Evidences *Against* Evolution

[D2_Supreme]

Evidences AGAINST Evolution.


Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

 

[michabo]

You should know that a single observation is sufficient to disprove evolution. Just looking at your list, I doubt that you really understand evolution at all and are just regurgitating someone else's argument. Are you sure that you understand what you are saying? Can you defend them? Perhaps you should pick one at a time.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

Although I post more on other forums......
........
........
........
It's the 1.042nd attempt by someone who knows nothing of evolution, to make his first post as the saviour of creationism.

Several evidences are assumptions.
Several evidences show lack of knowledge.

Let's do it one at a time:

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

What is a transitional link in your view? Before we show these, we would like to know what you think these are. Otherwise there's no point showing them again and you stating that these are not transitionals.
Lucy

 

[JackieChan]

^^;

So... okay...

scientist search for answer for why human are here...

you say me; GOD DID IT... because Natural Selection wrong...???

okay, so... GOD created EARTH in beginning? that is what u are saying, because u say natural selection wrong.

if god created earth in beginning, then as Bible say, earth is 6000 year old. but scientist say earth is more than 6000 year old. so you think science evil?

you are insane... fundie-nutbar as they describe you

 

[michabo]

you are insane... fundie-nutbar as they describe you

To be fair, he has only pointed out some perceived problems with evolution. They are probably pulled from some YEC site, considering the ridiculous claim about flood geology, but so far he hasn't done much which is fundy-rific. It's his first post, maybe we can cut him some slack.

Of course, I am sceptical whether he'll return for a second post, but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

 

[Norseman]

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Do you even know what a transitional fossil is?

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Yep. Natural selection only removes genetic data, it doesn't generate new genetic data. That's what mutations do, among other things. How is this an evidence against evolution?

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life...

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the orgin of life. That's abiogenesis. The title was Origin of Species, not Origin of Life. Saying all evolutionists believe life resulted from non-life is like saying that all compounds with iron in them are steel.

Although evolutionists state that...matter resulted from nothing...

Nowhere in evolutionary theory does it state that matter resulted from nothing. Nowhere in any field of science does it state that matter resulted from nothing.

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life...humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

If you can't prove/evidence it's impossible for humans to evolve from animals, how is that an evidence against evolutionary theory? If you can't prove/evidence it's impossible to produce microorganisms from unliving material, how is that an evidence against evolutionary theory? Proof/evidence, oh wise one.

Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

In your biased opinion, that may be.

Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

Proof/evidence. 'Nuff said.

Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Isn't this just a continuation of #5?

Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

For example?

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

For example?

Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Proof/evidence? Examples?



Well, that was very uninteresting. Come on man, at least bring something new that hasn't already been extensively refuted, else you're just being a PRATT.

 

[brightlights]

^^;

So... okay...

scientist search for answer for why human are here...

you say me; GOD DID IT... because Natural Selection wrong...???

okay, so... GOD created EARTH in beginning? that is what u are saying, because u say natural selection wrong.

if god created earth in beginning, then as Bible say, earth is 6000 year old. but scientist say earth is more than 6000 year old. so you think science evil?

you are insane... fundie-nutbar as they describe you

jackie, there is of course nothing in the bible that indicates that the earth is 6000 years old. the 7 day creation is mearly 7 stages of creation...it by no means represents 7 days as humans know a day to be, there simply is a different concept of time here.

 

[michabo]

jackie, there is of course nothing in the bible that indicates that the earth is 6000 years old.

This arose because the geneologies ("begats") of all of the characters before Jesus add up to roughly 4,000 years. So 2,000 years to Jesus plus 4,000 years to Adam, and voila, a 6,000 year old earth.

 

[brightlights]

This arose because the geneologies ("begats") of all of the characters before Jesus add up to roughly 4,000 years. So 2,000 years to Jesus plus 4,000 years to Adam, and voila, a 6,000 year old earth.

yes, that is why it was theorized, but was certainly was not around since the beginning of time...we see this in modern archaeology. the "seven day" creation period could have been any length of time...honestly we have no idea, it is just percieved as seven stages of creation as we know it...the earth is certainly older than 6000, so the theory is incorrect in that it only looks at human occupation of the earth. we must understand that the 7 day period can really represent any length of time.

 

[brightlights]

man*** was certainly not around since the beginning of time

 

[TommyS]

God's peace to all,

If you can't prove/evidence it's impossible for humans to evolve from animals, how is that an evidence against evolutionary theory? If you can't prove/evidence it's impossible to produce microorganisms from unliving material, how is that an evidence against evolutionary theory? Proof/evidence, oh wise one.

Why is it that scientists have been working on the Evolutionary Theory for so long, trying to get people to believe it, and yet it is still called a "theory"? Lack of proof/evidence weakens the aetheist/evolutionist argument just as much for the ones who refute their argument.

Many people think it is ridiculous to believe in a God. For the majority, it is because of lack of evidence. People find it ridiculous to believe in something that has not been proved (though I believe it has), and yet many of these people are doing the same thing. Many believe in a theory, something that hasn't been proved either. So how can one look down on a religion because it "has no proof", when one believes in something that has no proof either.

So faith in a God is unrealistic, but faith in a theory isn't?

Please know that I am not trying to affend any of the aetheists on this forum. Like I said in the beginning; God's peace to all. And I still pray that for you. I am only trying to let you look at this in a way that perhaps you haven't looked at it before. That your faith is just as "unproofed" as ours.

But D2_Supreme, stay strong. For I have also heard many of your claims before. And if I can find the evidence to support that, then I will provide it for you guys. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[michabo]

Why is it that scientists have been working on the Evolutionary Theory for so long, trying to get people to believe it, and yet it is still called a "theory"?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Arikay]

Why do scientists keep working on germ theory [1], but after over 100 years its still "just a theory." Same goes for cell theory [2], we spend millions of dollars trying to cure cancer, when what it infects is "just a theory."

A scientific theory is not a guess, nor is it atheistic (nor is evolution atheistic). As Michabo said, I don't think theory means what you think it means.

Why is it that no evidence was actually presented in the OP? Just a bunch of unbacked up statements. I can do that about anything, Ill go make a thread about the Moon landing being false now. There are tons of unbacked up claims about that I can find on the iNet.

1. Germ theory is the scientific theory that many diseases are caused by micro-organisms that grow by reproduction. And it is still just theory.

2. Cell theory is the scientific theory that organism are composed of cells, these cells contain hereditary information and provide vital functions for the organism.

 

[Sopharos]

God's peace to all,

Why is it that scientists have been working on the Evolutionary Theory for so long, trying to get people to believe it, and yet it is still called a "theory"? Lack of proof/evidence weakens the aetheist/evolutionist argument just as much for the ones who refute their argument.

Not a "theory" in the common sense, but a "theory" in the scientific sense. Evolution is both a theory and a fact:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Many people think it is ridiculous to believe in a God.

Not that many.

For the majority, it is because of lack of evidence. People find it ridiculous to believe in something that has not been proved (though I believe it has), and yet many of these people are doing the same thing. Many believe in a theory, something that hasn't been proved either. So how can one look down on a religion because it "has no proof", when one believes in something that has no proof either.

Evolution has plenty of evidence in its support.

So faith in a God is unrealistic, but faith in a theory isn't?

Faith has nothing to do with science. You read the theory, you take the evidence into consideration, and you either accept or reject it. I accpet evolution.

Please know that I am not trying to affend any of the aetheists on this forum. Like I said in the beginning; God's peace to all. And I still pray that for you. I am only trying to let you look at this in a way that perhaps you haven't looked at it before. That your faith is just as "unproofed" as ours.

Evolution =/= Atheism.

If indeed, I was to use Evolution as a foundation stone for an atheistic belief, I would have to thank quite a number of Christians for it: Darwin was a Christian at the time of writing Origins, Mendel was a monk who contributed a foundation for the modern hereditory model, which became an essential component in Evolution, and I've just recently found out that the man responsible for the article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" is himself a Christian.

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

But D2_Supreme, stay strong. For I have also heard many of your claims before. And if I can find the evidence to support that, then I will provide it for you guys. God bless.

-Tommy

Good luck. Honestly.

 

[Achilles_]

Oh no...

Another "science is evil" thread.

Okay, so you've disproved a very good theory in a thread full of spelling and grammar mistakes. What is the alternative? God made the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh? He raised two human beings called Adam and Eve, and Adam ate an apple from a tree and doomed all of mankind? Quadrillions and Quadrillions of organisms to walk the face of the Earth; all doomed. And now God has to send His own Son down to clean up our mess, right? And all who lived before His Son probably went to Hell. But it doesn't matter because Jesus unlocked the gates of Hell once He resurrected. Yes. That's what happened. So now aren't all of our problems solved because Jesus came? If God takes six days to make the Earth and rests on the seventh, I wonder how long He rested after creating that mass ball of energy at the time of the Big Bang. So... what's your explanation? Evolution is wrong, Satan planted the bones... Okay... hmmm... how about this: Open your eyes and face reality! Stop believing in childish stories about Jesus suffering for our sins.

 

[Achilles_]

I'm also looking at some of your points in the original post; you've got it so wrong it's painful to read.

 

[Dexx]

You guys are hammering the original poster a bit hard. I thought his first 6 points werent unreasonable. There have been many debunked hominids. And there are many transitional fossils which have not been found. Eg a true dinosaur with proto feathers. However his comments about natural selection are wrong. Natural selection is a proven fact. And as for the genesis flood - there are many geological evidences that make it highly unlikely to have occured.

 

[USincognito]

You guys are hammering the original poster a bit hard. I thought his first 6 points werent unreasonable. There have been many debunked hominids. And there are many transitional fossils which have not been found. Eg a true dinosaur with proto feathers. However his comments about natural selection are wrong. Natural selection is a proven fact. And as for the genesis flood - there are many geological evidences that make it highly unlikely to have occured.

Actually the record of transitionals isn't all that sparse. And the only two hominids that were false were Nebraska, which was an overstatement by a newspaper and not a claimed scientific discovery, and Piltdown which was a hoax and was uncovered to be one by paleontologists.

 

[Jet Black]

You guys are hammering the original poster a bit hard. I thought his first 6 points werent unreasonable. There have been many debunked hominids.

ignoring nebraska and piltdown man, which homonids have been debunked?

And there are many transitional fossils which have not been found. Eg a true dinosaur with proto feathers.

you mean like Sinosauropteryx prima or maybe Beipiaosaurus inexpectus or how about Sinornithosaurus millennii? perhaps you are defining proto-feathers differently to everyone else.

 

[pureone]

You guys are hammering the original poster a bit hard. I thought his first 6 points werent unreasonable.

then you need to learn more.

There have been many debunked hominids.

which ones/ the ones that creationists planted to try to fool evolutionists. And guess who de-bunked their bunk? Evolutionists.

And there are many transitional fossils which have not been found. Eg a true dinosaur with proto feathers.

then it wouldn't be completely a dinosaur. I don't think you know what transition species are. A true transition can be a little of this and a lot of that or a lot of this and a little of that. or a perfect balance.

However his comments about natural selection are wrong. Natural selection is a proven fact.

yes.

And as for the genesis flood - there are many geological evidences that make it highly unlikely to have occured.

yes