Numerous evidences that contradict evolution theory are known, yet in the evolution-pushers' attempts at mind control, such contradictory evidences are ignored or even covered and hidden from the general population. For example, if evolution theory were true, then survival of the fittest would dictate that humans have more and more "fit" or self-reliant infants (the more "fit" infants would survive and reproduce at greater rates), so that after all this time, our infants by now would be independent from birth. Bacteria have independent "offspring", and theoretically "less evolved" creatures than humans have independent offspring, but the "more evolved" humans have "less fit" helpless offspring. This is backwards according to evolution theory and according to survival of the fittest principles (Darwin Conspiracy (2014). Summary of Evolution's Third Fatal Flaw: Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong. DarwinConspiracy.com). As another often noted example in the literature, billions of fossils have been found, yet these fossils do NOT support evolution theory - they do not reveal the multitude of transitional forms that would exist, but instead reveal the existence of gaps and distinct kinds of creation (Morris, H.M. (2014). The Scientific Case Against Evolution). Yet another example is that evolution theory cannot account for symbiotic relationships in creation, such as that between bees and plants, where each needs the other for existence and where each could not just "evolve" without the other (Seiglie, M. (2012). Prove evolution is false even without the bible. Vertical Thought). Still another example is that the greater capacities of theoretically "less evolved" creatures compared to "more evolved" creatures contradicts evolution theory. The butterfly's superior navigation skills is an example - butterflies migrate thousands of miles without navigation devices or maps, demonstrating far superior skills in this area to other theoretically more evolved creatures, despite the fact that others should have "evolved" with the very useful navigation skills. Additional examples of evidences against evolution theory include the recently demonstrated inaccuracy of the claim that the DNA of humans and apes is 98% similar (Morris, 2014), far greater incompatibility and obstacles than previously assumed, and the striking lack of observations in various theorized alterations. There is clear evidence that we should be wary of anything presented as a "finding" by overzealous evolution-pushers, as we have already witnessed false findings and outright deception to "prove" the theory, beginning with the infamous "Piltdown Man", who was found to have "consisted of two human skulls, an orangutan jaw, an elephant molar, a hippopotamus tooth, and a canine tooth from a chimpanzee" (Y.E.C. Headquarters (2014). Evolution's Hall of Shame). The list and details of the evidences against evolution goes on and are too extensive for full exposure here. Findings that theoretically could be consistent with the lies of evolution theory are presented and forced upon us by mainstream media and educators, while the findings that contradict, or reveal that evolution theory is not fact, are not presented, and in a striking attempt at mind-control, are not even permitted in public schools, mainstream universities, or in mainstream media. As an example of such controls within online media a popular online site where amateurs publish articles in both religious and secular categories presents as open to all views, and they reveal their "low" standards in documented "truths" by permitting the publication of articles on fortune telling and terra cards; yet, although authors can reference other sites, if authors reference or provide links to creation research sites, they will be notified that they referenced a site that is "not permitted" on the website.
OK, let's examine your first example, a baby at birth that is "fit" enough to support itself. Everything in nature has a price to be paid - what are some of the costs associated with your statement?
Fit enough to support itself means it is full grown, physically. As strong as it will be, as large as it will be. It must, after all, compete with other humans for the food and that means both size and strength. This in turn means the infant is as least as large as the mother - a rather difficult thing to imagine given that it is inside her.
The brain must be fully developed, able to reason at maximum capacity. That means the brain must be several times the size of an infant brain; as that large brain is already a major problem in giving birth any increase is likely to kill the mother, resulting in a reproductive rate of one infant per female, and a continually decreasing population. The species dies off.
In order to compete effectively in our world the infant must have experience. Experience that is rather difficult to obtain while in the womb; the mother will have to have a kangaroo pouch or something to enable the infant to come and go before birth.
It is things like this - an overactive imagination without consideration for what is being said or what might actually be real, that gives the believers such a bad name when discussing evolution. They haven't the faintest inkling about what they are asking, but make up wild stories to "prove" the theory doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work - those stories and "what if's" have nothing whatsoever to do with reality! They are made up solely of imagination without even a smattering of biology to support them.
I'm sorry, but the rest of your made up objections are just as worthless; they don't match with reality at all. The only one true at all is the problem of Piltdown man, but that's a problem of fraud, not the theory. The theory of evolution does not depend on Piltdown man, after all.
"while the findings that contradict, or reveal that evolution theory is not fact, are not presented, and in a striking attempt at mind-control, are not even permitted in public schools, mainstream universities, or in mainstream media."
If you would, please, will you list just a few of these "findings" (be sure they are "findings" we can handle and touch, not made up claims without basis) that are used as mind control by hiding them?
Getting past these first eight words is not going to be easy. I mean, that just isn't true.
Evolution is one of the most successful theories ever conceived. If anyone actually presented evidence that contradicted evolution, that would be huge, it would have wide spread consequences and would literally toss much of what we know out the window. That person would probably win the Nobel Prize without any competition of equivalent status.
If another theory came along to topple and supplant evolution, scientists would be all over it. It would most likely radically change things, obviously because we would have a much better understanding of our universe that perhaps evolution could never provide as a theory.
So, if there is evidence that is "known" to contradict evolution, it is being kept well hidden under wraps somewhere, where nobody can find it. As of today, evolution is still a fact.
Maybe, tomorrow, it won't be.
I really don't think what you say is backwards to evolution theory as it is entirely well beyond evolution theory, so beyond it that one would need a high powered telescope just to catch a glimpse of it's fleeting trail as it accelerates away to near light speeds.
Unable to capture God in the miraculous acts of creation, evolution theory is the best the naturally-minded can put forth. They MUST cover and ignore any contradictory physical evidences in order to maintain their current authority.
Ah, so you admit you don't want to learn anything, but instead will just spam these forums with nonsense.
They are "nonsense" to those without the Spirit of God. That's you at this time, though I pray not you in the future!
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
One of the pitfalls of a very large brain is that if the baby would stay in the womb any larger it and it's mother wouldn't survive the birth. One the things that makes humans adaptable is our slow growth to adulthood giving us plenty of time to learn how to survive. Do you see many example of mammals that have to compete with it's parents for food upon birth? The emotion of love is what helps the parents take care of an infant.
But, Rad, why can't we be born like bacteria are? That's what the example is, after all!
AND, the OP says that the theory of evolution states parents caring for young is backwards according to evolutionary theory. The statement is obviously incorrect but she says it anyway, so as the peak of the food chain, should we not all accede to her personal version of the theory and be born fully developed with no care needed? Stay in the womb for 20 years or so?
Okay, I'll give you that the first example is weak, and I'll eliminate that one. But don't miss the context - you already know I don't consider macroevolution possible; the idea of increasingly fit human infants is a nonsensical idea that followed from the nonsensical theory of evolution. I recognize the Creator had good reason to create infants dependent, which you touched on (without recognizing our Creator).
Symbiotic relationships do seem to present a problem for evolution theory. How are they explained?
The literature is FULL of notes on the fossil evidence against evolution.
Regarding the 98% similarity, W.J. Smith (2008) wrote, "Research continues as to the exact nature and functions of non-coding genes, but given the wide differences between human and ape non-coding DNA, even if the purported 98% genetic similarity to coding DNA is true, it is actually only 98% of a much smaller percentage of our total genetic makeup, perhaps as low as 98% of 2%!"
Oh look, yet another thread started by someone that knows nothing about the subject.
It is nonsense because it is repetitive and betrays a lack of foundation knowledge on the subject.
Believing in God has about as much to do with understanding the evidence for evolution as believing in clouds has to do with understanding germ theory.
by Rhys Baker 6 years ago
What are the most common arguments against evolution by natural selectionWe have all heard the controversy that exists between the scientific and (primarily) religious communities over the origin of species. Which arguments do you hear most often? Which do you find most difficult to overcome/which...
by GA Anderson 3 years ago
A new thread prompted by by a current discussion. Is Darwinism a scientific explanation, or just another belief system?Bbrerean, Wilderness, and EncephaloiDead have been going round and round in a debate relating to creationism, Darwinism, and macro, or micro evolution.So here is a wrench in the...
by CJ Simonelli 4 years ago
All of the so-called "evidences" for evolution theory are essentially "fluff" evidences that reveal NOTHING about the origins of life. To illustrate, let's say I falsely asserted that a particular woman had once been a boy during childhood. I then discovered and presented...
by Julie Grimes 7 years ago
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
by CJ Simonelli 4 years ago
Through evolution theory the deceiver is attempting to silence the testimony of creation about the Creator, to destroy belief in the Word and to ultimately destroy faith in the true God, replacing him with nonsensical happenings that have no meaning, no need for good rather than evil, and no...
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmativeThen the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|