Watch. I'll refute this plagiarized and "Get Bigger" won't respond because he doesn't even know what the hell he is even arguing.
No loopholes in evolution? Really?
Really
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex. How can matter just become alive and so complex?
Actually there IS an adequate explanation. It's called Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is simple life forms forming from complex chemicals. Studies have been done that support this. Essential amino acids for life formed from less complex chemicals in labs under environments like those of the early earth.
Miller S. L., and Urey, H. C (1959). "Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth". Science 130: 245
However HOW life got here and Evolution are two totally different things. Evolution is true REGARDLESS of the origins of the first forms of life. Not knowing exactly how the first forms of life appeared isn't a blow to evolution at all.
The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates).
There are in fact plenty of transitonal fossils. I detailed the sea-land transition in the earlier thread. The fact you keep claiming there are "no transitions" even after I've proven time and time again without any response or counter point from you means wasting my time doing it again would be pointless.
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
How?
On top of the origin of life issue and the fossil record, evolution breaks the laws of science! How can science prove something that contradicts what it stands for?
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
THe Second law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to do with disorganization. The 2nd law of thermodynamics simply states...
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]
This means that in a closed system any process occuring will use energy and the energy used has a higher amount of entropy than it began with.
This doesn't apply to evolution because..
1.The earth isn't a closed system as is required for the 2nd law to apply. The earth gets TONS of energy everyday from the sun. This powers the processes of life and thus evolution.
2.Has nothing to do with "organization" but with usable energy. Try RESEARCHING the bullshit you say before you say it.
This argument has been refuted over and over by real scientists.
Then theres the Law of Biogenesis that says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears.
The "law of Biogenesis" has NOTHING to do with evolution. It was a law that was invented hundreds of years ago and applied to COMPLEX life. People used to believe that things like maggots appeared out of nowhere because they never saw the flies plant them. However Pasteur(A french scientist) decided to get a thing of fruit and put a glass top over it and see if maggots "Spontaneously appeared". They didn't. Thus refuting that idea.
This is DIFFERENT from complex chemicals EVOLVING gradually into simple MICROSCOPIC forms of life.
Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the FALSE impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.
The building blocks of life are essential chemicals apparant in all forms of life on earth. Without them life could not exist. Scientsits have synthesized viruses in the lab. Many times.
For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
For something to be a "law of science" it needs to fit particular criteria of simplicty. Evolution can NEVER become a law because it's a theory. A scientific theory NEVER becomes a scientific law by definition even though the theory is absolutely true. That's just how it's defined.
As i've pointed out in this post evolution violates ZERO laws of science. Anyone saying it does has no grasp or understanding of modern science.
I mean, it's sooooo stupid. Science has laws to validate theorys, guidelines if you will. When 1 law is broken the theory becomes disproven or scientifically impossible, LET ALONE 2. I have just shown that evolution breaks two laws yet, they won't say it's disproven simply for the fact that that would mean there is an intelligent creator, and THAT CANT BE. It is just ridiculous. You have an enitity that is so adimitly trying to prove a theory that it's own laws says are not possible. Thats a joke. It's a conspiracy, thats what it is.
Ohh no..A "Conspiracy"??
The fact of the matter is simple. The examples you pointed out aren't laws against evolution and really have little to do with evolution. They are simply misunderstandings on your/the author of the article of modern science.
IF darwins theory of evolution were to be disproven it would BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER THEORY OF EVOLUTION ACCOUNTING FOR THE NEW EVIDENCE! That's it! Intelligent design would NEVER replace evolution. Intelligent design isn't science! It has no experiments supporting it. No observations. It makes no predictions nor does it follow the scientific method. It's pure speculation. Wishful thinking!
There are only two possibilities. Either living things fell together by themselves or an intelligence designed them. You decide, it's not rocket science.
Again you need to do your research. Abiogenesis isn't living things "falling together" it's complex MICROSCOPIC chemicals forming gradually into reproducing organisims(Which are also microscopic). Then gradually evolving into more complex forms of life. Nothing "fell together".
