Sorry, but I had to address this as it was full of errors.
Quote:Introduction
Many times students hear that the theory of evolution is a "proven fact of science."
The reality is that the theory of evolution is NOT a proven fact of science.
For example, the theory of evolution requires that life be created from simple chemicals.
It requires the conversion of “life from non-life.”
This is completely false. Evolution requires no such thing and is a theory about home life changes over time, it says nothing about life coming from non-life.
Quote:Such a conversion has never been demonstrated and such a conversion has never been
proven to be possible. For example, the complex chemical binding of many amino
acids, necessary to create proteins, has never been demonstrated to be possible outside
of cells.
The theory of life coming from non-life is called Abiogenesis. The Millar-Urey and similar experiments have indeed produced amino acids in conditions thought to be similar to the early earth and not in cells. So this is clearly not entirely accurate. Suffice it to say that this theory isn't yet agreed upon or complete.
Quote:Even the simplest life on earth, which does not require a host, is far too complex to form
by a series of accidents. Therefore the theory of evolution requires that the first “life”
was a form of life which does not exist on this earth any more. Thus, according to the
theory of evolution, the “first living cell,” meaning the first living cell on this planet, is a
species which no longer exists on this earth.
That's an interesting claim. It's "too complex". This is basically claiming because you cannot imagine it, it must be impossible or the argument from incredulity. This claim has no basis in fact, billions of years of many simultaneous events provides a lot of possible outcomes.
The theory of evolution does not require a first life form, as I have pointed out.
Quote:The theory of evolution also requires massive amounts of new genetic information form
by totally random mutations of DNA. For example, the “first living cell” would have had a
very simple and very short DNA strand. However, human DNA would be much, much
longer and far, far more complex. In other words, human DNA has millions of times
more complex genetic information than the “first living cell” would have had according to
the theory of evolution.
New genetic information, including at least one new gene, has never been observed in
nature, nor has new genetic information, created by random mutations of DNA, ever
been accomplished in a science lab.
Really? No "new" information has ever been observed. I could re-iterate, but this
should be sufficient Quote:No fully functional computer program on earth has been improved upon by randomly
changing and adding “bits” of information. Likewise, no fully functional DNA strand has
been improved upon by randomly changing and adding nucleotides.
Perhaps they have never heard of
genetic algorithms Quote:The truth is that any honest geneticist will tell you that the DNA of almost all plants and
animals is deteriorating (this is called “genetic entropy”). “Point mutations,” meaning a
mutation of a single nucleotide, are overwhelmingly negative. But even when point
mutations yield a positive result, it is generally an environmental coincidence caused by
a loss of genetic information.
Pretty much the only time this term is used is by John C. Standford (and his supporters) in his book, in which he criticises evolution. It's certainly not most geneticists.
Quote:Thus, why would the scientific establishment claim that the theory of evolution is a
proven fact of science; when in fact every shred of actual scientific evidence is
overwhelmingly against the theory of evolution?
Because the evidence quoted is incorrect and terrible, that's why.
Forum
Pages: 
Evidence of Evolution being a hoax (Read 77572 times)
