If you were told to identify a scientific theory that dispels belief in the existence of God, the theory of evolution would probably be your first choice. Not only is this theory supported by some of the most educated and well known scientists in the world, but with the collaboration of so many great minds upholding it, how could they all possibly be wrong? Suprisingly, they are wrong! Do you doubt the possibility of this happening? If so, here are some examples of past scientific theories proven to be wrong. Did you know that until the late sixteenth century scientists thought that the earth was in the center of the universe and that the planets and the sun revolved around it (Geocentrism)? Did you know that not long ago scientist thought that heat was produced by a fluid called caloric (Caloric Theory)? Did you know that until as late as the nineteenth century scientists thought that children could inherit the characteristics of their mother's previous lover (Telegony Theory)? As you can see, although science has made fascinating discoveries and produced extraordinary technology, even with its many brilliant minds, they can still can be dead wrong!
How did the universe come into existence?
According to scientists, the Earth formed billions of years ago from a cloud of gas and dust. This gas and dust came from the elements that formed the sun. The elements that formed the sun came from nuclear reactions of early stars. The elements in the early stars were created as a result of a cosmic explosion called "The Big Bang". The substance that existed prior to the cosmic explosion supposedly spontaneously appeared from nothing. While so many critics understandably oppose the idea of something coming from nothing, scientist claim that it can and did happen. They postulate that it took place by a process called vacuum fluctuation. They also claim to have tested their theory on vacuum fluctuation through experiments and have proven it to be valid. But there is a problem with these tests. The results are void because the experiment itself is invalid. In their experiments they attempt to use what is called a vacuum - space that is empty of matter, but their experimental vacuum does not truly consist of total emptiness. In their experiments they have predetermined what is supposed to equal nothing in the universe. Consequently, their test results are deceiving. If they cannot revert back in time before anything existed, then it is impossible to produce a true vacuum (total emptiness)? As stated by accomplished theoretical particle physicist Stephen Barr, another way to put it would be to say that nothing, in the context that scientists use it, is still not really nothing; or as he illustrates using the analogy of a bank account, a bank account with no money in it is still a bank account, as opposed to no bank account at all. The two are not the same. Therefore, their experiments and results are not authentic.
What was the first living creature on earth?
A cell is considered to be the smallest unit of a living organism and is often called the building block of life. Scientist assert that around 3 to 4 billion years ago the first primitive cells arose from out of nonliving materials becoming autotrophs - an organism capable of creating its own food from nonliving materials around it. Then, by using autotrophs as food , heterotrophs - an organism that feeds on autotrophs, later arose. What is the problem with this theory? It is biologically impossible for a living cell not to have a source of life. In other words, the living cannot arise from the dead. Scientist admit that they don't know how the first autotrophs spontaneously started living, yet they still offer far-fetched and unrealistic ideas about how it might have happened. Furthermore, adding to the absurdism, scientist claim that from these first cells came the last universal common ancestor (L.U.C.Y.) of all living organisms on earth. They assert that all humans, plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and every other living thing on the earth evolved from these first cells. This basically means that humans, trees, lizards, and mosquito's have the same cellular ancestors. Consequently, we supposedly evolved from the same cells as the grass on someone's front lawn.
Did humans evolve from apes?
This particular topic in the evolution theory is the most controversial of all its subjects, but like the other scientific theories it poses huge unanswered questions. In addition to the unanswered questions, scientists also demonstrate an inability to keep their theories consistent. What am I referring to? Pay attention! Neantherdals had been considered to be the most recent common ancestors of humans for decades. That is, until scientist were able to conduct mitochondrial DNA testing on them. Now scientist are abandoning their old assumption and asserting that Homo Sapiens Idaltus are our most recent common ancestors. In fact, their tests are showing Neantherdals to be genetically closer to Chimpanzees than they are to humans. But despite this and the fact that even some of science's own anthropologist reject the fallible evidence that Neantherdals engaged in humanistic behavior, the general scientific community still contend that Neantherdals were sophisticates. Would you like to know how scientist claim we lost our hairy ape-like appearance? Good luck guessing because scientist don't know either. Since hair does not fossilize well and it is impossible to find evidence of when hair lost occurred, they are just as puzzled as you are of how and why we lost our body hair. They can only speculate. But one of the biggest slaps in the face to evolutionists has to be the discovery of two fossils found in Africa called the mitochondrial Eve and the Y- chromosome Adam. These fossils are deemed by scientist to be the grandparents of all living humanity, basically saying that specific DNA found in all humans today can be traced back to these two persons. The mind boggling part about this discovery is that the only so called human ancestors young enough to be tested for DNA is the Neantherdal who was proved not to be related to humans. All the other apes are to ancient for DNA to be extracted from them. If this is so, why do scientist persist in telling us we evolved from apes.
Conclusion
Although the information you have read is absolutely true and it can all be verified, it is critical that you remember that scientists will continue to create bogus theories to support evolution. Why do I say this? Because even if we had never unveiled these scientific flaws, there will always be moments of difficulty in which you will not be knowledgeable of an scientific explanation. Also, it is worth mentioning that although we have revealed these dead ends in evolution, scientists are not just going to throw out their theory. They will continue to confuse, and controvert to defend their errors. Do your research and gather information from unbias sources. If science has no answers to your discoveries than that means they are merely guessing. However, atleast now you know that they will manipulate and mislead you by denying you the whole truth.
How did the universe come into existence?
According to scientists, the Earth formed billions of years ago from a cloud of gas and dust. This gas and dust came from the elements that formed the sun. The elements that formed the sun came from nuclear reactions of early stars. The elements in the early stars were created as a result of a cosmic explosion called "The Big Bang". The substance that existed prior to the cosmic explosion supposedly spontaneously appeared from nothing. While so many critics understandably oppose the idea of something coming from nothing, scientist claim that it can and did happen. They postulate that it took place by a process called vacuum fluctuation. They also claim to have tested their theory on vacuum fluctuation through experiments and have proven it to be valid. But there is a problem with these tests. The results are void because the experiment itself is invalid. In their experiments they attempt to use what is called a vacuum - space that is empty of matter, but their experimental vacuum does not truly consist of total emptiness. In their experiments they have predetermined what is supposed to equal nothing in the universe. Consequently, their test results are deceiving. If they cannot revert back in time before anything existed, then it is impossible to produce a true vacuum (total emptiness)? As stated by accomplished theoretical particle physicist Stephen Barr, another way to put it would be to say that nothing, in the context that scientists use it, is still not really nothing; or as he illustrates using the analogy of a bank account, a bank account with no money in it is still a bank account, as opposed to no bank account at all. The two are not the same. Therefore, their experiments and results are not authentic.
What was the first living creature on earth?
A cell is considered to be the smallest unit of a living organism and is often called the building block of life. Scientist assert that around 3 to 4 billion years ago the first primitive cells arose from out of nonliving materials becoming autotrophs - an organism capable of creating its own food from nonliving materials around it. Then, by using autotrophs as food , heterotrophs - an organism that feeds on autotrophs, later arose. What is the problem with this theory? It is biologically impossible for a living cell not to have a source of life. In other words, the living cannot arise from the dead. Scientist admit that they don't know how the first autotrophs spontaneously started living, yet they still offer far-fetched and unrealistic ideas about how it might have happened. Furthermore, adding to the absurdism, scientist claim that from these first cells came the last universal common ancestor (L.U.C.Y.) of all living organisms on earth. They assert that all humans, plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and every other living thing on the earth evolved from these first cells. This basically means that humans, trees, lizards, and mosquito's have the same cellular ancestors. Consequently, we supposedly evolved from the same cells as the grass on someone's front lawn.
Did humans evolve from apes?
This particular topic in the evolution theory is the most controversial of all its subjects, but like the other scientific theories it poses huge unanswered questions. In addition to the unanswered questions, scientists also demonstrate an inability to keep their theories consistent. What am I referring to? Pay attention! Neantherdals had been considered to be the most recent common ancestors of humans for decades. That is, until scientist were able to conduct mitochondrial DNA testing on them. Now scientist are abandoning their old assumption and asserting that Homo Sapiens Idaltus are our most recent common ancestors. In fact, their tests are showing Neantherdals to be genetically closer to Chimpanzees than they are to humans. But despite this and the fact that even some of science's own anthropologist reject the fallible evidence that Neantherdals engaged in humanistic behavior, the general scientific community still contend that Neantherdals were sophisticates. Would you like to know how scientist claim we lost our hairy ape-like appearance? Good luck guessing because scientist don't know either. Since hair does not fossilize well and it is impossible to find evidence of when hair lost occurred, they are just as puzzled as you are of how and why we lost our body hair. They can only speculate. But one of the biggest slaps in the face to evolutionists has to be the discovery of two fossils found in Africa called the mitochondrial Eve and the Y- chromosome Adam. These fossils are deemed by scientist to be the grandparents of all living humanity, basically saying that specific DNA found in all humans today can be traced back to these two persons. The mind boggling part about this discovery is that the only so called human ancestors young enough to be tested for DNA is the Neantherdal who was proved not to be related to humans. All the other apes are to ancient for DNA to be extracted from them. If this is so, why do scientist persist in telling us we evolved from apes.
Conclusion
Although the information you have read is absolutely true and it can all be verified, it is critical that you remember that scientists will continue to create bogus theories to support evolution. Why do I say this? Because even if we had never unveiled these scientific flaws, there will always be moments of difficulty in which you will not be knowledgeable of an scientific explanation. Also, it is worth mentioning that although we have revealed these dead ends in evolution, scientists are not just going to throw out their theory. They will continue to confuse, and controvert to defend their errors. Do your research and gather information from unbias sources. If science has no answers to your discoveries than that means they are merely guessing. However, atleast now you know that they will manipulate and mislead you by denying you the whole truth.
