Describe three holes in Darwins theory?

Answer 1

First of all, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that species abruptly appear and disappear, almost as if they were created. There is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of species gradually changing into different species. Darwin himself said that these revelations in the fossil record could be used as the most compelling arguments against his theory.

Secondly, in order for Darwin's theory to be plausible, it needs vast amounts of time (thus, evolutionists claim that earth is millions and millions of year old). But for the earth to be old enough to accommodate Darwin's theory would be impossible. The intensity of the electromagnetic sphere around the earth steadily and consistently decreases by seven percent about every one hundred years. When we look back in time and calculate the intensity of the electromagnetic sphere by adding seven percent every hundred years, we find that the electromagnetic sphere was so intense just twenty thousand years ago, that it would have literally dissolved the core of the earth. How then can the earth be billions of year old?

Thirdly, Darwin made his theory in the 1800s. Science has grown by leaps and bounds since then. Here is an example: Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin's day, and he assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments -- unaware that no change could ever take place without the right genes being there. To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists asserted that the fish's genes must have mutated into human genes over eons. Mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. However, this hypothesis is no longer tenable. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations on a molecular level. He has written an important new book, "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" In it, he writes, "In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."

Answer 2

First of all, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that species abruptly appear and disappear, almost as if they were created. There is absolutely no evidence in the fossil record of species gradually changing into different species. Darwin himself said that these revelations in the fossil record could be used as the most compelling arguments against his theory.

Secondly, in order for Darwin's theory to be plausible, it needs vast amounts of time (thus, evolutionists claim that earth is millions and millions of year old). But for the earth to be old enough to accommodate Darwin's theory would be impossible. The intensity of the electromagnetic sphere around the earth steadily and consistently decreases by seven percent about every one hundred years. When we look back in time and calculate the intensity of the electromagnetic sphere by adding seven percent every hundred years, we find that the electromagnetic sphere was so intense just twenty thousand years ago, that it would have literally dissolved the core of the earth. How then can the earth be billions of year old?

Thirdly, Darwin made his theory in the 1800s. Science has grown by leaps and bounds since then. Here is an example: Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin's day, and he assumed that animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments -- unaware that no change could ever take place without the right genes being there. To resolve this dilemma, modern evolutionists asserted that the fish's genes must have mutated into human genes over eons. Mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. However, this hypothesis is no longer tenable. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations on a molecular level. He has written an important new book, "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution" In it, he writes, "In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."

Answer 3

1. the firstThe law of thermodynamics

2. The second Law of thermodynamics

3.No missing link has been found