Most atheists dont know about science (Page 44)

Blackshoes: That's your opinion ,, Common sense says otherwise .. Why would a animal slowly devolve a winglet for no reason ? Unless Feather were created ? You cannot answer anything to do with evolution in realistic way ..

Evolution is nothing but BS if you have mind enough to overcome your programing
Which isn't likely

kittybobo34: IT wasn't a winglet, it was an arm, with feathers. (Raptors had exceptionally long arms) Present day squirrels are doing it too, the Flying squirrel is using the loose skin between arms and legs to glide from tree to tree.
The original purpose of feathers like hair, was protection, but like birds today it also had a sexual connotation.

Blackshoes: So you're claiming that squirrel will evolve feathers ?
Or will they become bats . Maybe butterflies .. You see I can imagine lots things', that doesn't make it factual or science

Youre making non falsifiable claims ..Or my favorite word Assumptions

kittybobo34: Not likely. Like the bat, the starting materiel is skin and hair, not feathers. Reptiles did this too. There were 1000's of varieties of Terridactyls using skin as the gliding surface.

Blackshoes: Again you have never observed any of these imagined changes ..

Where are these changes happening within microbiology reseach . As with insects and bacteria ? That have very short life spans ..

According to evolutionary theology there should be major changes somewhere with the so call millions of species.. Otherwise there's not enough time in the universe for these assumed changes to take place

kittybobo34: Bacteria do not use sexual reproduction, so the changes are quite limited, which is why it took several billion years to get the first cellular life.
Insects have been seen to change. Both in the lab and in the environment.

Blackshoes: Very convenient ,. Another explanation of a ridiclous theory ,Minute changes don't signal major changes ',just another assumption You deny all of the microbiological roadblock to macroevolutionary change .


Note even if it took billion of years for Bacteria change to accrue we would see more than just minute changes within the 100s of thousands of types of Bacteria

Nope Nothing Nota isn't happening

kittybobo34: We are observing changes, but its a slow process. Fish moving out of the water (mudskippers)
Horse and donkey are moving on different paths. Tiger/lion offspring is a match for the prehistoric cave lion that used to bring down mammoths.

kittybobo34: Lungfish, a fish that has evolved primitive lungs to survived droughts.

Blackshoes: SO you say the evidence doesn't support you're view .. Assuming that this is happing is still nothing more than wishful thinking ..
See how you write The lung fish " HAS EVOLVED "lung that can survive a drought !

You assumed that it evolved !

kittybobo34: The microbiological road block you keep mentioning has to do with cellular reproduction , not Sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction has the specific purpose to induce changes, where as cellular reproduction is purposed to maintain status quo.

Blackshoes: Sure whatever I gotto go

kittybobo34: later then adios

Angry Beaver: @ blackhead
My god but you're an obtuse fuckwit!

kittybobo34: Evolution is driven by natural selection, You say bats have remained unchanged for millions of years. Not true, compare our local brown bat with the fruit bats of the jungle, or the vampire bats of mexico. Natural selection is keeping them right where they are, in regard to their size (they have to fly) their echo location (works best at night). They can't compete with birds of the day. So until some evolutionary break through happens they are stuck where they are.

Angry Beaver: Oh blackie such a knob

Blackshoes: That's just being dishonest Unless you really didn't understand the post statement ?
The Post isn't saying there is no change . He's saying there's no trans species change .. There's been little to no change within any species such as Insects for according to evolutionary time scales for over 450 million years .. Mammals haven't changed into any trees or plants . The trans species change you claim over millions of years has never been observed.. Yes: minute change does accrue ..No one has ever denied this fact .
..
" Of course it is hard for this fact to be explained in evolutionist terms, because adherents are looking for an explanation within the theory of evolution. Yet the living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. * Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution.
The evolutionist Niles Eldredge admits that no explanation exists with regard to living fossils, which constitute one of the countless secrets that evolution has been unable to unravel:
… there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. … We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils.37

* Bats have remained
unchanged for 50 million years, and are among the most important proofs that demolish the theory of evolution."

Angry Beaver:

kittybobo34: Evolution is driven by NATURAL SELECTION. All the niches that bats might fill are already occupied by species better adapted.
This is basic evolutionary theory, that any scientist worth his salt already knows. What you're quoting with Niles Eldredge is being taken out of context.

There are also evolutionary dead ends. At least 5 times Sabre tooth cats have evolved. They get so good at killing their prey that eventually the prey is driven extinct, then the cats go extinct.

Blackshoes:

Example No change with insects too number of sea creators are still with us present day from the Cambrian era the list is long


"Modern" Animal Fossils Found with Dinosaurs

I recently read an article published by Creation Ministries International. In it, Don Batten interviewed Dr. Werner about living fossils. It was fascinating and I recommend anyone interested to go and read it in full:
http://creation.com/werner-living-fossils

What is really amazing is the list of modern animals that have been discovered in “dinosaur age” rock layers. It indicates that just about all the major phyla were living at the same time, thus supporting the Bible's record and causing embarrassment to the worldview of Evolutionism.

"If evolution did not occur, and if all the animals and plants were created at one time and lived together, then one should be able to find fossils of at least some modern animals and modern plants alongside dinosaurs in the rock layers. I set out to test this idea without any foreknowledge of any modern organisms in the rock layers. My results showed that many modern animals and plants are found with dinosaurs—far more than I ever expected to find.” (Dr. Werner)

Dr. Werner and his wife Debbie traveled over 100,000 miles and took 60,000 photographs. They looked only at fossils that were found in dinosaurs dig sites so that no evolutionist could claim that the fossils were not old. The fossils they studied were from “dinosaur” layers (Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous).

Below is a list of some of the animals that were found. It is my hope that the reader will go to the article above and find out more.

Modern Types of Animals:

Invertebrates-
Arthropods (insects, crustaceans)
Shelfish,
Echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.)
Corals
Sponges
Segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms)

Vertebrates-
Fish
Cartilaginous fish (sharks, stingrays)
Boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, founder, bowfin)
Amphibians
Frogs
Salamanders
Reptiles
Snakes (boa constrictor)
Lizards (ground lizards, gliding lizards)
Turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles)
Crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles, and gavials)

Birds
Parrots
Owls
Penguins
Ducks
Loons
Albatross
Cormorants
Sandpipers
Avocets, etc.

"Contrary to popular belief, modern types of bird have been found...When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information...it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera.”

Mammals
Squirrels
Possums
Tasmanian devils,
Hedgehogs,
Shrews
Beavers
Primates
Duck-billed platypus

“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species with dinosaurs, almost as many as the number of estimated dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons...We visited 60 museums, but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. Why don't the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”

Modern types of Plants:

Every major plant division living today was represented in the “dinosaur” strata, including...

Flowering plants
Ginkoes
Cone trees
Moss
Vascular mosses
Cycads
Ferns
Sequoias
Magnolias
Dogwoods
Poplars
Redwoods
Lily Pads
Horsetails

Very interesting. If you'd like to read more on this topic, here are links to other resources...

Dr. Werner has written a book about this: Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2. You can find it here: http://usstore.creation.com/catalog/living-fossils-grand-p-122.html?osCsid=9t4uuuk3ut7e9so3s6jvub97j5

His first book of Evolution: The Grand Experiment (also excellent) can be found here: http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/920/nm/Evolution_The_Grand_Experiment_Package/category_id/21


http://timetowinabattle.blogspot.com/2011/03/modern-animal-fossils-found-with.html

kittybobo34: Dr. Wermer as a molecular researcher may know his stuff, but I don't think he can tell a mammal bone from a dinosaur bone. He has no paleontology background at all. Reading what he wrote , it was as if he was just looking over the shoulders of the actual researchers involved.
Don't know if you noticed but Penguins were definitely not around, (no ice)
Squirrels were not around, but the early monkeys were, they were the size of squirrels.
Seriously doubt beavers were around ether, they wouldn't have survived the crocodiles.

So sounds like he just listed all the little mammals he could think of.

Blackshoes: Dr Wermer Never claimed he discovered the bones ,He states that Paleontologist found the bones and he's persenting thier findings ..

Alone this is just another fact in long list of facts that clearly show how ridiclous evolutionary assumptions and conclusion of what the evidence suggest ..

“Few are aware of the great number of mammal species found with dinosaurs. Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species with dinosaurs, almost as many as the number of estimated dinosaur species. These include nearly 100 complete mammal skeletons...We visited 60 museums, but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums. Why don't the museums display these mammal fossils and also the bird fossils?”

Angry Beaver: Even the church have a more open mind than some of their members:


Fact Tank - Our Lives in Numbers
October 30, 2014
5 facts about evolution and religion

By David Masci

Are faith and belief in evolution necessarily at odds? According to Pope Francis, the answer is no. Indeed, the pope recently reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s view that “evolution in nature is not inconsistent” with church teaching on creation, pushing the debate on human origins back into the news.

Although most U.S. Catholics accept the idea of evolution in some form, a substantial percentage of American adults reject the scientific explanation for the origins of human life, and a number of religious groups in the U.S. maintain that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection is not correct because it conflicts with their views of creation.

Here are five facts about evolution and faith:

1
The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings. In 1950, in the encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory. Pope John Paul II went a bit further in 1996, calling evolution “more than a hypothesis.”

2
A minority of Americans fully accept the scientific explanation for the origins of human life. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 60% of Americans say humans have evolved over time, but only about half of that group (32% of U.S. adults overall) believes that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes, the explanation accepted by the vast majority of scientists. About a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) say that humans and other life evolved, but that this evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that a third of Americans (33%) reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

3
Of all the major religious groups in the U.S., white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to reject evolution. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of white evangelicals say that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form, while roughly one-in-ten white evangelicals (8%) say that humans evolved through natural processes. On the other end of the spectrum are the unaffiliated, a majority of whom (57%) said they believe that life evolved through natural processes.

The rejection of evolution by most evangelicals is largely mirrored by their churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which explicitly reject evolutionary theory as being in conflict with what they see as biblical truth.

4
About a quarter of white American Catholics (26%) say that they do not believe in evolution of any kind, despite the church’s acceptance of it. The share of Hispanic Catholics in the U.S. who reject evolution and say that humans have always existed in their present form is even higher (31%).

5
A series of court decisions prohibit the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. In spite of efforts in many American states and localities to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools or to teach alternatives to evolution, courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and creation science violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.

Oh and the pope said to tell you to fuck off and stop lying bobbi

Blackshoes: Neither the Pope nor anyone else is Omniscience..

“Discovering your God-given purpose does not necessarily put you in a place of omniscience.”


D.S. Mashego

Yet: Accademia has establishment a Religion and pseudoscience within the Public education system !

" Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion. "



" A duck dressed as a scientist is still a duck. And a pseudoscientific theory dressed up like real science is still pseudoscience. That just leaves the question: is evolution pseudoscience? Fortunately, that’s an easy question to answer: yes. And even better, you don’t need to be a scientist to recognize a pseudoscience, just as you don’t need to be a doctor to recognize the difference between a human and a non-human like a duck. Anyone who knows what a “human” and a “duck” is can easily discern the difference. And anyone who knows what “science” and “pseudoscience” is will likewise easily discern the difference.
As you are probably already aware, a favored tactic of proponents of evolution is to label both Creation and Intelligent Design disciplines as “pseudosciences.” The irony of course being that it is a trivial matter to demonstrate that Darwinian goo-to-you evolution is the epitome of a pseudoscience. Yet regardless of how clear the evidence is, you will never, ever get an evolutionist to acknowledge that Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution is a pseudoscience. So in this article we’ll first take a look at how Darwinian evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience perfectly; then press on to demonstrate how evolution breaks a number of the known laws of science further proving it to be pseudoscience in spite of their protestations that “it’s science.”
According to the bastion of popular secular knowledge known as Wikipedia, a pseudoscience is:
“…a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.”[1]
So one cannot know whether something is a pseudoscience until one first understands the scientific method. Again, according to Wikipedia, the scientific method is:
“a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “a method or
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[2]
Evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience
Evolution fits every criteria necessary to be identified as a pseudoscience:
Fits defintion – 1. “Presented as Scientific”
The claim that evolution is “presented as scientific” is so ubiquitous, a defense of that statement is not at all necessary. But but to leave no stone un-turned, I offer this page from the National Academy of Science that states evolution is both science theory and fact.[3]
Fits definition – 2. “But which does not adhere to the scientific method”
The definition of the scientific process is listed above. Below is a nice diagram of the process:


Though one is sufficient, we’ll look at two places in the process where evolution fails to follow the scientific method: A. (Unable to) Make Observations; and B. (Unable to) Develop Testable Predictions
Fails Scientific Method A. (Unable to) “Make Observations”
Goo-to-you evolution fails the very first step in the process, because it cannot be observed:
1) No one has ever observed life come from non-living molecules, cells or animals. Life always comes from life, without exception. Yet this belief (abiogenesis – which we’ll return to later) is a core belief of evolutionists. Evolutionists must believe this since there simply is no other alternative once you rule out the living God as the source of all life.
And what do they substitute for observation? Bad reasoning:
The undeniable fact is that non-living materials must have formed into living materials at least once. If not through spontaneous generation, then how? [4]
Documentary: How Life began
This is common evolutionist reasoning, but it is totally flawed. It’s like coming home and finding a body dead apparently from gunshot wounds, a smoking gun, and only your spouse and the family goldfish in the room – and there is gun powder residue on your spouse’s hand. And from this you conclude the goldfish must have done it because you know your spouse couldn’t have done it. Never mind it is impossible for your goldfish to have fired the gun, the idea of your spouse doing it is so repellent, you simply can’t even seriously consider the possibility. So it is with evolutionists and God – the idea of God creating all life on earth is so repellent to evolutionists, they won’t even consider it, and prefer instead to believe in the fantasy that processes that are known to be incapable of creating life, created life.
2) No one has ever observed the evolution of one type of animal to another type of animal. The change in finch beaks that Darwin observed in the Galapagos, for example, was not evolution from one kind to another. It was natural selection in operation. There’s a more current example: Elephant tusks are getting smaller. Why? Because poachers are killing elephants with the bigger tusks leaving the ones with the smaller tusks to breed and reproduce.[5] So the overall effect is a population of elephants with smaller tusks. But the finches are still finches; and the elephants are still elephants, so this is not goo-to-you evolution. This is natural selection at work (well in the elephant’s case it’s human selection), and as I’ve pointed out before, natural selection is not synonymous with evolution.
Fails Scientific Method B. (Unable to) “Develop Testable Predictions”
Honest evolutionists acknowledge the inability for evolution to meet the scientific requirement of being predictive in a manner that is testable:
“The theory is inadequate because it is not predictive. It explains what has evolved, but not what will. There are too many possible courses evolution can take.”[6]
Professor Armand Marie Leroi
Imperial College, London
How true – too many paths – leaving room for plenty of stories. So while they can’t make a scientific prediction, they can indulge their wild flights of fancy. So if you’ve got a animal and you’re looking for their origin, evolutionists have a story for you. Based on two populations of fish in two separate lakes that look similar, Prof. Leroi “hopes” evolutionists can make predictions in the future[7]. Like other evolutionary hopes and dreams this one will remain unfulfilled since evolution of the type I’m discussing is impossible.
Fits Definition 3. (Fails to meet) The norms of scientific research.
This is a broad topic, and cannot be covered in any detail here. But a recurring area of concern here that should never happen in research is the fabrication or falsification of data. Not only is it unethical as was universally agreed in a recent survey[8], and tends to make evolution look like the pseudoscience that it is; but more importantly if evolution is so obvious, and there is so much evidence for it, why has there been, and continues to be so much fraud, fabrication and falsification of data in attempts to prove it true? To see some examples of the frauds, just search thecreationclub.com for “Frauds of Evolution.”
So there you have it. Evolution clearly meets the definition of a pseudoscience. And you know the old saying – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. And so it is with evolution. It may be dressed up as science, but it’s really pseudoscience. But the above demonstration that evolution fits the definition of a pseudoscience to a T is really just an introduction to what I believe the stronger evidence is that demonstrates it’s a pseudoscience: evolution is a pseudoscience because it breaks the known laws of science.
Pseudosciences break known laws of science
In an article titled Is Evolution Pseudoscience Mark Johansen, a CMI author considers this proposition and goes through a 10 point list from the Skeptics Dictionary that identifies pseudosciences and shows how evolution meets 9 of the 10 criteria. Item number 9 is of particular interest:
“Some pseudoscientific theories … contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief.”[9]
Evolutionists are fond of calling evolution “science” and “fact” but real science does not contradict the established laws of science. With evolution breaking so many laws of science, you can call evolution pseudoscience, or religion. But what you can’t call it, is science. It fits neither the definition of science, nor the method of science (as shown above0, nor follows the laws of science (as shown below). So without further ado, some of the many laws of science that evolution breaks.
1. Evolution breaks the law of Biogenesis.
The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from life. That is all that has ever been observed. Life from Non-living things has never been observed. The idea of “spontaneous generation” was decisively destroyed in the 19th century with Louis Pasteur’s swan necked flask experiment. But in the 19th century, the idea of spontaneous generation concerned mice coming from dirty rags and wheat instead of the current chemical evolution variety of life coming from replicating molecules. With that as the case, evolutionists think they’ve distanced themselves from the concept. In fact popular Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson pokes fun at the concept and the foolishness of spontaneous generation:
“I always liked the spontaneous generation concept – some dirty rags, some wheat, look the other way and mice crawl out. That’s kind of fun. I don’t know why that concept hung on for so long. Because a simple test could have verified that mice do not spontaneously generate themselves out of dirty clothes and wheat.”[10]
Neil deGrasse Tyson
True, scientists no longer believe in “spontaneous generation” of the type they spoke of in the 19th century. Now they believe in “abiogenesis,” a theory of life arising through chemical evolution – but it has the same problem: it still requires life to come from lifeless matter – a ludicrous proposition. The list of reasons of why chemical evolution is impossible is extensive and far beyond the scope of this article. So I can’t cover them here. (Though you can see one of the reasons in my previous article here on the impossibility of evolution to produce a protein.) Let me suffice it by giving you the bottom line:
“The idea of the origin of life by natural processes is a preposterous idea. Absolutely preposterous idea.”[11]
Don Batten
Agricultural Scientist and Creationist

“For evolutionists to believe in chemical evolution, this is not a position they got from science, but a position they got from blind faith. They’re basically having to believe in miracles because it’s not real chemistry there they can appeal to.”[12]
Jonathan Sarfarti
Physical Chemist, Spectroscopist and Creationist
2. Evolution contradicts Genetic processes.
Once again I will limit myself to just two of the many areas of genetics where evolutionary processes contradict known genetic processes.
A) Evolution with it’s trial and error method over millions of years predicts that there will be much “junk” found in the code of DNA. Some evolutionists state that up to 98% of our DNA is junk. But scientists have learned how seriously mistaken that view is. Protein coding is one of the main functions of DNA. But there are parts of DNA that don’t code for proteins, and it’s those areas that evolutionists have called “junk.” But with further research, scientists have learned that the non-protein coding portions of DNA formerly considered “junk” by some are performing a number of other critical cellular functions. And in fact, “It’s now known that parts of genome code for more than 1 thing at the same time.” [13] In other words, there are messages within other messages of DNA strings. Such double coding or multiple coding – if you will – is a mark of extreme intelligence as I pointed out in DNA and Windtalkers. Further,
“Overlapping codes are almost impossible to improve upon – because if you improve on one of the codes you are destroying or disrupting one of the other codes.”[14]
John Sanford
Thus the concept of “junk DNA” is, as plant geneticist John Sanford states: ” …profoundly wrong and will be recorded in history as one of the “greatest blunders in science.” [15]
B) Evolution states that random mutation and natural selection can emulate the process of design to get ever more complex creatures until you get the diversity of creatures we see today. Yet the mutations in the human genome are destroying good design, not adding new information, or features. The human genome is suffering from genetic entropy, and evolution can do nothing to stop it. The result:
“So genetic entropy is profound…It is lethal to genetic evolutionary theory – it means things are going down, not up.”[16]
John Sanford
Once again evolution predicts the exact opposite of what the physical reality is.
3. Evolution breaks the Laws of Chemistry
Many suggestions from evolutionists for the first living cells have them emerging from some primordial ooze or soup. But that theory is seriously flawed. Because for life, you need to build many large molecules from small ones. The problem is – the chemistry of molecules doesn’t work that way. The normal process is large molecules are regularly broken down to smaller ones; not smaller ones joined together to get larger ones:
“Everything I’ve learned about real chemistry shows that reactions go in the opposite way from what’s required for life to come from non living chemicals – breaking up large molecules to small molecules.”[17]
Jonathan Sarfati
And with regard to the primordial soup:
“Any chemist wouldn’t have water in the reaction because water tends to drive the reaction in the opposite direction towards the little molecules.
Yet the primordial soup would have inevitably had loads of water in it, so it’s the last place a real chemist would try to make proteins or DNA.”[18]
Jonathan Sarfati
Chalk up another huge fail for evolution with regards to any chance of building the necessary chemical building blocks for life while abiding by the laws of chemistry.
4. Evolution breaks the Laws of Information Theory
Philosophical materialist scientists (those who believe only material things exist) used to believe that reality consisted only of matter and energy – which are – as Einstein revealed to the world, different manifestations of the same thing. But in these latter days, scientists have had to acknowledge that there is a non-material portion that comprises reality – information:
“During the 19th century scientist believed there were two fundamental entities – matter and energy. But as we enter the 21st century there’s a third fundamental entity that science has had to recognize and that is information.”[19]
Stephen Meyer
Philosopher of Science
Even evolutionists recognize that DNA contains information. The information is in fact coded information. Further, as noted above, it is coded with overlapping information making it information packaged in a highly complex manner . The question that Darwinists can’t answer, is what is the origin of the information in DNA and wherever else information is found in living creatures? And what is the origin of the highly complex information storage and retrieval system we call DNA? We know two things about the origin of information: 1. Natural processes cannot create information. 2. Intelligent agents can produce information:
“So at present there is no naturalistic explanation, no natural cause that produces information. Not natural selection, not self organizational processes, not pure chance.
“But we do know of a cause which is capable of producing information, and that is intelligence.”[20]
Stephen Meyer
Darwinist say that mutations and natural selection can create information, but as Meyer points out they cannot. Mutations destroy information, and natural selection can only eliminate information. Evolutionists need a naturalistic way to create information, but there is none. Information comes only from agents with intelligence. This is such a serious challenge to evolution that Meyer characterized the problem this way:
“Neo-Darwinism and its associated theories of chemical evolution and the like will not be able to survive the biology of the information age, the biology of the 21st century.”[21]
Stephen Meyer

5. Evolution breaks Darwin’s own slow, gradual process maxim
This next item is included not because it is science, but because it demonstrates that not only does evolution not follow the laws of science it doesn’t even follow its own laws. Punctuated Equilibrium is an update to evolutionary theory proposed in 1972 by noted paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. It was proposed because evolutionists realized the fossil record does not conform to Darwin’s theory of slow, gradual change of species. As Wikipedia explains it, the fossil record of an evolutionary progression:
“…typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, in many cases close to a million years later, without any change in external appearance.”[22]
Eldredge and Gould were among the evolutionists who realized the evidence simply doesn’t fit Darwin’s theory, and instead of discarding the theory, changed it to allow what Darwin said was forbidden: saltations – or jumps in the fossil record. But as evolution evangelist Richard Dawkins acknowledges:
“Without Gradualness.. we are back to a miracle.”[23]
Evolutionists like to pretend they believe in Darwin’s theory of slow and gradual change, but the fact that punctuated equilibrium was even proposed shows that 1.) The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory, and 2.) Evolutionists have conceded that slow gradual processes simply cannot do what they claim they can, and that in fact the only solution is something that can produce saltations – jumps. But jumps require the intervention of an agent outside of the material world; something that can intelligently manipulate natural processes to do what slow and steady processes can’t – to do what Dawkins correctly characterized as “a miracle.”
Conclusion
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all the laws of science broken by evolutionary theory, but merely one sufficient to show that that Darwinian evolution does in fact break many laws of science and in fact breaks its own scientific requirements and therefore is rightfully characterized as a pseudoscience. Marine biologist Robert Carter summarizes it succinctly:
“Everything we know about the laws of chemistry, genetics, statistics and information theory argues against any life from non-life idea. But an evolutionist must believe that scientific laws are violated for life to arise from none living chemicals. That sounds like faith to me.”[24]
Robert Carter
So you can legitimately call evolution pseudoscience, or you could call it religion. But if you know anything about the operation of science in the real world, and how Darwinists state evolution operates, you cannot call evolution science."


May 6, 2016 by Duane Caldwell