Problems with the theory of evolution

[ALL4J3SUS]

According to the Bible atheistic evolutionists are fools. Psalm 14 says, "The fool has said it in his heart, 'There is no God.'" These people accept evolution as a fact even though there are many, many questions it cannot answer. These questions shatter the theory of atheistic evolution. Consider some of the questions which atheistic evolution must answer to prove itself true-

1) If man's '1st ancestor' the cell, began by chance, why is it that all life since then has order and purpose? All physical life depends on fixed laws to keep it going. Take away laws and life would not last. This order and purpose in living things today proves that it did not begin by chance millions of years ago.

2) If a complex computer must have a maker, how is it that man, who is far more complex that a mere computer, needs no maker?

3) Why is it that so many scientists who believe in evolution disagree in the way it came about? There is no disagreement among scientists about real facts of science. They do not argue about the fact that fire needs oxygen or that the earth travels around the sun.

4) The theory of evolution is based partly on the way animals are grouped or classified. But not all scientists group animals in identical classes, nor do they all agree as to how they should be grouped. If evolution is to be proven by the orderly grouping of animals, and scientists cannot agree upon the groupings, how then can it be accepted as a fact?

5) The earth's fossils show some change within certain species. But other species have not changed at all in millions of years. How is this to be explained?

6) If life began by chance, why is evolution based upon an orderly selective process?

7) What really logical and satisfactory argument can be given for all the missing links between the fossils?

There are many more questions which the atheistic evolutionist could be asked which could not be answered with satisfaction. There questuions are enough, however, to show that evolution is only a theory and not a fact.

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Atheistic evolution has never really been proven. Yet it cannot be denied that changes have taken place within different species. There is fossil evidence that horses have changed considerably throughout their history. But they have only changed within their own kind. They are still horses. They have not evolved into other species.

A better example is man himself. There are many races of men. They have different skin color, are adapted to different climates, and vary in their languages. yet they are still men. None are in the process of changing from being a man to beaing some other kind of being. Changes have taken place within different kinds of life but not from one species or kind into another.

Man's true origin

What about the true beginning of man? How did he really begin? The Bible is the only ancient book which gives us a satisfactory account of how man began. Man's origin is recorded in Genesis 1:26, 27:31 and Genesis 2:7-25.

This world did not come about by chance. God planned it according to His 'eternal purpose' (Ephesians 3:11).

 

[Philostratus]

Suggestion: read these forums before you post nonsense that has been refuted thousands of times.

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

We live in a time when many people don't have faith in God. Many scientists and teachers deny His existence, and because of this, many young people have begun to question their faith in God and His Word, the Bible. These ones who have led many away from faith in God, ridicule anyone who claims to believe in God and live by faith in Him. They refuse to believe anything they can't explain or understand fully. In reality, their faith is in their own intellect. And so they explain the existence of life on this solitary planet, amidst the millions of lifeless stars and planets in outer space, as simply the result of chance: "It just happened," they say Now THAT takes faith!

Matter formed itself from nothing- by itself? Complex DNA information suddenly appeared from nowhere? Dead matter, one day suddenly became alive? Order came from chaos- by itself? YEAH right!
How totally absurd! They would never believe that the watch on their wrists came into being by itself, yet they happily choose to believe that something as complex and marvellous as this world- or you and I did! How foolish! Yet these people are willing to put their hope in such foolishness, rather than putting their faith and trust in God.

The Bible tells us that, "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Psalm 19:1) Just as a well-designed and constructed house displays the quality of it's designer/builder, so too, the vastness of outer space; the size and power output of the stars; the intricate design and functions of our own bodies; the world of nature- all illustrate what God is like. He is all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. The Bible reveals Him to be perfectly righteous, loving and just.

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Suggestion: read these forums before you post nonsense that has been refuted thousands of times.

Suggestion: read them and pray for ur soul

 

[MoonlessNight]

1) If man's '1st ancestor' the cell, began by chance, why is it that all life since then has order and purpose? All physical life depends on fixed laws to keep it going. Take away laws and life would not last. This order and purpose in living things today proves that it did not begin by chance millions of years ago.

It's too bad that this point will get lost in the mess that is the rest of these arguments. If the universe has been random from the beginning, how has an orderly system come about? Of course this doesn't do anything to refute evolution, since before evolution there were conditions in place to encourage certain characteristics. But what about before there were conditions to encourage anything... perhaps I should post this question in another thread so that it can be presented as it should rather than as a refutation of evolution (which it isn't).

 

[Mr_Coffee]

The questions that you have proposed clearly indicate that you don't quite have a grasp on the concept of evolution and how it intertwines with practically all "real facts of science" such as biology, chemistry, geology, astrology, etc.

First, if one has the proper tools, you can create life in your own kitchen. In 1998, Dr. Sydney Fox created mono-cellular organisms. By your definition, he's a god in a certain light.

Certain scientists disagree with certain aspects of evolution while they still agree with 99.5% of its foundations. Science works like that, it's a process of deduction. When something no longer holds validity and a new hypothesis replaces it, the old hypothesis is discarded, unlike the beliefs of religion.

Evolution has no direct purpose. It doesn't aim to create anything specific. That's the most intriguing concept of it, the "orderly selective process" is natural selection. The weak and unfit die out. Offshoots of entire species go extinct while and those that have adapted to whatever environmental conditions survive. Simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by "groupings"; but to break it down simply, you can classify according to invertabrates and vertabrates, mammals, reptiles, etc. Evolution is a branching bush, not a linear path.

Missing links between fossils? The presence of fossils themselves help disprove Creationist notions since they pre-date anything that was alive 6000 years ago. The fossil record isn't perfect, there's no possible way it could be. If it was, people with your beliefs wouldn't care anyway. But the fact that humans can identify that early horses (for instance, which can be traced by fossil findings) from North America, migrated to every continent (via land connectivity) but Australia provides proof of evolution. Different species of horses were found in different areas because environomental conditions were different, we can even see the diversity of horse species today. Horses became extinct in North America, but fossils prove that they once lived here and also originated here.

But what exactly do you mean by "missing links between fossils"? We can't find all of them, it's simply not possible. That's satisfactory. But the history of biology is very authentic since we can actually excavate fossils, study them, determine their age and also determine how they fit into evolution.

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Evolutionists claim that humans and apes share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago.

As evidence they point to the fossils they've uncovered of supposed
'ape-man' was described and drawn without bones having been found; it was based purely on the belief that things made themselves without God. Bones can be interpreted in many ways. Theses fossils fet the belief (based on God's Word) that they are all varieties of true man or extict apes.

Neandertal man- Neandertal is German for Neander Valley, where bones of this supposed 'missing-link' were 1st found about 150 years ago. they were at 1st drawn as very apelike, but they are in fact our relatives- descendants of adam and Eve (through Noah).

Now pictures and models show them as strikingly human.
Java man- found in East Java over 100 years ago. More skeletons of this type have been found since then. Now that we have mor of the bones, it's clear that his body was extremely similar to ours, and he walked just like we do. The same is true for Peking man, who was discovered in China, during the 1920s and '30s. Bothare called Homo erectus or 'upright man'. Recent evidence shows that modern-looking early humans has children by both Neandertals and Homo erectus, showing that they are all fully human people groups.

'Lucy', as the pile of bones found in Ethiopia 20 years ago is known, is among the more famous 'missing-links'. However, careful research on the skull, inner eaf and the other bones shows that Lucy is very similar to a pygmy chimpanzee. She did not walk upright like humans, but on her knuckles, like gorillas and chimps.

If evolution was true, there should be thousands (if not millions) of fossils showing the transition from ape-like creatures to humans. However, those 'missin-links' that have been claimed turn out to be nothing more than bones of humans, or bones of some type of extict ape. Even evolutionists themselves don't always agree on how the bones should be interpreted! We can't go wrong if we trust in the Word of God, which never changes and never needs to be updated. It tells us that humans are not evolved animals, but were specially created.

 

[Arikay]

Ill get to your points and questions in a second, just have one question for you,

If you learned that you were wrong about evolution, would you change your mind? or would you continue to present false information?

 

[LorentzHA]

According to the Bible atheistic evolutionists are fools

Evolution =\= Atheism. Sad that you seem to think it does.

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Ill get to your points and questions in a second, just have one question for you,

If you learned that you were wrong about evolution, would you change your mind? or would you continue to present false information?

Umm if I changed my mind then I would be denying God.

 

[Arikay]

Um, nope, this is one of the misconceptions you have about evolution. If you would like, some of the christian evolutionists here could help explain why.

Now the second question, if we correct the misconceptions you have about evolution, would you stop using them, or just ignore the corrections and continue to use false information?

Umm if I changed my mind then I would be denying God.

 

[Mr_Coffee]

If evolution was true, there should be thousands (if not millions) of fossils showing the transition from ape-like creatures to humans. However, those 'missin-links' that have been claimed turn out to be nothing more than bones of humans, or bones of some type of extict ape. Even evolutionists themselves don't always agree on how the bones should be interpreted! We can't go wrong if we trust in the Word of God, which never changes and never needs to be updated. It tells us that humans are not evolved animals, but were specially created.

Hey, grade 8 girl, look at this pretty picture: http://www.christianforums.com/t40560

I suppose that's not good enough, although it is practically complete. If it's not good enough, you're deluding yourself.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Matter formed itself from nothing- by itself? Complex DNA information suddenly appeared from nowhere? Dead matter, one day suddenly became alive? Order came from chaos- by itself? YEAH right!

If you want to make fun of God's creation, knock yourself out. If you think your arguments are bearing good fruit, then you are mistaken.

How foolish! Yet these people are willing to put their hope in such foolishness, rather than putting their faith and trust in God.

I put my trust in the Lord, and I am grateful that He has blessed us with the ability to understand, in some small way, this beautiful creation that He has made. On what authority do you judge the faith of others ALL4J3SUS? Certainly not God's....he has commanded us not to do such things.

The Bible tells us that, "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Psalm 19:1) Just as a well-designed and constructed house displays the quality of it's designer/builder, so too, the vastness of outer space; the size and power output of the stars; the intricate design and functions of our own bodies; the world of nature- all illustrate what God is like. He is all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. The Bible reveals Him to be perfectly righteous, loving and just.

And science has confirmed that Psalm 19:1 is exactly right. Thank you for showing us how compatible science and the scriptures are.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Atheistic evolution has never really been proven. Yet it cannot be denied that changes have taken place within different species. There is fossil evidence that horses have changed considerably throughout their history. But they have only changed within their own kind. They are still horses. They have not evolved into other species.

A better example is man himself. There are many races of men. They have different skin color, are adapted to different climates, and vary in their languages. yet they are still men. None are in the process of changing from being a man to beaing some other kind of being. Changes have taken place within different kinds of life but not from one species or kind into another.

Just because you don't know about the data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do a search on this forum for 'transitional fossils'. If what you say is true, we shouldn't find a single one on the earth.

Man's true origin

What about the true beginning of man? How did he really begin? The Bible is the only ancient book which gives us a satisfactory account of how man began. Man's origin is recorded in Genesis 1:26, 27:31 and Genesis 2:7-25.

Except you are ignoring the obvious clues that these passages are not intended to be interpreted literally. In addition, who are you to judge how God forms man from the dust. On what authority do you limit God's power to your narrow interpretations? Who are you to say what a 'satisfactory' account of creation is?

This world did not come about by chance. God planned it according to His 'eternal purpose' (Ephesians 3:11).

Then you agree with theistic evolutionists as well...that means you are in good company.

 

[Natro]

Umm if I changed my mind then I would be denying God.

Not to get off topic but do you believe in talking snakes? Do you believe in a world wide flood? Do you belive that the universe is 6000 years old?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1) If man's '1st ancestor' the cell, began by chance, why is it that all life since then has order and purpose? All physical life depends on fixed laws to keep it going. Take away laws and life would not last. This order and purpose in living things today proves that it did not begin by chance millions of years ago.

What order and purpose?

2) If a complex computer must have a maker, how is it that man, who is far more complex that a mere computer, needs no maker?

Because there is no natural process that we know of to form a computer. There is, however, a natural process to create new species: evolution.

3) Why is it that so many scientists who believe in evolution disagree in the way it came about? There is no disagreement among scientists about real facts of science. They do not argue about the fact that fire needs oxygen or that the earth travels around the sun.

Almost all scientists, particularly those in the relevant fields accept that evolution is responsible for the diversity of species on Earth. The arguments are only in the details. AFAIK, there is more disagreement over gravity than there is over evolution.

4) The theory of evolution is based partly on the way animals are grouped or classified. But not all scientists group animals in identical classes, nor do they all agree as to how they should be grouped. If evolution is to be proven by the orderly grouping of animals, and scientists cannot agree upon the groupings, how then can it be accepted as a fact?

Actually, evolutionary theory predicts difficulties in picking specific dividers between species. This is a problem for independent creation, not evolution.

5) The earth's fossils show some change within certain species. But other species have not changed at all in millions of years. How is this to be explained?

Rates of evolutionary change are not constant. If an organism is optimally adapted for its environment and in populations of large enough size, statis will set in.

6) If life began by chance, why is evolution based upon an orderly selective process?

Life didn't begin by chance. Chemistry is not chance.

7) What really logical and satisfactory argument can be given for all the missing links between the fossils?

Fossilization is an extremely rare process. Don't believe me? Put a chicken carcass in your yard, and see how long it lasts.

There are many more questions which the atheistic evolutionist could be asked which could not be answered with satisfaction. There questuions are enough, however, to show that evolution is only a theory and not a fact.

Evolution is not atheism.

Furthermore, evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that evolution occurs. Even creationists accept this. The theory is in the workings of evolution.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Umm if I changed my mind then I would be denying God.

As a Christian you need to admit to yourself that you don't understand how God works. None of us really do. Scientists are merely studying God's creation and God's methods in Creation.

If you say that 'if evolution is true then God is denied', then you are building your faith on the sand. You don't know how God has formed life from the dust...the Bible only says God did it. What if evolution simply describes the way that God has acheived that miracle? Will you cancel your faith because of God's own works?

Base your faith on your personal relationship with Christ. And don't believe the atheists when they say that evolution denies God. Nature can never deny God...it only proclaims his glory. Just because we understand something doesn't mean God didn't do it ALL4J3SUS.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Atheistic evolution has never really been proven.

Evolution and atheism are two different things.

Yet it cannot be denied that changes have taken place within different species. There is fossil evidence that horses have changed considerably throughout their history. But they have only changed within their own kind. They are still horses. They have not evolved into other species.

Actually, they have. Even ardent creationists accept that speciation has occurred.

A better example is man himself. There are many races of men. They have different skin color, are adapted to different climates, and vary in their languages. yet they are still men.

Unless they are women.

None are in the process of changing from being a man to beaing some other kind of being. Changes have taken place within different kinds of life but not from one species or kind into another.

Again, speciation occurs and such occurances have been observed. Heck, even Kent Hovind accepts speciation.

Man's true origin

What about the true beginning of man? How did he really begin? The Bible is the only ancient book which gives us a satisfactory account of how man began. Man's origin is recorded in Genesis 1:26, 27:31 and Genesis 2:7-25.

I would hardly call the creation account in Genesis to be "satisfactory". Furthermore, if God did create humans as per a literal Genesis, then He must have planted plenty of false evidence to suggest He didn't. Why would God do such a thing?

This world did not come about by chance. God planned it according to His 'eternal purpose' (Ephesians 3:11).

And this has what to do with evolution, exactly?

 

[Arikay]

See, this is the danger with creationists linking creationism with god and evolution with atheism.

By linking creationism with god, you are basically saying that if evolution is true, you must either,
1) Lie to yourself, and others and pretend its actually false. Or plug your ears and never talk about it again.
2) Call god a liar and deciever.

Neither seems very good, or very christian.