Creationists, what Evidence do you have against the evidence of evolution?

Question

Remember, "pseudo scientific" babble counts for nothing, as do alleged 'degrees' sourced from creationist degree mills, as do infantile and weak analogies..

I'm talking about MODERN MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTIONS OF THE NATURAL WORLD, and the evidence for evolution within THAT framework, meaning that which is VERIFIABLE..

Repeat..: VERIFIABLE..

Thank you

Answer 1

Consider this

Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLdsU&feature=PlayList&p=A0C2DB01EC2595A0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3



Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 2 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-4O7AOYLqc&feature=PlayList&p=A0C2DB01EC2595A0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4



Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 3 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXLFFduC56Y&feature=PlayList&p=A0C2DB01EC2595A0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5



Creation In The 21st Century - Caught in the Act 1 of 3

http://www..youtube.com/watch?v=MOdByKKvV6I



Creation In The 21st Century - How to Talk to an Evolutionist About Creation 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmbGLbRJ5uM



Creation In The 21st Century - Palace of Dinosaurs, Part 1 (1 of 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCNqEXQfJQ0



Creation In The 21st Century - Why The Difference 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJxs6sOmO0I&feature=PlayList&p=3DA93EE9E2AC3D32&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2



Creation In The 21st Century - Lets Talk to An Evolutionist About Creation 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qekUYQubus



Carl Baugh Part- Flip of a coin- Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrgGHMTwJM



Creation In The 21st Century - Crunch The Numbers Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU

Answer 2

Disprove evolution? I think evolution goes right along with a Creator. Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn't that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation? The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. It doesn't take time for God to create but time actually is part of the creation. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam's offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam's offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant. Because the Giant were not able to breed with the smaller people they became more and more inbreed which produces mental and physical problems. Since not all were physical giants though but some were mental and spiritual giants yet of a small size and could breed in a bigger gene pull their traits survived. Adam's genes remain on this planet but only mentally and spiritually.

Answer 3

As usual, the typical nonsensical and proven-wrong replies...



But here's the fun part: even IF they could clearly show that evolution by natural selection is totally and completely wrong, that doesn't mean their bible creation story is *right.* If natural selection is wrong, then the only thing we could say about how life on this planet came to be what it is would be "We don't know." Their creation myth doesn't win by "default."



If they want to claim their creation myth is correct, they need to provide evidence that their creation myth is correct -- not just that some other explanation is wrong. And as there is no evidence that their creation myth is correct, "disproving" evolution would simply take us to "we don't know," not to "god did it."



Peace.

Answer 4

The Bible has no proof but to say that a MAN- I repeat- a MAN "says" that there is a deity, that this deity created everything without any explanation or proof, and that this deity's son died for salvation. Think on it.

Answer 5

For starters, the probability that life arose by random natural processes has been calculated at 10^-1018. That's a 10 with 1,018 zeros behind it. I can't really comprehend how the probability was determined, but this was calculated by some expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology who is way smarter than me. [1]



Then there's the Cambrian Explosion. This pretty much shatters Darwin's hypothesis. Western scientists who are married to Darwinian theory are losing credibility with scientists in the East and have been accused of adopting evolution as a religion.[2] The controversy revolves around the increasing fossil evidence surfacing in China that there are no precurser transitional forms for the fossils in the Cambrian. These discoveries in China are causing one of the world’s leading researchers of the Cambrian explosion (J. Y. Chen, paleontologist at the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology) to turn Darwin’s Tree of Life upside down. Zhou Qui Gin, a senior research fellow at Chengjiang, states her conclusion simply: “I do not believe that animals developed gradually from the bottom up. I think the animals suddenly appeared.” [3]



Evolutionary scientists usually explain away the lack of transitional fossils by claiming that the gradual process of information-gaining changes takes so long that we do not see evidence of this in the fossil record. However, the Cambrian explosion happened so quickly, with no precurser transitional forms in the fossil record, that Darwin conceded that this fossil evidence was a legitimate objection to his hypothesis. This evidence bothered him greatly. After 150 years evolutionary science has not resolved this problem and further discoveries have only served to increase the evidence against Darwin’s hypothesis. Darwin’s rescuing hypothesis for the Cambrian explosion was his suggestion that perhaps Precambrian fossil evidence had been lost due to the very soft tissues of the very tiny organisms that he assumed would have later evolved into the complex animals of the Cambrian explosion. More recent discoveries of Precambrian fossils in China, however, have proven that very soft tissues of very tiny organisms can be preserved in the fossil record, thus nullifying Darwin’s rescuing hypothesis for the Cambrian explosion.[4]

Answer 6

We now know that the Single Cell is so complex that it could only be Created by God.



Evolution starts out with no explanation of the Single Cell!



The Big Bang says maybe Aliens brought the Single Cell anything but worship the Creator.

Answer 7

alright heres my bio essay thats not done on evolution. (read to the bottom)



Evolution is a topic that can really make some people steam. Some say God made everything in seven days or that evolution is from a monkey to a man. Most of those people are not educated about the subject their debating. They throw ‘facts’ at each other that usually aren’t pertinent to the debate topic. If more people tried to learn about the other side rather than throwing blind accusations at each other things would work out a lot better than they are now. Popes have said don’t try to look in the Bible for science facts because it was written before there was science or any knowledge of science. Others say the bible is just plain wrong about the world being made and having humans come around in seven days. In these next paragraphs hopefully you can learn more about both sides and come to make an educated decision rather than playing Russian roulette.

To start off we should look at evolution from a science point of view and the supporting facts. There are thousands of facts supporting both sides but we should start at the root to figure out what they were thinking when they came up with an explanation for how we got here. The world is thought to be about 4.6 billion years old with life coming about 3.5 billion years ago starting with volcanoes making an ozone layer to allow an algae to survive and make oxygen to allow other life to form and survive without the constant struggle to live. The algae then evolved over millions of years to the earliest forms of diverse life. From there the Cambrian explosion happened where there was a huge amount of diversity without any precursor for the hand Mother Nature played. From there life just started to have a snowball effect and keep evolving to make the creatures we now know and take for granted.

Evolution starts with tiny mutations in an organism’s genes. If a gene’s coding for the leg of an alligator was AACAAGGACCAGAC the tiniest change to AACAAGGAGCAGAC could change the whole leg to look like a fin and have no joints to only let it swim and not go on land. The chance of a gene mutation is 1/100,000. This tiny fact which was just recently discovered suggests it would take millions of years to change a whole species. Once you’re born you have the genetic mutation and you can’t get rid of it. So that means a human would have to have the same mutation and add one with every kid and them having another kid to have a total of about 25,000 kids! Considering that humans live about 70 years that would take 1,750,000 years to change a whole human to something different. Then considering that some genes disappear then reappear it could take longer. Then having a species keep that gene but then add another some other organism doesn’t take makes another species without a certain gene. Humans are about 99% alike to worms in their DNA. Just that little bit of change cause huge diversity.

We can also look at geology. If you look in the layers of rocks, formed thoughout millions of years, you can find certain fossils of organisms in only certain parts of the rocks. You don’t find humans in the crestaceous period’s layer of rock or baculite fossils in the newest layer of rock that we walk on every day. When you look at the very first layer of rock there is evidence of primitive life that only exists there. In the next layer there are what seem like a little bit more advanced forms of species that look almost identical. To put it simpliar its like that kid’s T.V. show “Pokémon”. When a certain period of time passes, the organism evolves into a more advanced organism with better capabilities. As you keep going up the rock layer there is little more advanced species. If you look at the rock it doesn’t seem like the rock layer is that big but in reality it took millions of years to create that 6 inch thick slab of rock. When you get towards the top you see species that are more recognizable unlike the ones at the bottom. At the very top you see modern animals but as you go down the ‘un-evolve’ and turn more primitive. We can see evolution taking place little by little with each passing generation. Around year zero humans were shorter than they are now. They also didn’t live as long, about 40 years, whereas now we live to be about 70 or 80 years old.



As for me I believe in Evolution but it couldn't have just HAPPENED. Usually a defect means its BAD. not excelling a species. I completely believe in God but most people are NOT educated and are to close minded to hear something else. When they say the bible is there answer, Genesis is SYMBOLIC! God created the earth the first day (Big Bang) then the land and water (evolution of earth) then the sea creatures (Hmmm... sounds like early life....) then land animals and sky animals (WOW!!! THE LAND ANIMALS MUSTA EVOLVED!!!) Then HUMAN!!! THE LAST DAY WE WERE MADE! WE HAVE ONLY BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT 2 MILLION YEARS! 1 day meant a long period of time

Answer 8

Outside of the bible there is lots of evidence of God's handiwork. Read up on "intelligent design" for starters. One other simple thing to do. Watch what bees do! They not only harvest necture from beautiful flowers and blossoming fruit trees to make honey, they cross pollenate. Bees are attracked to the brilliant colours of blossoms. How did nature no how to evolve so that flowers would be colourful and cross-pollenation would take place? Think about it.........then thank God for such a beautiful and intelligent design of creation. (I do not necessarily believe God created everything in six days. Why? He did not create the sun until the third day. How long were the first two days?)

Answer 9

There are still "flat-earthers" around who claim to have good evidence that our planet is not round, but thinking people do not take them seriously enough to answer. Don´t worry about the Creationists, they come from the same school, and provide good material for cartoons, movies, and satires. You are a Thinker, so laugh it off.

Answer 10

there are a lot of problems with the evidence for evolution. first of all the fossil record. the cambrian explosion shows that there was a boom of 95% of the known phyla today within a short geological time. If Darwin's theory of evolution (which i think you are talking about) is true then there would be in-between species. there has never been an in-between species found. Also this theory is based on mutations. there has never been a single mutation that has done anything evolutionarily positive to any form of life.

Answer 11

I don't actually know which theory i subscribe to- and the religion web sites only get in the way of being able to do any actual research about the subject on the internet-



however i have heard of some serious science that does not think that the dna link between humans and monkeys is possible- something worth looking into in the periodical section of the library if this is a subject your interested in



I think we are naive to think we have the great mystery of life all figured out

Answer 12

Obviously, they can't. All they can do is ignore, denigrate, or sidestep those facts and pieces of evidence that are in conflict with their mythical beliefs, and resort to false, deceitful, nonsensical, baseless, fraudulent, dishonest, and unprincipled arguments in their attempts to prove that there is no evidence for evolution.



That is well exemplified by @no1home2day, who has repeatedly used those types of arguments even though I have repeatedly refuted everything he has said.



Well, if he won't accept my arguments, perhaps he will rethink things after seeing what CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about evolution. It is quite relevant in regard to @no1home2day and all of the other creationists here on Yahoo!Answers who say there is no evidence for evolution and that it is a failed theory.



Here is what Professor Wood says (and @no1home2day should pay particular attention to the second paragraph):



"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.



"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)



"Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory."



But, of course, since he is a creationist, he then he goes on to say:



"That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."



http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html



So there you have it. The Bible is the word of god, period, and the facts be damned.



But I would hope that, after reading what Professor Wood said about the evidence for evolution, @no1home2day would stop "pompously" using his false, deceitful, nonsensical, baseless, fraudulent, dishonest, and unprincipled arguments in his attempt to prove that there is no evidence for evolution and that it is a failure as a scientific theory.



But, quite frankly, I doubt he will.



Added:

I won't even go into @voyc4rmwldrns's inarticulate, nonsensical rantings. He should also understand that he has a full keyboard to make use of and does not need to make his nonsense even more incomprehensible by using text shortcuts.



Added:

Sigh!

The creationists here keep repeating the same false, nonsensical tripe they find on lying creationist web sites. For example, some have referred to the Cambrian explosion as evidence against evolution. That is crap!



The fossils in the Cambrian strata, in fact, fit in quite well with the evolutionary process. The Cambrian explosion actually lasted several tens of millions of years, and in Cambrian strata you will find the initial appearance of most of the phyla, but they will be only very primitive species--none of which exist today--belonging to those phyla. You will not find one single amphibian, reptile, dinosaur, bird, mammal, or teleost fish. It was during the Cambrian that hard body structures first came into existence; that is why there are numerous fossils of Cambrian organisms in contrast to fossils of the soft-bodied precursors, but, contrary to the lies you find in creationist web sites, fossils of the precursors have been found.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion



It is also a creationist lie that no transitional fossils have been found.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=229081369&blogId=371847244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1081677.stm

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds_2.htm



And this series in particular.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html



As for the origin of life, all that is needed for the path to life to start is a self-replicating molecule. It doesn't even need to code for anything, and such molecules have even been created in lab by spontaneous processes.



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides



Here is a quote from that site:



"[T]hough researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form."



But now the ribonucleotides have been spontaneously formed in the lab--it was just a matter of finding the correct precursor chemicals. And this is a quote from the scientist involved, again from the site.



“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”



So scientists have shown that ribonucleotides can spontaneously form from precursor chemicals, and also that RNA can spontaneously form from ribonucleotides.



Given what can take place in a lab, what can take place in the whole earth and over millions of years is not hard to conceive. Here are some sites that provide evidence of how life began.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm

http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1693098&blobtype=pdf

Answer 13

Creationists only have their emotional ties to the Bible and lack of understanding of evolution as evidence against.

Answer 14

The evidence is the lack of evidence.

Scientific evidence of evolution is based on a limited knowledge of the world and is based on THEORY, which by defintion is unproven. Science has only proven inter-species adaptation, not actual cross species evolution. There is no scientific evidence of that anywhere. It is all conjecture and theory based on the limited knowledge base of science as it stands today. Furthermore, there is no scientifice evidence which explains the origin of the evolution. the "big bang" theory is not only scientifically implausible, it also voilates the widely accepted scientific principles that matter cannot be created from nothing and that chaos does not create order.



There would be no other evidence of creation except evidence of a Creator. And since a creation is a reflection of the Creator (ie, a painting is the reflection of the work of the artist. We know the artist exists because the painting exists) one ony has to look at all of creation for evidence.

Answer 15

Can we please start with the evidence from evolution? Then we can have a framework from which to start



The nature of scientific theory construction and validation means that in order for an assumption to be true evidence must be provided for its veracity



Therefore, evolutionists must provide the evidence to support their premise before we can counter challenge the evidence

Answer 16

This is REALLY getting old!



I have answered similar questions in the past (if not this exact one). But if you did not believe the previous answers, you will not believe this one, either!



Start with the origin of this dumb theory. Darwin based his theory on misinformation. He actually believed that the cell was the smallest part of the body. He knew absolutely nothing what so ever about the internal structure or contents of the cell. He simply decided one day that extreme external forces could change the function of an "undesignated" cell (as he referred to them). He knew absolutely nothing about mitochondria, proteins, protein synthesis, RNA or DNA. There is no such thing as an "undesignated cell". Each cell is controlled by the DNA!



Furthermore, for evolution to work, you must start with a "simple" life form. There simply is no such thing as a "simple" life form.



Even the single-celled protozoa has EVERY single component that can be found in any cell in your body. LOGICALLY speaking, either YOU are a simple life form on the same level as an amoeba, or the amoeba is NOT a simple life form, since both you AND the amoeba contain the some components on the cellular level!



Third, when scientists have attempted to "simplify" the cell, the cell simply disintegrated.



Here are some findings: The cell wall can not exist without the internal components or it will disintegrate. Each and every internal component of a cell must be contained within a cell wall or it will disintegrate. One can not "develop" prior to any other. They must all suddenly and simultaneously start existing - complete and complex - all at the same moment.



Finally, the skeletal findings that were intended to support a pre-human in prehistoric earth have all been exposed as fraudulent, from the piltdown man, to java, to lucy, and the others. One of them was built up from the tooth of a boar - a WILD PIG! Another was pieced together from bones that were collected over a 100 mile radius! And yet another was "planted" in order to be found later! This kind of "scientific" mumbo jumbo is as phony as a $3.00 bill!



If these great scientific minds had been involved in scientific research, we would all still be living in mud huts or caves, herding goats!



I would like to invite you to join us here in the 21st century, where science is exposing the lies of evolution! Leave your goat-herder, bronze age mythologies, and start THINKING for yourself!

Answer 17

This should be interesting



Edit:- Disappointed, all I have seen so far is the same tired old strawman, arguments from ignorance and false dichotomies.

Answer 18

Nothing is verifiable these days

Answer 19

Is deductive reasoning impeccable? Very well.



Do you think that Charles Darwin coined the term 'evolution?' People knew about evolution long before Charles Darwin came along. What Darwin coined was the theory of natural selection. I have such confidence in natural selection that I am even willing to characterize it as a viable, verifiable scientific fact.



Darwin made some cogent observations. It took him 35 years of work, study, and diligence to finally cull enough material for his book. His text isn't actually even called "On the origin of species." That is a misnomer and a truncation of the true name. It is actually called "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." Did you know that he was devastated by what he concluded about nature? His entire family was very devout and pious.



Think about this critically: but first, I defy you to remain open minded. Do not be dismissive. Do not be myopic. Do not be narrow minded and defensive. Divorce yourself from your emotions. Think objectively and deliberately, as well as critically about this:



how can we know for absolute, incontrovertible, definitive certainty that humans and apes MUST have evolved from a common simian ancestor from noting examples of microevolution in nature? Is there no other possible alternative explanation? Isn't it defeatist to infer that evolution MUST be true, and that there is no other possible explanation?



Darwin's work was predicated upon empirical evidence. Ergo, it is possible that his inferences may have been flawed. Or would you suggest the Messianic version, whereupon Darwin was incapable of error?

Answer 20

They have fossils proving that humans existed with dinosaurs! Oh, wait... No, those were faked. Let's see... Oh yeah, they have proof against evolution because we haven't found the Crocoduck yet. Therefore theirs must be true by default!

Answer 21

A joke book called the bible

Answer 22

Haha this section is a troll fest.

Answer 23

The Holy Living Word/TRUTH!! (John 14:6.) It ALL sums up to 'do you even believe 'you' are a sinner in the first place'?? ("Evilution" is only a Hoax to the masses to keep away From God in the first place!) Since 'animals' are not capable of "sinning', then you just 'think' you are an animal to keep away From Accountability! period! "IT" is all up to the Supernatural and not physical for the 'whole thing' in Progress For God!! <')))><

Answer 24

Well, nobody's come up with anything so far. Tell me, are you as surprised as I am?

Answer 25

last I heard they were relying on the fact that the banana fits perfectly into the human hand :)

Answer 26

Actual facts must b separated from speculation: Actual transition fossils dont exist. Either cells r incredible geniuses or Ev didnt happen but many will do anything 2 keep God out of it. The crux of the problem is many (having limited knowledge) try 2 know what God did by imposing human limitations 4 understanding things 2 God's power/abilities. Only 1 God can occupy infinity & that God is the God of Israel so theres no other legit gods. Its only fully provable b/c Jesus is the true Son of God. Huge holes in Ev also call in2 ? the BB/abiogenesis (laws of probability says there'd hv 2 b a 95-99% failure rate 4 most changes = no Ev). Evidence 4 God/Jesus/Bible:



Just b/c many scientific finds r true it doesnt mean "all" their claims r true (many dont take time & energy 2 carefully think thru things b4 coming out 4 or against it). Many dont take in2 account all it takes 2 create a universe/life (they tend 2 focus on things "seeming" 2 support what they want 2 &/or u 2 believe).



In science we established laws of physics. We can't see laws of physics. Rather, we see the results/interpret/apply them in accordance with whats observed 2 b true by experiments/calculations. Same is true 4 God. Just b/c we can't see God doesn't mean He doesnt exist.



Theres real evidence 4 some micro-adaptation & 4 some appearance of macro-Ev but most is inconclusive @ best, pure conjecture @ worst. Finding the beginning/reason 4 it all is unattainable by scientific method alone (a billions of yrs old cold case). We didnt see it take place.



Things in Creation show an Intelligent Being was involved or the universe/we wouldnt b here (ignoring how it came 2 b). 4 instance:



1. We hv 2 lungs/2 kidneys/2 eyes - each has a near perfect mirror-image companion organ. It cant b explained away. Making a mirror-image organ takes full reverse engineering/knowledge/understanding of its companion's functions & purpose or it cant b created (2 witnesses in nature).



2. Our bodies r highly symmetrical from 1 side 2 the other. Its impossible unless 1 has an outside overview position allowing full knowledge of the entire organism (i.e. feather color patterns).



3. We hv 2 arms/2 legs/2 eyes. Each is perfectly designed/precisely engineered 2 work with its mirror-image companion. An outside position is required 2 fully comprehend the purpose/functions of the organism, 2 create it 2 such perfection.



4. The "being" of a cell is confined 2 within the cell membrane & cant know much beyond itself. A cell is magnitudes more intelligent than all humanity & has amazing powers 2 know all of an organism's functions/purpose or it isnt the "brain" behind Creation 4 many millions of incredibly diverse species. If Ev had a chance of being the source of Creation only 2 or 3 "kinds" of basic bodies with some related species would exist (would take billions of trillions of yrs longer than the universe has existed 2 hv the slightest chance of producing many millions of incredibly diverse species).



5. Many cells of an organism never contact others much beyond its tiny cell. Cells/organisms r just copies of their parents doing about the same things as all ancestors. U wont find a bird who builds a better nest than their parents & their chicks build even a better nest. U wont find a bear improving living conditions passed on 2 his young. Either a cell has 2 lives - 1 copying its parents & 1 secret life working on improvements or some1 of higher intelligence than all mankind created it all.



6. Others point 2 DNA (RNA in the 1rst organisms). But a cell needs DNA 2 function & DNA cant function without a cell. So, we hv a which came 1rst a cell or DNA problem. W/o 1rst having great intelligence/full knowledge/understanding of how an organism is constructed it cant b created. If an ape finds a combination lock he wouldnt know what it was. Even if he turns the dial over & over again he wouldnt know what he was doing & the chances against getting it right is astronomical - especially if it had 150 or more no. 2 find in the right order & even if he got that far he still wouldnt know what a lock is 4.



A cell has little "intelligence" & DNA is way more complex than a combination lock (especially in higher life forms) so the odds against figuring out & using DNA (in the correct sequence) is many magnitudes higher than 4 a lock). RNA/DNA r building blocks common 2 all life - having 98% of other species' DNA doesnt prove Ev. DNA like a computer code (but way more complex) requires great intelligence 2 identify & assign its proper order - its useless unless u understand it. Give a book 2 an ape. Its useless 2 him as he cant learn from whats written - intelligence is required.



7. In the fossil record we dont find millions of trial & error organisms that should exist if natural selection or fittest survivor is the source of Creation (no organisms existed b4). The odds r so great against near perfection happening 4 many millions of greatly diverse species, it couldnt take place unless 1 had full knowledge/understanding of what theyre doing B4 millions of organisms could b created 2 such precision. If not true millions of misfit organisms with mistakes, having only 1 or 3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head or where an arm should b or a fin where a leg should b should exist. Millions more misfit fossils should exist than of the perfection found in nature.



8. U won't find species like a horse mating a goat, a frog mating fish, a rabbit mating a dog, a lizard mating a bird, a cow mating a hog, etc. Species with similar genes/characteristics rarely mate in the wild. Only a few succeed @ bearing young. Its very rare that a wild crossbreed/hybrid reaches maturity or can bear over 1 litter (usually that litter cant produce or has complications that kills off the crossbreed). Only human intervention brings more success but even that has lead 2 some bad results.



9. Ev processes being "the" source of Creation is like having a blind man build a car he's never heard of, seen, touched, heard or rode in. It cant b done without 1rst teaching him about the functions/necessary parts & how 2 put it 2gether 4 the car 2 function.



10. Look @ the huge amount of intelligence/knowledge/understanding/time & energy used 2 create & improve an airplane's capabilities (& many mistakes). If ppl didnt fully learn what 2 do we'd still b earthbound.



11. Creation is astronomically more complex than an airplane. The more complex an organism, the greater the amount of intelligence/knowledge/understanding needed 2 create it. It can only b done by an Intelligent Designer who already fully understands what He's doing - the sheer complexity of man is evidence of God (airplanes show we're created in God's image - God had 2 b the source of all Creation or it couldnt exist let alone evolve).



12. An incredibly Intelligent Being, capable of building a universe, knows the environment His earthly organisms r 2 occupy. So, He built in adaptability so His organisms could survive various environments.



13. Earth happens 2 b in the best possible orbit 2 support life. It has the right amount of gravity, the right axis & rotation speed, the right atmosphere (& ozone layer/Van Allen belt/magnetic field) & needed amount of water. The moon's the right size & in the right orbit 2 provide tidal cycles needed by organisms. Just 1 or 2 relatively small variants in our orbit/environment & most likely life would b very different & higher forms of life wouldve died off in a relatively short time, if they couldve survived.

---

Problem is theres many religions, built on what man wants God 2 b like. I realized they cant all b right (Theres 1 Bible - why so many interpretations? II Pet 1:**19-21). Religion wont teach u much about God (they cant teach what they don't know) but God knows what He's doing. Who knows more about a house, the Builder or those moving in later?



Many miss this: Jesus is the only 1 in history who stated He's "the" way, "the" truth & "the" life & no 1 gets 2 God w/o Him (Jn 14:6; 5:39; 10:1,7; Acts 4:12) & is the only 1 who came from God. Its fully true or theres no truth & cant b any God (He knows what He's doing or He's not God). Either Jesus told the whole truth or He's a false prophet, among many, who should b disregarded.



Since Jesus is the only way 2 know God, "the" whole truth was complete & finished thru Jesus. So any claimed new or other religious beliefs or from self-proclaimed prophets/ teachers r invalid & wont lead u 2 God. God always knew all Jesus was 2 do.



Jesus couldnt hv done nor said whats written in the NT unless He fully knew the entire OT (NT didnt exist while Jesus was on earth). Jesus couldnt hv known the entire OT unless God was with Him. The Apostles couldnt write the NT unless Jesus allowed them 2 remember & know why He was here (Lk 24:25-27,45) - Only God could cause it.



Whoever seeks Jesus Christ with all his heart & soul will find God & His Kingdom (u shall know the truth & it'll set u free). U can lead a horse 2 water but u cant make it drink. Why should God want u 2 live with Him 4ever if u dont want 2 know Him His way (reason 4 free will - Jn 1:12-13)? The truth of God remains 4ever unchanged while things of a man dies with him, including his religions/gods made in his image.



God hates us b/c of our sins - neither being a good person as judged by men or religion can save u. But God also loves us dearly enough 2 send His Son 2 die for our sins - so that thru Jesus our sins could b 4given if we sincerely turn 2 Him - Theres eternal hope only in Jesus & His Bible.



voyc4rmwldrns

Answer 27

They have none.

Answer 28

I have proof that there is faith. TADA!

Answer 29

I suggest you learn about the burden of proof.

Answer 30

Bible!

Answer 31

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE THE TOILETS ARE??

Answer 32

GOD DID IT BECAUSE IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE AND GOD WROTE THE BIBLE!!!!!

Answer 33

The Bible for it is the word of god and beyond contestation.



who are YOU to question GOD?