Why I Reject Evolution

[Chanya]

How do you explain Australopithecus, Homo Erectus and numerous other Homo species?

 

[Achilles6129]

I accept that the pain in evolution is a problem that has to be explained, but even if it is hard to accept the evidence for evolution is very good.

Ah, finally an evolutionist who admits it!

Indeed, a God who creates life through evolution is a problem, and a huge problem, with me. I have detailed the reasons why and there will be no need for me to endlessly regurgitate them over and over again.

You believe that the evidence for evolution is very good. However, I hold that this evidence must have been misinterpreted because of the impossible (again, in my mind - evidently not in the minds of some on this board) basic premise on which it rests.

You do realize that there is also evidence for a global flood and a misinterpretation of the fossil record, right? Many creationist scientists have been saying this for a long time. They are just as well-educated and just as intelligent as their evolutionist counterparts (albeit outnumbered). What convinces you that evolutionists have it right and the creationists have it wrong?

How do you explain Australopithecus, Homo Erectus and numerous other Homo species?

Either apes or men. And I have explained in detail why I believe this - again, it all goes back to the basic premise of the argument. In addition, you may want to read some creationist scientists who talk about the fossils you mentioned above.

As for the others who responded to me attempting to claim that a good being of absolute divine love somehow creates through hundreds of millions of years of evolution, again, I refer you to my previous posts. We are going to have to disagree on this topic.

There are also arguments that make the god of evolution an even more wicked deity, but I will leave those alone for now as I have said enough on the subject.

Again, let me say that I reject the interpretation of the evidence because the basic premise is (in my view) impossible. I also happen to know that there was a global flood. You may agree or disagree as you see fit, but I have explained why I reject evolution.

Again, I would invite creationists to give their perspective on this, since the responses on this thread have been overwhelmingly evolutionist.

 

[solarwave]

Ah, finally an evolutionist who admits it!

Indeed, a God who creates life through evolution is a problem, and a huge problem, with me. I have detailed the reasons why and there will be no need for me to endlessly regurgitate them over and over again.

I assume you have said why in your thread? I have only fully read the posts which relate to me so far.

I see why it is a problem and I have my own way I understand it, but still the immense is hard to take. The creationist understanding isn't faultless either though, consider God apparently cursed the world and caused the current sufferings amoung other things.

You believe that the evidence for evolution is very good. However, I hold that this evidence must have been misinterpreted because of the impossible (again, in my mind - evidently not in the minds of some on this board) basic premise on which it rests.

If you look at the evidence you would see that some would be hard to misunderstand. Sorry for me forgetting, but do you believe the basic premise is that scientists look for non-supernatural causes and therefore come up with the faultly theory of evolution?

One example of an evidence is that great apes have one more chromosome then us. At the end of every chromosome is a repeating sequence, but in the human chromosome 2 the repeating sequence is in the middle of the chromosome as well as other things pointing towards chromosome 2 being the joining together of two of the apes chromosomes. There would appear to be no reason for God to put such a thing in humans.

I don't mind too much if you don't accept evolution because I fear drawing some away away from the faith because of such things. I know creationism isn't essential to Christianity but for some people it is and so risking the essential for the non-essential isn't worth it.

You do realize that there is also evidence for a global flood and a misinterpretation of the fossil record, right? Many creationist scientists have been saying this for a long time. They are just as well-educated and just as intelligent as their evolutionist counterparts (albeit outnumbered). What convinces you that evolutionists have it right and the creationists have it wrong?

I was brought up with no definite opinion of how the universe was made. I was taught Genesis in church and the big bang and evolution is school. In church we weren't ever taught creationism though and left to make up our minds on the issue (in the UK it isn't a big thing). I went though my younger teens accepting both because I never really thought about the issue. Then I read a book by Lee Strobel which convinced me evolution was wrong. I went through this phase for a while but eventually I accept evolution within about half a year, partly because of evidence and partly because of how I choose to understand the world. I saw evidence for evolution (fossils for example) but in some ways more importantly I saw I was a hypocrite. I intended to study physics at university and saw the evidence for strange theories such as the big bang, relativity and quantum theory and I have understood well the science throughout school, but on this one theory (evolution) I rejected it. I couldn't justify it, I was just biased because of my upbringing and the fact I read Lee Strobel before a evolution book. I realised I trusted the majority opinion of science more than a few Christian scientists who disagreed.

I can't accept all of science and all the technology it gives me while rejecting certain well established theories without being a hypocrite and biased. So not only do I see the evidence for evolution, I also have more faith in science than various interpretations of the Bible. I hope this doesn't offend you.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

The very best evidence against evolution:

If Adam wasn't a real person, then he didn't have Seth, a real son. If Seth was not a real person, the son of Adam, then he didn't have Enosh, Seth's real son. If Enosh was not a real person, the son of Seth, then he didn't have Kenan, Enosh's real son. If Kenan was not a real person, the son of Enosh, then he didn't have Mahalalel, Kenan's real son. If Mahalalel was not a real person, the son of Kenan, then he didn't have Jared, a real son. If Jared, the son of Mahalalel, was not a real person, then he didn't have Enoch, a real son. If Enoch, the son of Jared, was not a real person, then he didn't have Methuselah, a real son. If Methuselah, the son of Enoch, was not a real person, then he didn't have Lamech, a real person. If Lamech, the son of Methuselah, was not a real person, then he didn't have Noah, a real person.

If Noah, the son of Lamech, was not a real person, then he didn't have three sons by the name of Shem, Ham and Japheth, who also would not have been real people. If Shem, the son of Noah, was not a real person, then he didn't have Arphaxad, a real son. If Arphaxad, the son of Shem, was not a real person, then he didn't have Shelah, a real son. If Shelah, the son of Arphaxad, was not a real person, then there was no Eber, a real son of Shelah. If Eber was not a real son of Shelah, then Eber didn't have a son by the name of Peleg and Peleg wouldn't have a son by the name Reu. If Reu, the son of Peleg, wasn't a real person then he didn't have a son by the name of Serug, a real person. If Serug, the son of Peleg, wasn't a real person then he didn't have a son by the name of Nahor. If Nahor, the son of Serug, wasn't a real person then he didn't have a son by the name of Terah. If Terah, the son of Serug, was not a real person then he couldn't have had a son named Abram, and friends, if there wasn't a man by the name of Abram, then there was not a son named Isaac. If there was no son named Isaac then there was no son named Jacob and if there was no son named Jacob, then there were not 12 sons who established the 12 tribes of Israel and all of Judaism is a lie and therefore, all of Christianity is a lie. For without the Jew, there is no Jesus, and without Jesus there are only fools who have convinced themselves to believe in a lie of some nonsensical faith that we call christianity.

So, unless we believe, just as the Scriptures tell us that God, created the first man, Adam, through whom all the sons of the fathers carry us forward to Abram, then none of it is true. It is all a mystical fairy tale of some account and we have no assurance of hope. We, born again believers, are merely all deceived, and as Paul said, to be pitied most by all men.

If evolution is true, then the Scriptures are not. It is a simple choice. Make yours.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you explain Australopithecus, Homo Erectus and numerous other Homo species?

How do evolutionists explain the absence of chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

 

[KerrMetric]

I have read both creationist and evolutionist literature on the topic of the 2nd law. Quite frankly, it makes more sense to view it from the creationist perspective. I see nothing but oracles, philosophies, or prophecies uttered by evolutionists on how evolution does not violate the 2nd law.

And non-physicists should shut up about the 2nd Law. I am a physicist and I have never seen a Creationist tract that made one iota of sense when they try to argue the 2nd Law somehow prevents evolution. In fact, it is made up BS to try to befuddle the creationist lay people who know little to no science and think if something sounds scientific and is on their side then it must be true science - poppycock !

 

[KerrMetric]

How do evolutionists explain the absence of chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

Not a complete absence though, is it?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

How do evolutionists explain the absence of chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

Humans did not evolved from chimpanzees, so we won't find 'missing link' between them and us. The ancestors of both chimps and humans is in the fossil record though - Ardipithecus ramidus.

This find is far more important than Lucy. It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between.​

- Alan Walker
Pennsylvania State University​

 

[solarwave]

So, unless we believe, just as the Scriptures tell us that God, created the first man, Adam, through whom all the sons of the fathers carry us forward to Abram, then none of it is true. It is all a mystical fairy tale of some account and we have no assurance of hope. We, born again believers, are merely all deceived, and as Paul said, to be pitied most by all men.

If evolution is true, then the Scriptures are not. It is a simple choice. Make yours.

Or the genealogies arn't literally true?

 

[Greg1234]

How do you explain Australopithecus, Homo Erectus and numerous other Homo species?

The Calaveras Skull trumps these. The mechanism for Darwinian evolution is also impotent. Hence, to "explain" the fossil record isn't of prime importance (though it can also be used).

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:


http://www.creationhistory.com/CalaverasSkull_Teaser.shtml

The Calaveras Skull trumps these.

http://www.creationhistory.com/CalaverasSkull_Teaser.shtmlhttp://www.creationhistory.com/CalaverasSkull_Teaser.shtml

First, no, it doesn't. If the Calaveras skull were real, then the overall understanding of human evolution would be unaffected. The Calaveras skull would only affect the understanding of human migration into America.

Secondly, it's a well known hoax anyway. Over 130 years the person who staged the hoax 'fessed up to it.
Calaveras Skull

It is, however, a good example of how scientific testing and community review can find and expose hoaxes, showing the reliability of science.

It's too bad that it's unsurprising to see an evolution denier hyping a hoax as if it were relevant, when it doen't help his case anyway.

Papias

 

[Papias]

I have read both creationist and evolutionist literature on the topic of the 2nd law. Quite frankly, it makes more sense to view it from the creationist perspective.

First, you have tons of Christians, both evolution supporters and creationists, agreeing that the 2nd law is not a problem - with only a handful of only creationists still maintaining that it is a problem. That by itself should give us a hint - just like both evolution supporters and creationists agreeing that the world is round- with only a handful of only creationists still maintaining that the world is flat.

Secondly, and more importantly, the second law only works for a closed system, and that's easy for even non-physicists like you and I to understand.

Originally Posted by Papias

As for the "too many deaths" over millions of years, you wrote (about the animals killed in the flood) :

So it sounds like you have answered your own objection to death during evolution, by solving it the same way you solved the idea of the flood causing animals to die

.
​

Actually I was talking about human death during the flood, and every infant/child death in all of history. But let's look at the point here for a second. My point, more clearly stated, is that the righteous never die. I think this lines up quite nicely with Jesus Christ's view on the matter, which I will quote again......

My point was that in both evolution and creationism, you can have animal death be OK, and human death be "fixed" by humans going to heaven. (your solution)

Everything you have posted "solves" the death problem in both evolution and creationism equally well. So I don't see how you can say that creationism doesn't have a death problem, while evolution does. Either both do or neither does under your explanation.

Papias

 

[miamited]

Hi solarwave,

You responded: Or the genealogies arn't literally true?
__________________
Well, yes, that is exactly my point. And so the question stands, where did Abram come from. Who is he? If there was no Abram, then who is Israel? If there was no Israel, then, who is Jesus? Is it your position that all the people in the Scriptures were not real people? If not, could you tell me where you begin to account the names in the Scriptures as real?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:


http://www.creationhistory.com/CalaverasSkull_Teaser.shtml

First, no, it doesn't. If the Calaveras skull were real, then the overall understanding of human evolution would be unaffected.

Actually the impotence of the Darwinian mechanism already refutes Darwinian evolution. I don't need to find a specific set of cars to show that the mechanism responsible for adaptation in cars cannot take a car to a nuclear submarine. The Calaveras skull and others are simply supplementary.

Secondly, it's a well known hoax anyway. Over 130 years the person who staged the hoax 'fessed up to it.

Hoax claims were already addressed in the article previously given.

 

[Papias]

Ted-

About the geneologies and a literal Adam - did you know that a Catholic position includes a literal first human, Adam, who is the ancestor of us all? He can simply be the first transitional ape to cross the line to being human, thus allowing for a literal Adam, and the normal description of evolution described by science.

More specifically about the geneologies (plural), do you realize that reading them shows that the geneologies are figurative? They can't be literal because if taken literally, Lk contradicts Mt, who contradicts 1 Cr.

Mt and 1 Cr both give the descendants from Solomon leading toward Jesus. But Mt has apparently cut out several people to make his 14, 14, 14 theological point work. Here they are, side by side:

Mt Gen# ...................Gospel of Matthew has ......................................1st Chron. Has:
1 ..................................7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .........................10 Solomon's son was
2 .....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah, ..............................Rehoboam,
3 ........................................Abijah.............................................................. Abijah his son,
4 ..........................................8Asa................................................................. Asa his son,
5 .......................................Jehoshaphat .....................................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6 ............................................Jehoram.......................................................... Jehoram his son
............................................Skipped....................................................................................... Ahaziah his son,

..............................................Skipped ....................................................................................Joash his son,
..............................................Skipped ......................................................................................12 Amaziah his son,
7 .................................9Uzziah the father of Jotham, .......................Azariah his son,
8........................................... Jotham .......................................................Jotham his son,
9 ........................................Ahaz ..........................................................13 Ahaz his son,
10 ..................................10Hezekiah .......................................................Hezekiah his son,
11 .....................................Manasseh ..........................................................Manasseh his son,
12 ...........................................Amon........................................................... 14 Amon his son,
13................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah,.................................... Josiah his son.


Papias

P. S. Greg - maybe you'd like to start a thread in the main forum, where any of those topics can be discussed freely?

 

[solarwave]

Well, yes, that is exactly my point. And so the question stands, where did Abram come from. Who is he? If there was no Abram, then who is Israel? If there was no Israel, then, who is Jesus? Is it your position that all the people in the Scriptures were not real people? If not, could you tell me where you begin to account the names in the Scriptures as real?

I would say that from Abraham onwards I would consider it close to literal history. I say close because there may be mistakes, but overall I believe Abraham was probably real.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Its a problem and you gave an answer which resolves it for you. The problem is the large amounts of pain which are possible and do happen. I know there are many answers to this, just saying.

And you're wrong again. Evolutionary changes that end up resulting in consequences that are detrimental to an organism are well catalogued. All you are doing is confusing preference for biology. Pain and all the rest of the functions of the nervous systems of various organisms are no more a problem for evolution than is the fact that genetic diseases exist.

 

[miamited]

Hi solarwave.

So, was Terah, Abram's father?

 

[gluadys]

I would say that from Abraham onwards I would consider it close to literal history. I say close because there may be mistakes, but overall I believe Abraham was probably real.

I would distinguish between the historical existence of the person and the historical accuracy of stories about that person.

I have no problem with Abraham being a real, historical person, but I expect many of the stories we have about him are more legend than history. I don't think its a matter of mistakes. Just that stories were the way people remembered history for thousands of years, and stories tend to get molded into legends over time. So by the time they are put into writing, it's virtually impossible to separate actual history from legendary story elements. Indeed, in the cultural atmosphere of ancient Israel, no such distinction would be made.

 

[solarwave]

And you're wrong again. Evolutionary changes that end up resulting in consequences that are detrimental to an organism are well catalogued. All you are doing is confusing preference for biology. Pain and all the rest of the functions of the nervous systems of various organisms are no more a problem for evolution than is the fact that genetic diseases exist.

You seem to think I am saying pain is a problem for the theory of evolution? I am not. I am saying it is a problem for how Christianity understands the theory of evolution.

Hi solarwave.

So, was Terah, Abram's father?

I don't know, but I would say there is a mistake in the genealogies or that they arn't meant to be taken as literal father son relationships.