Home Forums Evolution


Science has many problems concerning evolution and not all science agrees with the Theory of Evolution. Creationism is not as crackpot as some would like to make it out to be. I ma not here now to defend creationism but to show a continuous amount of problems that other theories do not agree with evolution. I will make my posts short because to long of ones at one time causes one to lose readers.

There was a theory at the Ocean Science Fair held in California that the earth had to high of amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere. The theory showed that if cells went through the evolutionary process or development then the cells would not have survived because the CO2 and the heat that it created would have killed the cells. Oxygen levels were too low to have the proper balance in our earth’s atmosphere.

To this day this theory is still strong and the theory shows that the cells had to be complete in order to withstand against the harshness of CO2 based atmosphere of the earth.

Science knows and understands that C02 at the wrong levels is very dangerous to a cell that is left open by evolution development progress.

Atmosphere. The only other planets in our solar system that resemble earth enough to support life are Venus and Mars. But both these planets have atmospheres that are 95% carbon dioxide and their surfaces are barren rock. On the other hand, the earth’s atmosphere has a ratio of 77% nitrogen to 21% oxygen, which, again, is exactly what’s needed to support life. Any slight change in this ratio would have disastrous effects on all life.

Since we see such a delicate process in life the chances of a cell living through the evolution process is astronomical.

The carbon dioxide and water vapor levels in our atmosphere have exactly the right balance for supporting life–if there were slightly more carbon dioxide, a disastrous greenhouse effect would exist, and if less carbon dioxide, there wouldn’t be enough greenhouse effect and the earth would cool dramatically.

For the cells to survive in the earth atmosphere it would have to be a complete cell for protection.

Chances? Very slim, in fact nil in mathematics.

We know that “Researchers who are both non-theists and theists and who are in a variety of disciplines have arrived at the calculation that the universe is at least 10 followed by 10 billion zeros too small or too young for life to be assembled by natural (random) processes.”

And Dr. Harold Klein had this to say: “The simplest bacterium is so damned complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it’s almost impossible to imagine how it happened.”

“The DNA of even the simplest form of life, such as a bacterium, has a sequential chain of 3,000,000 nucleic acids. The probability of this occurring by chance is equivalent to that of an unabridged dictionary coming into being from a monkey randomly pressing the keys on a typewriter or computer. Even the one billion years that evolutionists give for the first form of life to have come into being by chance is laughable in the light of such knowledge.” B.G. Ranganathan

I could go on and on and show fifty or more facts that would be better than these but to keep it short is my goal.

The conclusion is theories like this one and the Snowball Earth theories do not agree with evolution period. What I am saying is there are many sound theories that are non the abaxial side of the evolution theory that an abecedarian could be easily fooled into thinking that evolution as a theory is true because on says it is.


screen tagSupport1