Problems with the theory of evolution

[Pete Harcoff]

<snip>

If evolution was true, there should be thousands (if not millions) of fossils showing the transition from ape-like creatures to humans.

This is a creationist assumption, not an evolutionary theory one. Fossilization is an extremely rare process that requires certain conditions to occur (look up "fossilization" on Google to find out about it). Some creationists seem to be under the faulty impression that almost everything that dies should automatically form a fossil. This just doesn't happen in reality.

If the creationist strawman version of fossilization was true, we'd be knee-deep in animal skeletons by now.

 

[greatcogitator]

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.

Why is it that you assume that life has a purpose now? As well why can't order arise from chaos?

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?

All machines are created in so far as we need of their function. This again leads us back to whether life has a purpose... As well it leads us to wonder whether everly complex system requires a designer. For a counter example I cite the fractal which is something that arises purely from mathematics, it isn't really designed, but many people think they are complex.

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.

Argument is vital for science to advance. If we automatically accepted anything without experimental verification then we wouldn't be doing science. We accept that the Earth orbits the sun because the current mathematical model works, that doesn't mean that the Earth orbits the sun, it is just that our current observations agree with the theory that the Earth is orbitting the sun. Fire needs oxygen because in the past it has always been observed that oxygen is present when there is fire, this doesn't mean that fire needs Oxygen though, that is impossible to prove. If your question were proof of the demise of evolution then surely Quantum Uncertainty must be false because there was argument about it from Einstein... Your logic seems to suggest that anything new is wrong because there is argument, and this is a fatal flaw.

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?

Evolution isn't proven by arbitrary grouping, it is proven through similarity of species and simple logic: "That which is best suited to survive in a given enviroment will".

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?

Simple, if that species is in an enviroment that it is best suited to we wouldn't expect change now would we?

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

First of all evolution doesn't deal with the beginning of life. Second of all Natural Selection isn't at all orderly, there are possible times when the best suited animal is killed off by the other animals. Finally order from chaos isn't unexpected, we have the second law of thermodynamics which is really just probability... (It wouldn't be unexpected to see a box that is half hot and half cold, just infinitely unlikely, especially in a big box) So you see that when dealing with probability there can be order in the end.

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

Easy. Fossils are hard to be made naturally and thus occur rarely. As well lets say that for any two fossils there must be a missing link, then between the missing link and the one of the two fossils there must be another missing link and so on and so forth until we have an infinite amount of missing links...

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.

As well Evolution != Atheism. As well the fact of evolution which I assume you are referring to from the TO website involves observations of changes in species over time.

 

[Natro]

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.

Exactly. In other words don't take the Bible as a science book it has always been ment to be a book of morality and how Christians should live their lives. I may not accept it but this is how I understand it.

 

[Mr_Coffee]

Exactly. In other words don't take the Bible as a science book it has always been ment to be a book of morality and how Christians should live their lives. I may not accept it but this is how I understand it.

Exactly, you don't study for a history test by reading a cookbook. Same thing here.

 

[LorentzHA]

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.

Without evolution how did they adapt?

 

[Mr_Coffee]

Without evolution how did they adapt?

Doesn't the Old Testament maintain that all black people are cursed and are being punished with a black appearance because of Ham's misdeeds... or something? Just for prejudice's sake, I'd rather believe that black skin colour is a product of environmental conditions as opposed to taking the Bible literally.

 

[LorentzHA]

Doesn't the Old Testament maintain that all black people are cursed and are being punished with a black appearance because of Ham's misdeeds... or something? Just for prejudice's sake, I'd rather believe that black skin colour is a product of environmental conditions as opposed to taking the Bible literally.

Exactly. I have actually heard people say it was punishment-LOL. Ironically people with darker skin tones come from places on the Earth with more intense UVR, protection afforded my melanin produced by melanocytes to protect the DNA in the nucleus of cells. By the way...you are preaching to the choir

 

[LorentzHA]

Mr. Coffee-what I mean by that is I am not a creationist, if that is what you were thinking

 

[ALL4J3SUS]

Quote:




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

So what, ur saying that chemistry has a mind of it's own and created life?

 

[Arikay]

I think he is saying that chemistry followers certain basic "laws" and chemicals combine in certain ways.

Although it could have been pure chance that the chemicals to make life all ended up at the same place. Of course, it the odds of that happening arent too big. Or, even, god could have put them there.

But once they get there, the way they link together and end up forming simplistic life, is not chance at all.

BTW, since my question got burried a bit, just to reask it, if we helped with some of the misunderstandings of evolution, would you learn from it, or will you repeat them, even after being told they aren't true?

Quote:




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

So what, ur saying that chemistry has a mind of it's own and created life?

 

[greatcogitator]

Quote:




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

So what, ur saying that chemistry has a mind of it's own and created life?

Actually I don't think that is what was meant...Chemistry wouldn't choose to create life, life simply formed from the set of rules describing chemical reaction.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So what, ur saying that chemistry has a mind of it's own and created life?

In a manner of speaking. The laws of chemistry are inherent to the universe. And certain chemical reactions are favored under certain conditions.

 

[Mr_Coffee]

Mr. Coffee-what I mean by that is I am not a creationist, if that is what you were thinking

Oh woops, sorry. I meant to quote your point plus the other post that you quoted, but didn't. I was trying to suppliment your point, I knew exactly what you were getting at.

 

[Winston]

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.

but these things were argued about hundreds of years ago. Look up galileo, copernicus, phlogiston and the ether. Things like Heliocentricity and oxygen were once radical ideas!

 

[Natro]

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.

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

Which is it the earch travels around the sun or your not changing your mind because it would be denying God? The Bible states the earth is the center of the universe doesn't it? What about the earth being flat. Do you think the earth is a sphere or is flat? Once again don't take everything in the bible as scientific fact it was never ment to be a science book(joke:though it does make a good cook book as long as you avoid the forbidden fruit.)

 

[LorentzHA]

Oh woops, sorry. I meant to quote your point plus the other post that you quoted, but didn't. I was trying to suppliment your point, I knew exactly what you were getting at.

No problem-I wasn't sure, I just did not want to be mistaken for a Creationist

 

[Sera'naphsus]

Humankind, I got to tell you, if I came from an ape, then I want to go back. If evolution happens for the more superior species to come aboout, then i'd say humanity is not a good extension from apes. Thus, evolution screwed up. I would rather be a "Dumb" animal than a "Smart" human.
I am secure in the fact that Humanity is an expression of energy all its own. I don't have to worry about going back. And, personally, there are smarter animals than humans. The theory of evolution won't work on that fact alone.
I have to comment that even though certain species share striking similarities, it is an assumption one came from the other. Look at the fact that the basis for physicality is carbon. This is an expression of how things are connected, not that one is closer to the other. God used tools of the created "Earth" to create the things that were to inhabit it. You wouldn't use tree bark to fix a machine. Likewise, you wouldn't use it to make one. Did you realize the similarities between animals and humankind alike, to the blade of grass which utilize intake for the transformation of food into energy. It is coincidental that apes and humans have similar bone structures and not safe to assume that humans are an expression of apes. This theory of evolution has always amused me.
Sera'naphsus

 

[Arikay]

So basically, you are saying that god makes mistakes and likes to decieve.

As there are many things that animals have that they dont need, the only reason to have them is because they are left overs from earlier species. There are huge lists, from wrist and finger bones in flippers, to a tail muscle and sometimes even a tail in humans, etc. So, god must like to either decieve us into Thinking things evolved, or he likes to put useless or almost useless features in animals just for fun.

BTW, Do you think you can give a basic definition of the theory of evolution?

 

[Natro]

Humankind, I got to tell you, if I came from an ape, then I want to go back.

I thought you where a angel not a human so you don't have to worry about that. Ohh and why is coming from a lesser animal a bad thing that is diserving of shame? Is coming from two nudist that betrayed their God because a snake told them to better then coming from apes?

If evolution happens for the more superior species to come aboout, then i'd say humanity is not a good extension from apes. Thus, evolution screwed up.

Your joking right?

I would rather be a "Dumb" animal than a "Smart" human.

Uhhh huhhh you rather live in ignorant bliss then being smart? What a surprise.

I am secure in the fact that Humanity is an expression of energy all its own. I don't have to worry about going back.

Going back where?

And, personally, there are smarter animals than humans.

Realy? Proof?

The theory of evolution won't work on that fact alone.

What fact? I am confused here.

I have to comment that even though certain species share striking similarities, it is an assumption one came from the other. Look at the fact that the basis for physicality is carbon. This is an expression of how things are connected, not that one is closer to the other.

So, similarities don't mean things are similar just that they are connected?(If that even makes sense)

God used tools of the created "Earth" to create the things that were to inhabit it. You wouldn't use tree bark to fix a machine. Likewise, you wouldn't use it to make one.

But you use dirt to make a man and the rib of man to make woman... Hmmm... My toasters broken where is that piece of wood.

Did you realize the similarities between animals and humankind alike, to the blade of grass which utilize intake for the transformation of food into energy. It is coincidental that apes and humans have similar bone structures and not safe to assume that humans are an expression of apes. This theory of evolution has always amused me.
Sera'naphsus

Creationist have always amused me.

 

[LorentzHA]

God used tools of the created "Earth" to create the things that were to inhabit it.

Yes, a tool called, Gravity to create the Earth and another tool called, evolution to create the living things on it

I would rather be a "Dumb" animal than a "Smart" human.

Creationists always make this choice, what a pity.

It is coincidental that apes and humans have similar bone structures and not safe to assume that humans are an expression of apes.

Your God really likes coincidence, eh? He seems to opt for it over and over again. If there is an almighty creator there is no coincidence, right? All planned?

This theory of evolution has always amused me.

I do not doubt this for a minute, similarly, my 3 year old nephew was amused by a Quantum Mechanics text book.

If you would be so kind and answer these 3 questions-What is the theory of evolution? In science, what does Theory, mean? And finally, Have you ever had a Biology course beyond 10th grade in high school?