Evidences *Against* Evolution

[Physics_guy]

Again, I predict a post and run on this one.

 

[USincognito]

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

Which hominid fossils were planted by creationists to fool evolutionists? The only planting of fossils I'm aware of was Piltdown, planted by evolutionists for evolutionists and the New Mexico Skeptics April Fools Day prank.

 

[Matt04]

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.

then you need to learn more.

Instead of walking into every creation/evolution thread and telling everyone that disagrees with you that they need to learn more, perhaps you could counter with a real argument. Perhaps the arthur of this thread didn't do much better than you by posting then running, but for crying out loud be the better man.

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.

Way to show just as much narrowmindedness as extreme creationists. Excellent job!

To be fair, he has only pointed out some perceived problems with evolution. They are probably pulled from some YEC site, ...

And this is much better than when you evolutionists tell creationists to go read a book?



As I've stated in other threads, I'm undecided on what I believe at the moment. All I know is I don't want to be nearly as arrogant and narrowminded as more than half the people I see arguing the subject are. There's a fine line between defending your beliefs and criticizing others for what they believe, which is what a lot of you people sit around here and do. Do you really think it serves any purpose at all?

 

[Data]

"Instead of walking into every creation/evolution thread and telling everyone that disagrees with you that they need to learn more, perhaps you could counter with a real argument."

In order to counter with a real argument we need a real argument to counter.

 

[aeroz19]

There's a fine line between defending your beliefs and criticizing others for what they believe, which is what a lot of you people sit around here and do. Do you really think it serves any purpose at all?

Have some reps.

At first I came here to debate; within a week I came to learn.

 

[Matt04]

Lol, very true. I've been to forum sites before and have tried to get some real answers out of people, but it never happens. It's always 'go learn you idiot!' or it just turns into a debate like this one; never gets anywheres. But I try...

 

[pureone]

Ok. Fine. I'll tear it apart then.

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.

there are plenty of intermediate forms: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) and Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum) are just two of current living forms. you can look up transitions any time

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

What is higher order? this is a creationist term because the place MAN at the top. That is one way of falsely defining higher order. If this is an argument of organisms cannot become more complex or evolve because of no" new information, i would say that instances of speciation have occoured because of loss. funny, In another thread JB brought up the crippled vit- c gene. it's there, yet not used in humans. a loss as we evolved.

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.

evolutionists don't state this. chemists do. it is not a part of evolutionary theory. bet ya 5 lira.

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.

Creationists cannot decide if some of the early hominoids are ape or human. evolutionists have catagorized them neatly:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

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

see above

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.

see above or give references to us to contest above.

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

evolution is a scientific fact, not having anything to do with social or practical situations.

[quoteEvidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

name them. give references.

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

Is that why no dino fossils are found with human fossils, which should be the case according to creationism?

 

[pureone]

Again, I predict a post and run on this one.

Right you are. You must be psycho.

 

[USincognito]

As I've stated in other threads, I'm undecided on what I believe at the moment. All I know is I don't want to be nearly as arrogant and narrowminded as more than half the people I see arguing the subject are. There's a fine line between defending your beliefs and criticizing others for what they believe, which is what a lot of you people sit around here and do. Do you really think it serves any purpose at all?

There are plenty of people here willing to take the time to discuss issues for page after page. Look at the "Challenging Evolution" thread. 90 pages and counting.

Just because we get some posters who fly in, post a PRATT list and fly away without the slightest bit of interaction and they don't get taken seriously, it doesn't mean that the majority of people who support evolution here won't spend as much time as it takes to have your questions answered to your satisfaction.

And yes, there is a purpose to criticizing someones cliams (note, not beliefs) when those claims have no basis in reality. Maybe at the very least the other person will stop and evaluate their claims or try and understand why they're untennable.

I'll admit though, having 10 people jump on a non-sense post with derision is not the way to foster a learning environment, but most of the people who jump on fly by posts are dismissive, not derisive.

 

[Sanguine]

universal flood

This thing just keeps getting bigger!

 

[Logic]

the 14 billion year multiversal flood is comming pretty soon.

 

[Ryal Kane]

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

Inconceivable!

Ryal Kane

 

[aeroz19]

Lol, very true. I've been to forum sites before and have tried to get some real answers out of people, but it never happens. It's always 'go learn you idiot!' or it just turns into a debate like this one; never gets anywheres. But I try...

Right after you said this, I looked down one post and saw:

Ok. Fine. I'll tear it apart then.

LOL!!!!

no offense to pureone; the post did seem to have real answers in it; I'm just pointing put how it appears at first

 

[Jet Black]

Instead of walking into every creation/evolution thread and telling everyone that disagrees with you that they need to learn more, perhaps you could counter with a real argument. Perhaps the arthur of this thread didn't do much better than you by posting then running, but for crying out loud be the better man.

I agree but gosh, it's really hard work when dealing with these pratt lists. I should do what lucaspa does and have huge files in which I store all my info, then as soon as we see these things, ctrl-c ctrl-v, but I don't really like that, I prefer to actually talk about things more.

 

[Nathan David]

Instead of walking into every creation/evolution thread and telling everyone that disagrees with you that they need to learn more, perhaps you could counter with a real argument.

It's hard to gather the patience to post a real argument in response to a post full of nothing but lies.

 

[USincognito]

It's hard to gather the patience to post a real argument in response to a post full of nothing but lies.

Come on ND. Matt's clearly interested in hearing what evolution has to present. He's not an intransigent like we get around here so I'm asking you.. and others to be a bit more discerning about dismissive replies, and read what the Creationists have written in toto before just giving them such a reply.

I agree with you completely, but we need to summon the intellectual fortitude to separate the wheat from the chaff of where we should invest our argumentative capital in this debate. Matt might reject everything completely, but he at least appears ready to read some.

 

[Nathan David]

Come on ND. Matt's clearly interested in hearing what evolution has to present.

Oh I agree. When I said a post full of lies I was referring to D2_Supreme's post that started this thread.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evidences AGAINST Evolution.

PRATT list in 5...4...3...2...1...

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.

Absolutely false.

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

Irrelevent, since there's no such thing as 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.

This is abiogenesis, not evolution, and a strawman of abiogenesis at that.

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.

Assuming you have examples, can you share them?

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

Even if this were true (and it is not), that means 3 hominids are. That still shoots down special creation.

Stand by for the other shoe to drop...

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.

And which ones are those?

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

Good thing Natural Selection is a biological mechanism, not a social one. Problem solved.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

None of which you can list for us. Gotcha.

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

They can be "explained" by visitors from Mars, but the data falsifies that theory, as it falsifies a Global flood.

 

[Self Improvement]

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.

Lie

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

Evolution does not have 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.

Another lie. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. In fact, you are the one that believes we came from dirt.

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.

Lie.

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

Irrelevent to evolution.

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.

Examples?

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

Lie.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies

.

Like what? Oh yeah, thats a lie.

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

How many times does the world wide flood need to be falsified on this forum before you stop using it as an argument?

 

[Risen Tree]

the 14 billion year multiversal flood is comming pretty soon.

What would this flood do to black holes? Or would they be what dry up the universe once flooded?