Evolution is not just unproven. It is FALSE and IMPOSSIBLE as well.
1. For apes and hominids to have evolved into humans, there would have to be many countless transitional species between ape and man for that to be possible. Yet there are NONE. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. And for reptiles to have evolved into birds, there would have to be many transitions species between reptiles and birds. Yet there are NONE. ZERO. Charles Darwin even admitted in his book "Origin of the Species" in the chapter "Problems with Theory" that if no transitional species were found, then his theory would probably be wrong. And he was right, so even by Darwin's own standard, his theory is WRONG.
In fact, Evolutionists have had to resort to FRAUDS and HOAXES to try to find such transitional species between man and apes. For example, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, and Lucy, were all HOAXES by desperate Evolutionists to try to find the missing links. Now, LOGIC would say that if Evolution were true, and there were plenty of REAL transitional species and fossils available, then these Evolutionists WOULD NOT have to resort to FRAUDS and HOAXES to try to prove their theory. They could just use REAL transitional fossils to show the missing links. But they don't have any! BUSTED! That fact alone is very damning and defeats their case.
Natural selection means that the weaker members of a species die early of disease and predators. It does not mean that one species can become another species. Also, odbo made a good point before here:
2. Also, in the early 20th Century, when DNA was discovered, it was shown to be a closed genome system. Mutations could not add genes or take away from them. And the DNA structure was far more elaborate and complex than the codes for Windows 8 or any super computer, so that it could NOT have come from chance or natural selection or evolution. Even the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, said that DNA could NOT have evolved from chance. Would you believe that the codes in Windows 8 could evolve from chance? Or that the parts in your smart phone could evolve from chance? Or that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and create a fully functioning Boeing 747 from chance? That's ridiculous of course, but that's what Evolutionists would have to believe.Legitimate questions
If birds evolved from reptiles, how did the wings form? If a reptile started growing wings little by little, it would be at a disadvantage. Survival of the fittest seems to dictate it would become extinct. Someone please explain this.
3. Remember that even a single celled organism is highly complex. In just ONE single cell, there are THOUSANDS of parts that work together in harmony, like a clock or TV or radio. Thousands of parts working together in harmony could NOT have evolved from chance. No way. Not anymore than your smart phone or iPhone could have come about by chance and random mutations and natural selection. No way. We all know that, so why do many persist in the ridiculousness of Evolution? Very odd.
4. In the 20th Century, the best chemists and evolutionists in the world have tried in the lab to create living cells, using pools of inanimate matter and electricity to stimulate lightning, to try to prove the Evolutionary theory that the first living cells first came about from lightning striking mud pools of dead chemicals. Stanley Miller tried for years to do this in the 1950's. Yet all these attempts have COMPLETELY FAILED, 100 PERCENT! They never came close to creating living cells. Cells could not have come about by random forces. You can break open a cell in a test tube, fill it with chemicals conducive to life, and see that the parts of the cell will NOT randomly form into a living cell. Never happened.
5. Random mutations have NEVER been beneficial to a species or organism. All observed random mutations have been disadvantageous and resulted in damage or early death in that organism. There has NEVER been one documented case of random mutations being beneficial to an organism. NEVER. When Richard Dawkins was asked for an example of mutations adding new information to the genome, he was stumped and could not think of any.
So you see, the theory of evolution is not only unproven, but false and impossible as well. There is ZERO evidence that one species can evolve or transform into another species. No transitional species have ever been found between man and ape or even between reptiles and birds. And the few "transitional species" that have been alleged have all turned out to be either hoaxes, or types of animals or fish that have been around for a long time. Furthermore, the evidence from DNA and genes also show a locked genome system, which shown intelligent design beyond the complexity of the best supercomputers today. And random mutations have NEVER been shown to produce new organs or add new information to genomes or produce new genes. In fact, random mutations have ALWAYS been observed to be disadvantageous and detrimental to life, NEVER beneficial.
Another simple logical proof is this: Everything created by nature is in harmony with nature. All creatures in nature give and take in harmony. This includes all plants, insects, and animals. Nothing created by nature destroys or plunders nature. Only mankind does. This means that mankind could not solely have come from nature itself. It must have origins OUTSIDE and BEYOND nature. And only mankind is capable of cruelty or evil, animals are not. So there is definitely something very different and UNNATURAL about mankind. Simple logic demonstrates that.
Furthermore, there is no explanation or mechanism in Evolution that can account for the onset of human intelligence, regardless of how many millions of years you put into the equation. The rise of human intelligence is unique and does not follow any natural path observed in nature or animal species. It's a complete inexplicable mystery to scientists, biologists and evolutionists.
However, just because Evolution is false, does not automatically mean that the Biblical creation story is true or that the Bible is true and that you have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved so that you won't go to hell. That does not automatically follow, as Christians claim. All it means is that YES, there is intelligent design by an intelligent CREATOR. This creator could be God, or a group of creators (gods), or even a computer programmer if we are living inside a computer simulation, as many cosmologists are beginning to believe. That's all it means, not that any particular religion or Bible has all the answers.
You see, the fallacy here that both Creationists and Evolutionists presuppose, without basis, is that if there's a creator, then this creator MUST be ONE God that is all powerful, infallible and perfect. But that doesn't logically follow. That's like assuming that if someone built my house, then only ONE person could have built it, when in reality a team of workers actually built it. It simply doesn't logically follow that a creator can ONLY be one, as people automatically assume. There is more than one of everything in the universe, so why can't there be more than one god or creator? Even a video game simulation is usually designed by a team of designers, not just one. And there is plenty of evidence that we are living in a computer simulation, and that's why the universe seems to be fine tuned, ala the "Anthropic Principle", and follow mathematical formulas and patterns.
It also does not logically follow that a creator or god MUST automatically be perfect, all good and infallible. That is another fallacy and assumption that people just automatically assume because religion says so. That's like saying that the people who built my house must be infallible and perfect and all good, just because they were the builders. It's ridiculous, unwarranted and simply doesn't logically follow. Just because a god or creator is bigger and more powerful than you, does not mean it must be a good moral being that is perfect and infallible. That's like an ANT looking up at YOU and thinking "Wow this human is huge and powerful. He or she must be perfect, infallible and all good." Would that ant be right in assuming that? No of course not. Humans are not perfect or infallible or all good as we all know. So again, it does NOT logically follow that just because something is bigger and more powerful than you, or higher up, that that being must be perfect, infallible and totally good, devoid of any evil or bad traits or faults. That's a fallacy and assumption that people automatically assume without thinking and without basis.
In spite of all this, most non-religious males have a BIAS in leaning toward Evolution for some reason, even though it has ZERO evolution to support it and contradicts basic principles of science and logic? I wonder why. I can only postulate two possible explanations:
1. Most non-religious men like to believe that THEY are in control of everything, especially their lives. They don't like the idea of a higher power like God or deities running things. They prefer to believe that everything is due to chance, coincidence and human choices. That gives them a feeling that they are in CONTROL, not unseen forces out there. The male ego likes to feel in control. Also, Evolution theory fits left brained logic, which men like. So they have a natural BIAS toward Evolution.
2. To accept intelligent design in the universe and in life on Earth, means that one would have to seek answers to life's meaning in religion, spirituality and philosophy. Most non-religious men don't want to feel obligated to do that. They prefer focusing on simple practical things like making money, building things, construction projects, eating food, driving cars, finding a woman, raising a family, etc. They don't want to deal with deeper mysteries of life which they can't control or touch. That's basic male nature. So they prefer to believe that Evolution explains everything and that's that. It's their BIAS.