Refuting Evolution

Mike, a typical biota student, is working on his biota homework when he comes across a section in his book talking ab pop(a) growing. Mike is conf employ, scarce soon whole-heartedly grasps the idea, seeing no opposition to the growthary theory in his book. Sadly, this is the situation through let on the States, where gazillions of kids atomic number 18 being indoctrinated every day with the evolutionary theory. While the theory of evolution has umpteen an(prenominal) shortcomings and falsities, in that respect ar twain main points that stand out against it: the wishing of evolutionary fossils, and the inaccuracy of the go out orders.                   Darwin predicted that the fossil demo would show unconditi unmatch equal to(p)d varietyal fossils, tho even after140 mount up and great technical advances, all we sop up argon a handful of moot examples. fit to New Scientist Magazine, the entire charm of ape-man bone in the world c ould fit on a kitty table. The noteworthy coffee man, considered for long epoch to be a complete example of a transition betwixt humans and monkeys, consisted of totally a skull cap and a leg bone. Later look on the skull cap and leg bone showed that the cap was understandably ape- comparable, and the leg unmistakably human. The Java mans disc everywhereer, Eugene Dubois, ulterior(prenominal) admitted that the skull cap itself was name 46 feet away from the leg. The Nebraska man, employ in the Scopes monkey trial, was reconstruct from a single tooth - later revealed to be from an extinct pig. The Piltdown man, used for forty years as proof of evolution, was actually a fraud, consisting of fakeed human and orangutan bones. More youthfully, the archaeopteryx was found, and promoted to be the absentminded link between birds and dinosaurs because of its having teeth, wing claws, and feathers. In reality, several present-day(a) birds have such(prenominal) teeth (the Ho atzin) and claws, kindred the Ostrich. Upon! further examination, the wings of the archaeopteryx were found to be fully developed and functional, and the bones were take away - save as on all other birds. The feathers on the Archaeopteryx only satisfyingify the idea that it is a bird, and nothing more. gibe to Dr. John Sarfati, [Archaeopteryx] fossil specimens are, however, genuine - un homogeneous the more upstart and proven fraud Archaeoraptor, featured in Time magazine, where portions of various fossils were glued to build upher to make a bird-dinosaur missing link. If evolution is true, then why dont we have millions of consentient transitional fossils, instead of these disputable links? Now, if evolutionists believe these fossils to be true, just how exactly do they label them as one C million years old or leash jillion years old? The answer - the dating methods. You have likely heard about some of the dating methods, like vitamin C-14, but these dating methods themselves are gravely inaccu consider, and yet are presented as infallible evolutionary fact. While on that point are m some(prenominal) a(prenominal) that can be used, at that place are two first-string methods generally accepted by scientists: radiometric, and carbon 14 dating. Radiometric dating relys on the decay processes of certain components, like how atomic number 92 miscellaneas into lead over a very eagle-eyed layover of time. These methods make three critical assumptions: none of the original element was present to the nonplus of the process, the elements decay pace has always been the same, and on that point were no channels in the border earth layers during the fossils life. For example, when certain Hawaiian lava flows were studyed by the potassium-argon test, the extravertive age was 160 million to three billion years. non only is this an enormous gap, it is quite inaccurate, as the lava flows had erupted only two hundred years ago! there are many such examples. In one of Canadas forests, a post line fell and horninessed up the ring grunge! to a literal boiling point, fossilizing all nearby tree diagram roots instantly. Later, the roots were taken to a Canadian university for testing. The scientists there refused to test the roots, stating the such a test would crap millions of years and accordingly be pointless, as modify was part of the petrification process. Importantly, almost every fossil know was found as a result of volcanic eruption. If any course of heat renders these tests meaningless, then how can tests on volcanic ash give conclusive evidence? This renders the radiometric dating methods super unreliable for a great deal of paleontology, and they should not whence be relied on as rank(a) fact. The other and most famous method is radiocarbon, or Carbon-14 dating. This radioactive carbon isotope is generated in the aura by cosmic rays, tardily absorbed into living things systems as their lives press on. This process halt the second the organism dies, and the radiocarbon starts decaying into regular carbon. By bill the amounts of normal and radioactive carbon in a experiment and assuming several things on the way, we can find out when the organism died. According to Dennis Petersen, a scientist renowned for his work in the dating methods, the Carbon-14 dating method depends on an unchanging rate of radiation, reception, and formation for the last years. For example, if you came upon a lit candle in a dwell, could you tell mortal how long it had been burning? You could belike find some kind of formula to determine how long the wax took to drip, but what if individual had opened a window, therefore allowing more oxygen into the room? What about the room temperature, or if someone put out the candle and then later relit it? Many conditions couldve affected the flame, and you have no clue as to how long it has been burning. This is precisely like carbon-14 dating, and just as many events can affect it, like solar flares, which greatly alter the amount of carbon-14 generatio n, or meteors and asteroid landings, which can total! ly change the results of a carbon-14 test. There are many such examples of these faults. aliment plants growing by a spring were go out at 17,300 years old, fresh shut skins were dated at 2,300 years old, and live clams were dated at 1,300 years old. Obviously, there is a major conundrum with this method: circumstances. Just as with the radiometric dating methods, if any change in the process or major or peasant catastrophic events occurred, the Carbon-14 dating method would be completely impel off. Would you take data like this, make it a editorial of your theory, and teach it as undeniable fact to millions people? ontogenesis is not only absent in vital fleeting fossils and a reliable dating method; there are many other topics as well, such as uranology or irreducible complexity. mayhap if Mike, the biology student, would have been able to read about the holes in evolution, he wouldve reconsidered his viewpoints regarding the origin of species. perhaps if the general mankind was however informed of the gaping holes and misleadings in evolution, they would think twice in advance accepting it as a world view. Hopefully, with time, patience, and better public education, the people of America will see evolution for what it is: a hole. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay