For whatever help it might be, here is something I have shared many times on the net:
-Below are some Qs for you to answer which require only logic and science. There is no reference to Deity or the Bible since evolution stands or falls based on science and logic alone. When you see that you cannot answer the Qs - and no evo. devotees ever answer them, only change the subject, make excuses and dodge, evade, ignore them - be honest with yourself and notice that your...faith....in evolution is not really founded on understanding of the scientific issues.
Before looking at the Qs you might want to Google Quotes Showing The Credulity of Evolutionists to see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other scientists, including evolutionists (!) admitting there is no...evidence... for evolution! If they don't buy it, why should you?
Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates. I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it.
Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc. Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all. We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc.
Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it. Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science.
Kindly don't say, "Change is evolution." It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep changing and changing. And they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution! Therefore kindly paste no links showing how eboli virus, and snow flake yeast etc. have changed - sometimes in intelligently designed (!) high tech labs, or whatever, wherever
Kindly send nothing about how bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. Notice that all the eboli viruses, snow flake yeast and bacteria are still just eboli viruses, snow flake yeast and bacteria. Again, the real evidence is there alright and it is showing change is not leading to evolution at all. Back to Dawkins, he teaches that time, space, matter and energy and you,. everything, comes from....nothing. Rotfl! What kind of "science" is that? Don't the laws of physics, doesn't common sense, show that nothing comes from nothing? In fact, they show us that an effect can never be greater than its cause.
Qs, # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evoltuion. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless species, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds. Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurence of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states. In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention.
To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc. (Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not, for ex., one case example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles but into anything but fish.)
Find me a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.) Tell me where science has ever observed any such things happening with DNA. It is all very well to say "Well, it all happened so long ago...." What evidence is there in that? How do you tell a missing link from a nonexistent link?
Qs, # 3 We are told that mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. They are generally neutral or harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?Fish don't have DNA for feet. To change a fin into a foot you need new. foot, DNA. Explain how mutations could create DNA. Give evidence for where that has ever been seen to happen. In fact, explain how DNA came about period by any mechanism. Please don't tell me that the sickle cell anemia mutation is leading to evolution, as some evolutionists have claimed. No, it just replaces one horrible disease for another through bent blood cells. How is that going to make the hapless victims more likely to produce healthy, viable, offspring? How do bent blood cells have the capacity to turn the victims some day into uber people, climbing up Darwin's Tree?
Do your research in peer reviewed evolutionary literature and when you do check for theoretcal, faith, words like "Probably....must have...likely....we can infer...it appears that...similar homology [Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy which undergirds all of evolutionary theory]....millions of years ago [stated as Gawd's truth scientific fact though such happenings in those periods of "time" are untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable....ev-i-dence-less.]..." etc. I promise you, you will always find those kinds of "faith factor" words, usually in the first paragraph. And I promise you that speculations piled on logical fallacies piled on presumptions mixed in with sophistry will almost always be counted as "evidence" in the peer reviews.
Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Ida, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale? How do you know a "transition", like Tiktaalilk and all the others, isn't just what it looks like - what the only evidence shows - a dead end, extinct, life form? And btw look at modern day lobe finned fish that are virtually the same as Tik.
Research the history of how they told you another lobefinned fish, Coelacanath, WAS a transition. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause , etc. and Presuming Omniscience magic crystal ball that sees into the past to tell people that. Tons of peer reviews said the presumed to be extinct Coelacanth was turning into a reptile. Then they found some live ones. You can see the pretty blue...fish period...swimming on Youtube.
There are countless billions of fossils out there but that's an example of the best they can do to prove there ae transitional forms. Please don't say "walking catfish". They are 100% fish with 100% fins used in a novel way, similar to "flying fish" which no way are turning into birds. Fish and dolphins, etc. have astronomically more "characteristics of" and "similar homology" features than amabulocetus and a whale. Ditto Tiktaalik and a tetrapod. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Cockatoos and people dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy.
The only matching "characteristics of" ambulocetus is a minor similarity in the inner ear to that of a whale and eyes that are elevated on the skull somewhat above the average. Based on that we're supposed to believe ambulocetus turned into a great whale? Again Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fallacy,not scientific evidence. To use it as evidence is illogical, therefore antiscience.
Oh, and before you say "Geologic Column" that is a mythical construct developed by a 19th century lawyer named Charles Lyell. He never saw one and no one else has either. Sites like Talk Spin, aka Talk Origins, claim they found part of one on this entire planet. What does the fossil record really show?
Fossils are jumbled. There are so called Cambrian and PreCambrian seashells, mollusks, etc. littering the tops of most mountains. Dino bones from the so called lower level Jurassic area stick out of mountain ranges in the northwestern states. Where I grew up, in a midwestern state, you can find extinct, ocean floor trylobytes in the hills. If you want more documentation I can give you quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting that the dating of the rocks is "very subjective" and that people try to match their dates to presumed Darwinian expectations.
Come out of the matrix. You are not just a modified ape who sprang from a totally fictional, made up, evidence-free primal pond. (And don't say abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. You think some creationist made up the made up primal pond?) Find out who you really are and why you are here.
=================================================================
Good for you that you came out of the pseudo science of evolution. Happened to me too. I have also experienced the attacks on creation science by people on a Christian forum who are not Christian, usually, but just want to attack Christianity.
They never answer the Qs above. Sometimes they seem to think they are answering the Qs until the Qs are repeated and they are shown that they are simply giving faith bytes, cut and paste, that no way address the Qs with data based answers. The truth is our school systems have not taught them critical thinking so they think that speculation can be presented as facts. Also they have almost never even heard of logical fallacies, which evolution is solidly built upon.
They never admit they can't answer the Qs, though, just do a lot of bluff and bluster which doesn't really fool anyone. They show a very weak grasp not only on how real science works, but even of what evolution is saying. I always pray for them because if the truth could get through to me - and it did - of course it can get through to them sooner or later. If and when they are ever ready for the truth.
In response to your original Q, well there are scientists from every origins related field coming out against evolution. The quotes I referenced show no way is evolutionary theory universally accepted, also. But I do not think mainstream "science" or academia will ever embrace creation science but will continue to fight it tooth and nail for people are generally worldly and don't like the idea of Someone besides themselves being in charge of anything...and everything.
Further, the Bible prophesies how it's gonna be:
2 Peter
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
