Okay, evolution tries to explain the existence of life by natural means only. They state that; Life arose by its self, life forms slowly change into all the species we see today, and all of this requires several billion years to work.
In 1859 Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot spontaneously generate. The rate of mutation which we see now in the genome, would take more than 4 billion years for the variety of life we have now to generate. Evidence of a young earth is abundant.
louis pasteur had nothing to do with evolution, that's completely out of context. he proved that microbes don't grow from static material which is obvious now. no one is claiming that life "spontaneously generated."
there have been experiments in which biological molecules like lipids and proteins (which could easily arise on their own, just collections of elements that are attracted to one another anyway) were rocked about in water, like they would have been in a wavey ocean, and they spontaneously formed little lipid capsules (our cell membranes are made of lipids) with proteins sticking out of them.
stuff like that makes it pretty clear that life could have arisen from simple molecules.
Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish emphasized that Evidence of upward evolution is not found in the fossil record, it only shows the extinction of species. No transitional forms are found in the fossil record either, only full developed systems. The law of entropy does not allow upward evolution to occur.
entropy has nothing to do with this. entropy just refers to chemical processes, not vast biological change. this is like trying to prove that flying an airplane is impossible by quoting the theory of gravity.
transitional forms would have died out relatively quickly, maybe preventing them from really showing up on the fossil record. evolutionary development isn't totally a process of "constant, gradual change" and it isn't totally a "step by step" process, it's a combination.
Some elements are unstable - their nuclei have a combination of protons and nuetrons which wont stay together, slowly particles are emitted by the nuclei to make the atoms more stable, the rates of emission seem to be constant.
Evolutionists theorize that the entire earth was once molten rock, and that the earth cooled and hardened over millions of years. Yet radioactive halos from polonium can only be explained by having the "pre-Cambrian" granite of the earth hardening in less then 3 minutes.
Po-210 radiohalos in jurrassic, triassic, and eocene formations make it appear that these layers were formed under same conditions, not million years apart.
this is only vaguely related to evolution. i have no clue what radioactive halos are or what you're talking about, but they don't seem to pertain to this debate so i don't care.
here's a refutation of it anyway, thanks to big bang's post:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Astronomers estimate that a star in our galaxy goes super nova every 100 years. Yet there are only 265 sumper nova in our galaxy.
again, what does this have to do with evolution? there are plenty of explanations for this anyway.
With each pass of the sun, a comet becomes smaller, 1986's haley's comet was hardly visible. Evolutionists say that the comets come from the "Oort cloud" somewhere past pluto, bt comets cant last that long.
wow, the comet was "hardly visible..." i guess that means it was tiny and it was never massive and... i don't even know what you're trying to say. this is a terrible argument for something, can we talk about evolution a little bit?
The average depth of sediment on the ocean floor is 400 meters. At the rate of erosion, it would take 12 million years to accumulate exactly that much. Evolutionists say that continents formed 3 billion years ago.
yeah, conditions on the earth have been exactly the same since the world began, so the rate of sediment formation would be constant. and an average doesn't have that much weight in this case anyway. wouldn't that be including places like mariana's trench or whatever, which would have like maybe one inch of continental sediment, versus the coast of new jersey which probably has like 3,000 miles of it?
At the present rate of erosion, rivers dump 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean each year. At this rate, the oceans cannot have existed for more then 42 million years. Evolutionists say that the oceans are 3 billion years old.
They counter this by saying that the rivers would have been depositing less sodium, but no theory can explain the build-up at present past 62 million years.
i don't understand what you're saying, how does the rate of sodium deposition define how long the oceans could have been around? there are so many other factors at work here in "ocean existence" this argument is ludicrous. (the previous statement can be said about almost all of these.)
A current flowing through the earth's core causes it to decrease and the magnetic feild to dissipate. The rate of decrease is such that the feild should not have existed in the last 3 billion years, or 20000 years ago, the feild was unexplainably strong.
once again, why are we even talking about this? evolution isn't a theory that attempts to explain the exact age of the earth. and that "current" (current of what? what are you ****ing talking about?) is probably not constant. i don't know what to say to counter this, there is so little information. how is this even an argument?
Biological Material breaks down faster then required by evolutionary explanations. Scientists have recovered intact DNA in insects encased in amber dated at 250 million years ago. Soft tissue was found in a dinosaur bone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
what? how fast is required by "evolutionary explanations?" what does the DNA thing and soft tissue have to do with this? what are you talking about?
helium forms as radioactive elements decay. He is the smallest molecule, one atom. It should not remain trapped in mineral crystals if crystals are many millions of years old. Yet we find helium in crystals that should have leaked out helium long ago.
it depends on the half life of the "mineral crystals," it's perfectly reasonable to assume helium in really old crystals. and maybe we just have a different definition of molecule but the smallest element is hydrogen, it's just a proton and an electron whereas helium is two protons and two electrons.
also, if we are finding helium in crystals, it means it has leaked out. do you understand the concept of radioactive decay? helium atoms are emitted by larger elements breaking into smaller elements. so if we're finding any helium in an old thing, it means that there has been decay.
Evolutionist say that humans existed 185000 years ago, and bones can stay intact for 200000 years. Only a few thousand skeletons have been found.
There should be more stone age skeletons found then there have been.
wow this is the worst argument so far. it's not even saying anything... so we haven't found that many really really old skeletons... this is like saying stars don't exist because we've only observed a fraction of them.
If man evoleved 185000 years ago, why did agricultre begin less then 10000 years ago?
If man evoleved 185000 years ago, why did man wait to record events of history until about 4000 years ago?
actually this is the worst argument. is anyone claiming that man came to be in his present state 185000 years ago? some kind of evolutionary ancestor of humans as we know them today may have existed at that point, but obviously humans didn't possess the current capabilities they do at this point, that apparently took 175000 or so years of evolutionary development.
what's the point... you seem desperate to misinterpret stuff, make strawman arguments, latch onto any lame pseudoscience that verifies your claims... if you just look at the theory itself, it's obvious.