Question:
Theres plenty of evidence against evolution? Part 2.?
trouthunter
2006-10-28 13:59:57 UTC
O.K. here is a challege for all you fundies, others who don't think evolution is a reality.
List 5 pieces of evidence against evolution...just 5.
Oh, and it must be current evidence, from a scientific scource that has been peer reviewed, so information for the Discovery Institute, or any other creationism web-sites don't count.
And please don't quote Behe.
Halo's or chilarity.
again if you want to disprove a scientific theory you need to use peer reviewed scientific data.
Thirteen answers:
2006-10-28 14:01:46 UTC
LOL, Behe is a joke. He was thoroughly thrashed in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. You should read the entire ruling... it talks about him having his butt handed to him on several occasions.



Irreducible complexity? Debunked. Same with specified complexity and the crux of the "theory", the intelligent designer.
2006-10-28 14:23:36 UTC
Evidence 1: they say prehistoric half dinosaur half bird creatures turned into bird. What about the things in the middle? bother finding any?



Evidence 2: according to evolution, people are supposed to turn smarter over time, right? u might say, well we can use computers but ancient ppl cant. But thats just cuz we process more knowledge, not intelligence. I'D LIKE U TO FIND ME ANOTHER: einstein, mozart, confucious, Li bai, jesus.

current doctors cant do anything without technology and anti biotics, look at the doctors without technologies. dont they heal patients the same, or even better? Who has more intelligence?



3: evolution states the simplest animal becomes more complex. Well where did the first simplest animal come from then? a plant? no way!



4: Darwin became christian at his deathbed. he said he would have taken back his theory if it was possible.



5: true story: a christian believer dentist got an immature tooth from a sick patient, buried it in soil for 30 days, submitted it to a paleontologist organization. They wrote back in a few months saying, " congrats, u found a homo habilis tooth that dates back million years ago."
Edward J
2006-10-28 14:57:37 UTC
Well lets consider some remarks from some evolutionists. George galord Simpson in his book the major features of evolution admitted "it remains true, as every paleontoligist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. Professor E.J. Corner of the Botany department of cambridge univercity, although he believed in evolution stated "I still think that to the unpredjudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation". About the evolution of reptiles univercity of California paleontologist R. A. Stirton says " there is no direct proof from the fossil records"... Boston Univercity biologist Paul B. Weiss said " The first and most important steps of animal evolution remain even more obscure than those of plant evolution. Dr. Pierre P. Grasse dean of French zoologists says "we are in the dark concerning the origin of insects. E. White who was an authority on lungfishes.."the lungfish , like every other major group of fish that I know have their origins firmly based on nothing. Stephen J. Gould on Darwin's dilemna "new species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. he then conceded the lack of fossil evidence is the trade secret of paleontology". The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology..."Most species exhibit no directional change during thier tenure on the earth...In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed". evolutions erratic pace Natural History May 1977 p.12 In future please don't tell people who they can or cannot use as a referance. That would be as foolish as myself suggesting you not use anybody you choose to use from the spectre of references you provide. It's becoming increasingly apparent to me the reason why so many people are so angrily defensive about evolutionary theory is because they feel their atheistic philosophy being threatened which they hold as strongly as any "Fundy".
abdulaziiz
2006-10-28 14:02:41 UTC
''The man in the street is for the most part unaware of this fact, and thinks that the claim of human evolution is supported by a great deal of firm evidence. The reason for this incorrect opinion is that the subject is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that there is no scientific foundation for the claim of human evolution. David Pilbeam, a Harvard University paleoanthropologist, says:



If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."181



And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:



As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence...182''
smiling_nonstop
2006-10-28 14:20:28 UTC
I'm just wondering why anyone cares where we came from. We are here. Let's live in the moment and make the best of our experiences by trying to become better human beings.



Finding the answers to "was it a big-bang?" or "did God created us?" is not going to change anything, besides having one party gloat over the other, while chanting "I told you so!" Which, in turn, could create more hatred and wars. Do we really want that???
TonerLow69
2006-10-28 14:07:32 UTC
They won't come up with evidence. Their only evidence will be from other fundies who just cry that evolution is not baseon facts. Let them have their trash book and believe in the spaghetti monster if they want.
2006-10-31 10:11:56 UTC
God vs. Science



God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need You anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."



"Oh, is that so? Tell me," replies God.



"Well," says the scientist, "We can take dirt and form it into the Likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man."



"Well, that's interesting. Show me."



So the scientist bends down to the Earth and starts to mold the soil.



"Oh no, no, no," interrupts God. "Get your own dirt!"
Say No To jesus
2006-10-28 14:02:42 UTC
This should be good to see if they can. They will just quote from the bible. It's very hard to prove an observable fact wrong. Say no to jesus
2006-10-28 14:13:54 UTC
The truth cannot be denied
2006-10-28 14:08:29 UTC
here's one. just one.



the law of physics specifically says that over time, matter deteriourates, not grows.



mind you i believe in evolution, i'm just open-minded enough to see both sides of every story.
yeppers
2006-10-28 14:06:41 UTC
if we evolved from apes or monkeys why are there monkeys and apes still around?



apes

monkeys hmmm



there is no other to prove as scientific data is unjustifiable. the scientists are still trying to find the truth.



God is beyond any science. I rest my case.
WindWalker10
2006-10-28 14:19:01 UTC
1- The geological column is an example of circular reasoning; on the one hand, we hear evolutionists say we date the strata by the fossils we find there. On the other hand, we ALSO hear them say, we date the fossils by the strata (layer) we find them in. Actually, more than 85% of the earth has no more than 3 of these supposed layers in the right order, according to the column.



2- The Grand Canyon is stated, by evolutionists, to have been created by a little water over a long time. Since the starting point of the river is about 2800' elevation, and the ending point of the river is about 1800' elevation that starts to sound good. Except for the fact that in the middle of the river it's around 8000' elevation. Rivers don't usually run uphill. A flood on the other hand would have backed the river up HIGH in the massive flood plain that exists at the upper end of that river basin and, when it reached the top of the elevation and commenced to wash over, it woudl quickly carve a narrow channel or gorge as it rushed over.



3- If the Grand Canyon had been formed over MILLIONS of years, where is the delta from all the soil supposedly eroded by this slow moving event? There isn't any because it didn't happen that way.



4- Coal formation occurred over MILLIONS of years, according to the evolutionists. The first effect of the worldwide flood would have been the ripping up of vegetation worldwide and erosion on an unimaginable scale.



As the water receded from one area, vegetation would have been deposited only to be subsequently buried as the area sank and water brought in more sediment. This, layer upon layer of coal would be formed. Furthermore, it has been shown in the laboratory that vegetation can be turned into coal in as little as 1 hour with sufficient heat and pressure. A recent model of coal in as little as 1 hour with sufficient heat and pressure. A recent model of coal formation is provided by a study of the catastrophic explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980. This explosion knocked down millions of trees which ended up floating on Spirit Lake. Underneath this layer of peat consisting of tree bark and organic matter. If that organic matter were buried by a subsequent eruption, the result would be a coal seam covered by sedimentary rock. Repeated cycles would be rapidly produce a series of coal seams with sediment on top of each seam. This small scale model shows that it is reasonable to believe that an enormous flood would rapidly create the worldwide coal seams which we find today.



5- "Survival of the fittest". Baloney. Modern evolutionists have tried to distance themselves from this concept due to the obvious negative consequences of the social realm. Denying that survival of the fittest is part of the evolutionary process is akin to denying that one type of animal will drive another to extinction given the right conditions. Contrary to the rosy picture of animal co-operation which evolutionists like to portray, one type of animal has no qualms wiping out another in its quest to propagate itself. Survival of the fittest has always been an integral part of the evolutionary theory. Wild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like "survival of the fittest" doesn't it? If we are also animals who have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution, why shouldn't we extend this principle into the social realm? Why shouldn't we eliminate weaker classes of humans which are competing for what we feel we need? Evolution taken to its logical conclusion leads to a savage world akin to Hitler's Nazi Germany when the strong determine what is right. It was no coincidence that Hitler was strongly influenced by the writings of Darwin.



6- It doesn't necessarily take MILLIONS of years for fossilization to take place. The trees in the bottom of Spirit Lake (see #4 above), are already beginning to fossilize. Replacement of plant and animal tissue by minerals can happen very quickly.



7- Myth:

Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.



Reality:

This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the "cosmic egg"? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?



8- Myth:

The fossil record proves evolution.



Reality:

There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.



9- Myth:

Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.



Reality:

The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer.



10- Myth:

The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary progression.



Reality:

The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life id complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plans and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.



11- Myth:

Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.



Reality:

Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.



12- Myth:

The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.



Reality:

All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.



Whoops - sorry. That's more than 5, huh?
norm s
2006-10-28 14:03:06 UTC
ok then you must also do the same for the Bible.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...