Evolution is just a theory, not scientific fact

To understand this point, we must distinguish the process of “natural selection” from the theory of “evolution”.  It’s a subtle distinction but a very important one.

Natural selection occurs when animals physically adapt to their environment, and over generations, descendant animals look different to their ancestors.

Below are finches that look different but are all from the same “family” (referred to as a species):

Darwin's_finches_by_Gould

Evolution (courtesy of Charles Darwin) theorised that this natural selection process, over millions of years, results in the formation of new species.  i.e. New families of animals evolve from ancient animals.

 

The first major problem: all dogs that ever lived can be genetically proven to have come from the wolf family.  No dog has ever become a cat or a rabbit.  Dogs are essentially tame wolves.  End of story.  There is zero scientific evidence demonstrating that different families of animals evolve into other families of animals.  Refer to this article for example:

The analyses revealed: … That dogs without a doubt descended from wolves. No other species have been involved.

 

The second major problem: The second hurdle that evolution faces is the time duration necessary for animals to evolve into a new family of animals.  Evolution says that it took dinosaurs 65 Million years to evolve into other families of animals, let’s say into the emu family.

The problem with this is that 1 Million years is 1,000 x 1,000 years.  A really, really, really long time.  You need 65 of those 1,000 x 1,000 year to produce 65 Million years.

Unfortunately for evolution, scientists have found real dinosaur bones and bone marrow (here, here, herehere, here), not just fossilised remains.  They then studied these dinosaur cells and collagen to eliminate bacteria as a source of contamination.

Let’s put on our thinking caps and try to imagine anything organic surviving 10,000 years let alone 1,000 x 1,000 years (and then 65 of those).  That’s right it’s impossible.  Science says it is impossible.  Therefore, it is not very likely that dinosaur bones and soft tissue are 65 Million years old.

Dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland says, Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay.”  Reference.

Okay, Mr. Dino expert Holtz Jr., or maybe you don’t understand evolution.  Which is more likely?  That scientists do not understand decay, a repeatable process that is commonly observed, or that these “experts” do not understand evolution, an unobservable and untested in the lab, theory?

In this report, it was calculated that the expected survival time period for collagen is:

Collagen decomposition would be much faster in the T. rex buried in the then-megathermal (>20°C) (7) environment of the Hell Creek formation [collagen half-life (T½) = ∼ 2 thousand years (ky] than it would have been in the mastodon lying within the Doeden Gravel Beds (present-day mean temperature, 7.5°C; collagen T½ = 130 ky) (Fig. 1).

And also here:

Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. He says the cellular material Schweitzer found must be contamination from outside sources. Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body, Bada says: ‘Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You’ve got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules.'” http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

Jeffrey, you are right because we know you actually understand the observable science of decay.  But instead of logically concluding that evolution is impossible, certain “scientists” are still resolutely hanging on to the theory of evolution and devising ways to “extend” the lifespan of collagen to over millions of years.

 

The third major problem: These scientists then carbon dated those dinosaur cells and collagen.  Why?  Because carbon dating is supposed to establish the age of any organic material, if it is less than 70,000 years old.

Normally, it doesn’t make sense to carbon date something that is allegedly 65 Million years old but let’s be frank: It’s more illogical to believe that soft tissue can survive 1 Million years let alone 65 Million years.

So keep an open mind.  The scientists were curious about what the carbon dating results would say.

Well the results say that dinosaur tissue are less than 40,000 years old according to carbon dating technology.  These are the results of scientists from all around the world.  Just look up the work of Dr. Thomas Seiler, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, Phillip L. Manning, Lindgren.  Here is a typical article.  Also see this scientific journal.

Also see this table which I obtained from here, showing samples of acrocanthosaurus, allosaurus, hadrosaur, triceratops, and apatosaur, which were C14 dated at the University of Arizona using both the AMS and beta-decay methods to be between 22-40k years old.

 Dinosaur (a)


Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Allosaurus
Hadrosaur #1
Hadrosaur #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #2
Triceratops #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #3
Apatosaur

  Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)


GX-15155-A/Beta/bio
GX-15155-A-AMS/bio
AA-5786-AMS/bio/scrapings
UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow
UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio
KIA-5523/AMS/bow
KIA-5523/AMS/hum
GX-32372-AMS/col
GX-32647-Beta/bow
UGAMS-04973a-AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228a-AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228b-AMS/col
GX-32739-Beta/ext
GX-32678/AMS/w
GX-31950-AMS/col
UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio
UGAMS-01936/AMS/w
UGMAS-01937/AMS/col
UGAMS-01918/AMS/hum
UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio
UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio

  C-14 Years B.P.


>32,400
25,750 ± 280
23,760 ± 270
29,690 ± 90
30,640 ± 90
31,360 ± 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890 ±200
33,830 +2910/-1960
24,340 ± 70
39,230 ± 140
30,110 ± 80
22,380±800
22,990 ±130
1,950 ± 50 (contam)
25,670±220
25,170±230
23,170±170
2,560±70 (contam)
37,660±160
38,250±160

  Date


11/10/1989
06/14/1990
10/23/1990
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
05/01/2008
10/01/1998
10/01/1998
08/25/2006
09/12/2006
10/29/2009
08/27/2008
08/27/2008
01/06/2007
04/04/2007
01/18/2006
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
11/29/2011
11/29/2011

  USA State


TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CO
AK
AK
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
CO
CO

Not only is there no scientific proof for evolution, science is actually disproving evolution.

Now I’m not saying that carbon dating is accurate, I’m saying that carbon dating is proving, as a matter of fact, that dinosaur collagen contains way too much C14 in it to be Millions of years old.  Carbon dating is saying that dinosaur collagen is definitely less than 40,000 years old.

 

The fourth major problem: If dinosaurs really are 65 Million years old and the human race has been around for less than 200,000 years (according to current scientific thinking) then how did early humans do this?  See this article.

koweit-cave-art

“At first, we thought these were modern grafitis” explains Abdul Al-Shalafi, the paleontologist recently named in charge of the site, “but the carbon dating analysis revealed that they were in fact, older than the rest of the drawings. It seems that these were probably the first images drawn in the cave, and they seem to relate to the earliest period of development of this settlement.”

There are other reported cases of dinosaur cave paintings.  It’s easy to find them.  Just research it online.  Also, take a look at this carving of a stegosaurus on a 12th century Cambodian temple.

Cambodian dino-1000px

Article about this can be found here.  What’s the point of all this?  Let’s be totally honest with ourselves.  Weigh up all the above factors.  Don’t simply accept the view of scientists without scrutiny.

 

Ask ourselves: Do scientists really understand evolution better than decay or is it more likely to be vice versa?  Why are there cave paintings of dinosaurs all over the world?  Why does carbon dating dinosaur bones and collagen produce such strange results?  Why are all dogs traceable to the wolf family?  Never let anyone hoodwink you with an answer you don’t fully understand 100%.

 

Do all scientists believe in evolution?

Evolutionists say this often: “ALL scientists, support evolution.”  Yeah, that is absolutely false.  There are thousands of intelligent scientists who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution:

 

A more comprehensive analysis

The video below provides a more comprehensive and entertaining explanation of why evolution is not science.  Evolution is an interesting theory but now that we have conclusive scientific evidence proving that evolution is in fact false, we must dismiss it. It’s become just another religion:

 

Evolution is religion:

The missing, missing links
Charles Darwin was not a geneticist

If you’re convinced the theory of evolution is fraudulent, seek your creator: this is God’s covenant with man and this is the fastest way I know for you to be saved.

 

 

Share

Leave a Reply

4 Comments on "Evolution is a theory"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest
trackback

[…] It’s important to note that evolution is a theory, as opposed to scientific fact and it is actually being debunked by science. […]

trackback

[…] I also invite you to take a long hard look at the theory of evolution. […]

trackback

[…] Why can’t soft tissue survive millions of years? Because they breakdown very quickly.  Refer to quotes from scientists here: the theory of evolution is a theory. […]

Member

Why don’t you present evidence to refute instead of using hateful words? Then people might listen to you.

wpDiscuz