john13

I am amazed on how so many people fail to see the holes on evolutionary theory.Living fossils could be considered as proof that evolution does not happen in the way science promotes.Claiming that a crocodile managed to survive for 200 million years almost unchanged because he always lived on the same ecological nisce(despite mass extinctions)is nothing more than a belief.We've never seen any specie evolving a new trait with steady evolution.Evolution theory is based on the fossils that show evolution from ape to man but science has proved that Neaderthals were different specie compared to Humans so actually even here we have problems.Even more important is how evolution could have started.Evolutionists like to separate Abiogenesis from evolution to try to cover the fact that evolution couldnt have started with a naturalistic way.We've never observed any type of Abiogenesis so its impossible for all these things to have started without the aid of a creator.Surprisingly most evolutionists are not concerned with this and act like it is something unimportant

Sorry but during Darwin's era scientists thought that we evolved from Neadertals.Now we know that this is not true.During his era Neadertal was the most clever specie ever walked on this planet.Yet he got extinct by a new specie even more intelligent!Actually since Homo erectus the one intelligent specie is giving its place to another even more intelligent.As i wrote its Ford S---> to Ford T.This creator decided to create an intelligent specie and all these humanoids are his experiments.

Sorry science is wrong.A type of a creator exists that started by making microorganisms and continued by building more complex structures.This explains why microorganisms remained microorganisms, Mollusks remained mollusks etc etc.This creator made plants to have his structures something to eat.Deinothirium, Gomphotherium and elephants belong to the same group of animals(elephants) but the first had 2 tusks on the lower Jaw, the second four tasks and the third two tusks on the upper Jaw.They lived in the same era.Science classifies them as relatives but in fact they are not related.They are Ford model S ---> Ford model T ----> Ford model A.The same can be said about humans.The last model before them was neadertal and the new improvement are modern humans

Sorry the start is everything but irrelevant.No Abiogenesis has ever been observed therefore the emergance of Life without a creator is pure religion and i dont want religion to be promoted as science.You seperate Abiogenesis and evolution to hide the fact that Abiogenesis is impossible therefore evolution is also impossible Sorry science claims that our great ancestors were apes, lemurs etc etc.Fossils show that Lemurs, for example, remained lemurs for 60 million years. Why shouldnt i hypothesize that a lemur will remain a lemur and they will never evolve to a new specie? So can you explain to me how could an eye evolve?What evolved first?The eyeball, the vusal cortex or the optic nerve? Since convergent evolution is accepted by science why shouldnt we hypothesize that other traits like the eyes or the ears are a result of convergent evolution?Also regarding what a creator would like to do its just a speculation I dont know if it is an argument from ignorance.I do know though that its tough to explain how something sophisticated like snake poison could evolve.You must have imagination to explain this or other unique traits organisms have

Sorry no troll.Darwin claimed that evolution comes with small steps.Instead we have zero evolution on many species.To cover the failure science invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium.Also Darwin claimed that all traits we have like eyes, ears etc etc came by a single ancestor that randomly mutated and his trait was selected for.But Convergent evolution debunks this and shows that unrelated species developed similar traits

I've lost my faith on evolution and here are some reasons why 1)Science cannot explain how could this process start with a "naturalistic" way.Abiogenesis(a hypothesis that life could be formed without the aid of a creator)has never been observed.But even if a type of Abiogenesis occured it would be impossible for this piece of life to survive alone on a hostile environment.But even if it could survive it would be impossible for this piece of Life to start reproducing asexually by luck.And even more nightmarish is how could sexual reproduction start.How the male, female copy emerged?In general this process is impossible to have started without the aid of an intelligent force.It would be cool if aliens made a single visit on this planet,started the process of evolution and left the place but i dont think this happened 2)Living fossils.Species dont evolve for hundreds of millions of years and, in the case of microorganisms, for billions of years.Current scientific theories claim that, for example, more complex eyes were "selected for" and species that evolved these eyes managed to survive by killing their opponents.Videos cite mollusk eyes as an example of evolution of simpler to more complex eyes. Fact:Mollusks never evolved better vision(and they have survived unchanged despite their bad vision,for hundreds of millions of years).Why natural selection didnt elimanated mollusks for their bad vision?And if they managed to survive despite their bad vision why should we hypothesize that our vision was a result of natural selection?There is zero evidence that better eyes were "selected for". 3)Irreducible complexity.Science has rejected this claiming that it is a creationist invention.However what evolved first?The blood or the heart?The mouth or the digestive system?Actually there are countless examples like these that show that organisms are impossible to have evolved 4)Convergent evolution.Many unrelated species show similar traits.Bats, birds, incests all of them fly yet they are unrelated.Theories claim that when an organism developed vision he managed to kill its opponents and his trait survived. The same happened with hearing, smell etc etc.The current theories claim that all our traits came from a single organism who randomly mutated these traits.But convergent evolution debunks this and shows that traits occured on species independently.Mollusks and turtles both have "private houses" yet they are completely unrelated.How could this sophisticated trait emerge on two different species with neo darwinian evolution? 5)Current scientific theories claim that evolution is blind.That microorganisms might remain microorganisms but they could also evolve to dinosaurs.But there are things that cannot evolve with blind evolution.Example:Snake poison.How could a blind process create such a sophisticated poison?How could a blind process built in small steps a private house for turtles?You either have this shell that protects you or you dont. Fossil record shows either extinct species, species that look similar to current species and species that have survived unchanged. Darwin claimed that evolution happens with small steps.Fossil record has debunked Darwin.So science invented a theory named punctuated equilibrium in which it is supposed that the change of some species is so rapid that we couldnt track their change on the fossil record.But with a theory you cant cover the truth that the fossil record has debunked Darwinian theories Bty i am not religious and i dont want science to proclaim that "God did it".But after all that i have lost my faith on evolution and i suspect that something else is going on