human goes, it's more practical. We have arms that we can use to conduct delicate activities (pouring coffee, typing on the keyboard, driving a car, even laboratory experiments) 3.Although this has has already been in the blender about a million times, it is still note worthy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (and with that, the readers groaned, facepalmed, bashed there heads, etc.) It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse. 4.The plausibility of evolution is horrific. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare. The following analogy is not totally accurate due to the fact that it deals with an inanimate non-reproductible object, but it should adequately express my point. If you open a laptop up, and drop a screw inside, close it back up, and use it, what will happen? Probably nothing. The laptop will probably do what it has always done, because the screw has not harmed/improved the laptops performance. It has a neutral effect. However, there is also a slight chance of negative effect. The screw may have shorted out a circuit that keeps the laptop from performing properly. There is a VERY slight, yet possible chance that the screw may in fact improve the performance of the laptop. Perhaps it will boost it's WiFi range. Perhaps it increases the volume ability of your speaker system. But this analogy shows that when a genetic mutation occurs, it usually does nothing. Next in line, it will have a negative effect, but rarest, it will have a positive effect. For enough positive genetic mutations to occur to a single celled organism to form a multi-billion celled human being is rediculously implausible, no matter how much time you give it. LE RULES Alot of these kind of threads go ballistic, so I thought I'd just give some basic rules to keep this thread safe. 1.STAY ON TOPIC Running through a few rabbit trails is okay with me, but lets not fall into wonderland, and forget the real topic. 2.KEEP YOUR COOL "Your inferiror. You are an idiot, and you are a moron. You should be exterminated from the face of this planet." Come on people. Debate properly. A little sarcasm is okay, but don't go off the deepend. If either party is a jerk, either ignore it, or cope with it. 3.EASY ON THE PICS Avoid any replies that consist of a mere picture. Use pictures if you must, but use them sparlingly, and keep rule 2 in mind while doing so. 4.NO PLAGIARISM! Last but not least, dont paste entire wikipedia pages in your posts, and dont make your entire post nothing but a collaboration of youtube videos. DO your research, and post a video or two if you must, but do so sparingly. If you feel like you must paste something, list your soure. That pretty much wraps it up.