Changes

* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems.  Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young.  Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously.  Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.

* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems.  Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young.  Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously.  Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.

* evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.

* evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation

* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor

* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor

* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, foreward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>

* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, foreward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>

* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>

* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>

* Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>

* Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>

* We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth. Wisdom teeth? What are those?

* We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

* For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>

* For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>

* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.

* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.

* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence. (at least to people who have never heard of contraception).

* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed.  By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years, mostly by ignoring them

* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed.  By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species.  Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species.  Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

* Too many deleterious mutations.  Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove.  Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

* Too many deleterious mutations.  Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove.  Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

*The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone.  Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/]  This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref> So Andy, you donated your kidney yet?

*The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone.  Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/]  This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>  

* Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>

* Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==

== Logical Conclusion ==

Andy is a closted homosexual.

As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule.  Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

{{evolution}}