Common christian arguments against evolution

[BornAgainAtheist]

Wondering if any of you could point out some common arguments that christians use against evolution. We just talked about the fossil gap, and where are all theses fossils, but does anyone know of any other common arguments against it? Just looking for some discussion material for my friends and I.

P.S. Does anyone know of any sites that explain the fossil gap and who maybe some good evolutionary evidence. Or some good books?
Thanks.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Wondering if any of you could point out some common arguments that christians use against evolution. We just talked about the fossil gap, and where are all theses fossils, but does anyone know of any other common arguments against it? Just looking for some discussion material for my friends and I.

P.S. Does anyone know of any sites that explain the fossil gap and who maybe some good evolutionary evidence. Or some good books?
Thanks.

My favorite fossil books:
Bones of Contention,by Marvin L.Lubenow
Stones and Bones,by Carl Wieland.
..............................................................
For the cosmos i totally recommend:Starlight and time, by D.Russell Humpherys.
.............................................................................................
"The answers book",by Ken Ham/Jonathan Sarfati/CarlWieland is another interesting book you might want to check out.

 

[Arikay]

(All (I believe) creationists that dont seem to publish their works in normal scientific peer review circles beyond their own creationist review group.)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Most arguments against evolution seem to stem from personal incredulity coupled with misunderstandings and misconceptions of what evolutionary theory actually is.

While creationists will admit to organisms varying slightly from generation to generation, a lot seem unable to grasp the concept that these small changes are cumulative and will result in large scale changes over time. Most, however, ignore the cumulative effect of change, instead believing that evolution is some kind of all-or-nothing event where cats are giving birth to dogs and so forth.

Other creationists have trouble with grasping concepts like natural selection, believing that since the end results seem so perfectly tuned for their environment, the process must have been guided by intelligence.

Once you can diffuse strawman versions of evolution and rebuff arguments from incredulity, you'll have a leg up on most creationists you encounter.

 

[wblastyn]

I think you mean creationists, not Christians. We aren't all against evolution.

 

[worship4ever]

I find it funny that if anyone finds flaws in evolution they are deemed "christians" or "religious nuts." There are plently of well known, well respected scientists who find flaws in evolution and have no afflication with any religious organizations. Read "Darwin's Black Box," this book is about a million pages long but describes the biochemical difficaulty with evolution. Also "The Human Question" a non-religion book about random peoples view of the evolution/creation debate and some good points and bad points in evolution. I've noticed books by James Perloff are pretty good as well in reguards to this subject. I've got tons more, but i really dont feel like digging them out, but if you want the names i could.

 

[Cantuar]

Well, in line with my recommendation of books by Ian Tattersall on human evolution, look out for books by Richard Fortey on fossils:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-6707596-7641441

 

[Cantuar]

There are plently of well known, well respected scientists who find flaws in evolution and have no afflication with any religious organizations. Read "Darwin's Black Box," this book is about a million pages long but describes the biochemical difficaulty with evolution.

You surely aren't claiming that the author of Darwin's Black Box has no religious affiliation, I hope. We weren't born yesterday, you know. People who understand science and have problems with the overall theory of evolution are having those problems for religious reasons, not scientific ones, however much they dress it up in scientific language.

 

[worship4ever]

Pete, are you even in the science field or do you just base your opinions off the people responding on this webpage. Most all these so called creationist have been to college too and recieved the same info on evolution, natural selection, mutation, ect.
See, i believe Darwin was an AWESOME scientist, why, b.c he found faults in his own theory. He came up with a theory that was pretty good based on the knowledge that He and science knew at the time. I love reading qoutes from Darwin b.c though i believe he believes in his theory he was humble enough to say, this doesnt quite work out, or hopefully later on in science this will prove my theory. The theory itself was good at the time but science has exploded and new info is introduced everyday in ever field of science. Darwin was a great thinker and a great scientist but i dont think he excepted his theory to explode the way it did. One of my greatest qoutes from Darwin was "If it could be found that an organ could not have possibly evolved thur slight, successive modifications my theory would break down" I love this qoute b.c it shows Darwin being humble, though he thought he had a good theory he knew there was much science didnt know. And yet today, there are millions of organs and organisms that could not have evolved thur slight, successive modifications.

 

[worship4ever]

Cantuar "You surely aren't claiming that the author of Darwin's Black Box has no religious affiliation, I hope. We weren't born yesterday, you know. People who understand science and have problems with the overall theory of evolution are having those problems for religious reasons, not scientific ones, however much they dress it up in scientific language"
Boy, i hope your joking b.c if your not your just kidding yourself. I love your, "they dress it up with scientific language" lol, how else are they going to talk.

 

[notto]

I find it funny that if anyone finds flaws in evolution they are deemed "christians" or "religious nuts." There are plently of well known, well respected scientists who find flaws in evolution and have no afflication with any religious organizations.

Findng flaws within a evolution as a scientific theory is one thing. That is how science works. The theory has been and continues to be strengthened since Darwins time due to this process (peer review and revision).

Can you find any well respected scientists in the field of biology who REJECT evolution, not just think their are flaws with a small part of it? Do they do this because of their religious affilliation?

There are flaws and holes in ANY scientific theory. New knowledge helps us correct and understand this. Finding a flaw in a small part of evolution of finding scientists who conflict on specific small parts of evolutionary theory does not falsify it. Evolution remains to be unfalsified and its general principals are as sound as any in science.

 

[worship4ever]

I'm very proud of Barnes and Nobles. For every book they have on evolution they have one for the creation/evolution debate. I'm not saying all the books of evolution should be burned, just that the arguments of the flaws should be considered as well, and if you call that creationism, then do so. I again, i find it funny that everyone who challeges evolution because of its obvious flaws is condsidered a religion nuttcase, lol, that cracks me up.

 

[notto]

And yet today, there are millions of organs and organisms that could not have evolved thur slight, successive modifications.

Name 3 and show how they couldn't have evoloved. Remember, you have to show that they could not evolve, not that we don't know how they could have evolved. There is a significant difference.

This shows the main flaw with ID as a scientific model.

 

[worship4ever]

Just at the basic level notto, evolution is random and has no purpose. Science doesnt work that way. The laws of science are eternal, they'll never change. I'm not scared of waking up tomorrow to know im floating around b.c the science of gravity has changed. I'm not worried about everything falling apart b.c electrons all of a sudden lost its pull on the atom. Science is perfect and never-changing, though mans idea of science is ever changing. The basic thought of evolution even goes against this principle at the lowest level as being something random and with purpose.

 

[notto]

I'm very proud of Barnes and Nobles. For every book they have on evolution they have one for the creation/evolution debate. I'm not saying all the books of evolution should be burned, just that the arguments of the flaws should be considered as well, and if you call that creationism, then do so. I again, i find it funny that everyone who challeges evolution because of its obvious flaws is condsidered a religion nuttcase, lol, that cracks me up.

I don't see anyone saying that. It just so happens that anyone who REJECTS evolutionary theory seems to be doing it for religious reasons. Can you show someone who doesn't? Again, rejection is different than criticism of small part of evolution. Can you find a scientist who does not agree that the diversity of life on this planet came about by evolution? There are discrepencies within science on HOW evolution specifically occured, not that it DID occur.

(Ok, maybe Ed Conrad, but he is just a nut)

 

[MartinM]

i find it funny that everyone who challeges evolution because of its obvious flaws is condsidered a religion nuttcase, lol, that cracks me up

Then show us the atheists who reject evolution.

 

[notto]

Just at the basic level notto, evolution is random and has no purpose. Science doesnt work that way. The laws of science are eternal, they'll never change. I'm not scared of waking up tomorrow to know im floating around b.c the science of gravity has changed. I'm not worried about everything falling apart b.c electrons all of a sudden lost its pull on the atom. Science is perfect and never-changing, though mans idea of science is ever changing. The basic thought of evolution even goes against this principle at the lowest level as being something random and with purpose.

You have already been shown that evolution is not random and it certainly has a purpose. Survival of a species would seem to be a purpose, don't you think? Natural selection is not random (that is why it is called SELECTION). Evolution is therefore not random. Why do you repeat these false statements?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Pete, are you even in the science field or do you just base your opinions off the people responding on this webpage. Most all these so called creationist have been to college too and recieved the same info on evolution, natural selection, mutation, ect.

I was referring to the average creationist laymen who typically argue in venues such as these forums. A lot of the time they don't seem to have a proper grasp on what the theory of evolution actually is.

 

[worship4ever]

Notto, mutations are random, the very thing that runs natural selection and survival of the species. Natural selection is saying, yea, this mutation sucks, your dead, wow, how does that have ANYTHING to do with anything. There are plently of harmful mutations, they die, good for them. A possitive mutation comes along, great, but still its altering the DNA, but lengthing the DNA or changing the DNA itself. A mutation isnt going to make a new fully formed organ like a heart, an eye, a wing, a gill. And if it does change slowly overtime, this NS would have gotten rid of it due to its hiderance on the speices for being no benefitical asset to the organism. I'm typing your request of 3 organs that could not have elvoled, just a few.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Notto, mutations are random, the very thing that runs natural selection and survival of the species. Natural selection is saying, yea, this mutation sucks, your dead, wow, how does that have ANYTHING to do with anything. There are plently of harmful mutations, they die, good for them. A possitive mutation comes along, great, but still its altering the DNA, but lengthing the DNA or changing the DNA itself. A mutation isnt going to make a new fully formed organ like a heart, an eye, a wing, a gill. And if it does change slowly overtime, this NS would have gotten rid of it due to its hiderance on the speices for being no benefitical asset to the organism. I'm typing your request of 3 organs that could not have elvoled, just a few.

You're ignoring the basic goal of survival in your caricature of natural selection. You're also making a blind assumption about the effects of mutations, in assuming that natural selection would automatically eliminate mutations with no immediate beneficial purpose.

edited to add: It's also worth mentioning that natural selection works based on an organisms enivornment. Which is why natural selection produces organic designs which are geared to survive in their particular environment.