Why is evolution wrong?

[Ave Maria]

What are some of the major reasons why evolution is wrong?

 

[juvenissun]

What are some of the major reasons why evolution is wrong?

For the most important one, evolution suggests human is a product of evolution.

 

[FallingWaters]

What are some of the major reasons why evolution is wrong?

That is a reasonable question, but I struggle to answer it here. As soon as I write something down, 15 people will jump down my back and tell me I am wrong, or that I have insulted their particular point of view. And frankly, I hate that.

I will give you my point of view, though it is only mine, and maybe a few others' here, and the rest will tear me to shreds because I misrepresent them.

So here I am. I speak for myself. This is my opinion, and I am just as entitled to it as anyone else is to theirs. I have been a student of Creation-Science for over 15 years. I own many books and DVDs on the subject. I have even taught the subject to elementary Christian school children.

The main reason Evolution is wrong is because evolution does not happen and did not happen.

God created the entire universe in 6 days, by the words of His mouth, about 6,000 years ago.

God went through the trouble of telling us how this universe came into being. The Bible is believed BY FAITH. God is believed BY FAITH.
"Without faith it is impossible to please God." Hebrews 11:6

If we cannot figure out "how" God did it any further than that, it is only a reflection of our ignorance. It is the obligation of believers to believe the word of God. We do not discount the Word of God because it doesn't happen to agree with the latest scientific "theory of the month".

You must decide for yourself that the Bible is true, and not allow yourself to be deceived by intellectualism.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 - 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[busterdog]

What are some of the major reasons why evolution is wrong?

1. At the very best, evolution absolutely fails without long eons of time. No one has proven that the universe is that old. The only models for that age are full of holes. Since mutation is so over-whelmingly likely to be bad for the organism, you need to improve the chances dramatically by assuming more time (and more time when no one is around to look and check around on your theory is the best kind of time.)

2. Evolution from, say, generic canine to beagle, can be shown. Much of the diversity we know see could simply be, not just breeding, but microevolution (to an extent). Arguing that entirely new species are created by evolution is more difficult. In short, microevolution does not prove macroevolution.

3. It is difficult to find examples of beneficial mutations. Large studies of multi-generational organisms show the LOSS of information, not the addition of genetic information. Populations become lest robust, not more. For example, the bird flu killed lots of people in 1918 or so. But, where is the bird flu now? Is that success as a species? Virus and bacteria are offered as examples of improvement through mutation. But, it is never that simple.

4. God said death entered the world with the fall of Adam. How do you have evolution without death, and how could such a world truly be paradise? Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

5. Evolution requires abiogenesis and then asexual animals become sexual procreators. Jesus saw it differently. Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

6. Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Let's face it, a non-historical use of Gen. 1, 2 is just not very exalted. If a prophet is to be stoned for false prophecy, how does Moses get a pass for being loosey-goosey with time in Gen. 1, 2, and Exod. 20?

 

[LetHimThatGlories]

Personally, if someone accuses me of saying that the universe is the way it is because "Goddidit", as if it's some kind of slur, then I don't really take it as an offense.

When God created Adam from the dust of the ground, as recorded in the Bible, that implies that Adam had an apparent age when God was finished with him. It doesn't tell us that God created a little sperm, then an egg, and incubated it in a test tube for a while, yada yada yada. So looking at Adam, you would have thought that he had been around for a while, even though he was technically very young. A scientist analyzing him would make the wrong age determination.

God created light before He created the sun, moon, and the stars. I do think that He created the light before He created the sources that it would normally come from. So you could see (assuming the distance measurements are correct) billions of years of starlight created in a moment.

Although it's possible, I don't think that God created fossils in the ground; I am not convinced that billions of years are necessary for all of this to take place.

God did create the universe through miraculous means, but also set in place a system for it to continue from there. We are designed to adapt to our environments, and we, as well as things around us, can change. Does God still do miracles today? Sure, I've seen supernatural things. The Bible isn't a book of fairy tales.

God Bless

 

[jckstraw72]

bc all that God created was good. if God created via evolution then God must have declared death to be good, since that's part of the evolutionary process, but we know that death is our enemy and Christ came to defeat it. evolution makes God contradict Himself.

 

[shernren]

*waves hand around wildly in the air* -

Shucks. Wrong classroom.

For answers and reasons why evolution isn't wrong, feel free to pop by Origins Theology some time!

 

[Tissue]

A Christian forum is the last place you should look for an untainted answer to that question. Questions like this are scientific in scope, and the Bible makes no claim one way or another on the issue. Truth be told, any answer you get will probably be formatted similar to FallingWaters; that is, largely biased towards their own particular views without any real explanation, or any nod towards one of the countless other views that believers hold.

Simple fact is, there's nothing in the Bible that says evolution can't be true. Evolution as a theory does not discard the Bible. Whether or not evolution is true is a question for the scientists, not for the everyday Christian. That uneducated Christians think they can stand toe-to-toe with actual scientists on this matter is one of the great embarrassments of the modern Church.

In the worlds of JK Rowling, "I regularly go to church. I am not responsible for the lunatic fringes of my religion."

 

[metherion]

Tissue, I would like to point out the fact I agree with a lot of what you said.

But.

In talking in the non-creationist section of OT with some of these folks, they do think that the Bible rules out evolution, so saying such things like it doesn't could be construed as trying to start an argument here. And while I don't think that's what you meant, you might not want to say that in here as the mod hat has had to be dropped a lot here. And indirect references to YECs as lunatics are definitely not welcome.

While I'm not trying to take over the mod's job, nor am I trying to yell at you, I would like to point out that you might not quite want to phrase what you say as you did here. I like being able to occasionally fellowship in here enough to point out when I think posts might start crossing the line that will wind up getting us all booted out of even doing that and I think your statement crosses that line.

Now, to Paladingirl.

Pretty much the idea that evolution is wrong is based on two premises. (whose truth value I am not judging either way in this post.) These premises are that Genesis is a literal history. And, being in the Bible, it cannot be false. Since Genesis includes the statements that God directly created humans, that God created humans separately from animals, and geneologies. If the geneologies are added up, the earth is ~6000 years old give or take a dozen or two either way. As per the thread on the 'front' OT page, I think it is supposed to be 6011 years old now. Since these facts are either explicitly stated, or can be figure out from explicitly stated Biblical facts, they cannot be wrong. End premises.
"Evolutionism" (which actually encompasses scientific evolution, scientific abiogenesis, astronomy, cosmology, geology, materialistic atheism, etc.) states that those three things (age of earth, animal/human separation, special human creation) are not true, therefore they conflict with the Bible and are wrong. That is where most of problems come from. If you accept the premesis I listed above (Genesis literal, Bible inerrant), then it is the only available conclusion.
Since scientific evolution specifically violates the separate animals/man premise, it too must be false.

If I've said anything wrong here, please correct me.

Metherion

 

[Tissue]

Tissue, I would like to point out the fact I agree with a lot of what you said.

But.

In talking in the non-creationist section of OT with some of these folks, they do think that the Bible rules out evolution, so saying such things like it doesn't could be construed as trying to start an argument here.

But I AM trying to start an argument. Let's zap the stagnant pond and see what kind of life emerges, eh? =p

And while I don't think that's what you meant, you might not want to say that in here as the mod hat has had to be dropped a lot here. And indirect references to YECs as lunatics are definitely not welcome.

I'm not calling YECs lunatics. I'm calling any Christian who steps into the scientific arena armed with the Bible and nothing more a lunatic.

 

[Biblewriter]

But I AM trying to start an argument. Let's zap the stagnant pond and see what kind of life emerges, eh? =p



I'm not calling YECs lunatics. I'm calling any Christian who steps into the scientific arena armed with the Bible and nothing more a lunatic.

I am a pure scientist by education and an applied scientist by profession. And I, like many of my peers, flatly deny that evolution is a proven fact of science. Evolution is maintained by three principles: broad generalizations, oversimplification, and suppression of conflicting evidence and opinion. This is accompanied by more than a little duplicity in the presentation of evidence.

Evolution is a philosophy based on an assumption that was prophetically predicted in the Bible. The assumption that lies at the heart of evolutionary philosophy is called uniformity of process. The Bible predicted that this would come about "in the last days." Its exact words are (from 2 Peter 3 in the King James Version)

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The bulk of those who call themselves scientists are willingly ignorant of these things. That is, they do not know because they do not wish to know.

But your behavior is inappropriate in this forum.

 

[Ave Maria]

Interesting views. However, I think I'll stay with my belief in mainstream science.

 

[Biblewriter]

What are some of the major reasons why evolution is wrong?

There are two independent answers to this question. The first, and more important, reason is that it conflicts with the Bible in numerous points. That, to a Christian, should be an absolute and final answer. but sadly, for many, it is not.

The second reason is not as important as the first, but it is more persuasive that the first for those who are not interested in the first reason.

There is not even one alleged "proof" of evolution that is unchallenged as scientific fact. Most of the supposed "proofs" are, in fact, well known as inaccurate.

I well remember one professor in the Biology department of the university I attended. She taught her beginning "General Biology" students the theory of recapitulation as a proof of evolution. But she taught her senior level embryology students that this was actually, "outside of the facts." Another professor publicly ridiculed me for openly declaring that I did not believe evolution, but privately told his lab assistant (whom, unbeknown to himself I was dating) that evolution was "actually, not a very good explanation of the facts."

The main alleged proof of evolution is the fossil record. Evolutionists will universally tell you that it shows gradual change throughout the ages. The truth is that it actually shows a long series of stable ecosystems that suddenly appeared, flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be immediately (in geological terms) replaced by different stable ecosystems. I have challenged professional geologists on this on several occasions, and every single one of them, after first denying it, finally admitted that they personally knew that what I was telling them was correct.

And so with every other alleged "proof" of evolution. The leading experts in the field in question always deny the accuracy of that particular "fact." But they almost always believe the rest of the supposed "proofs," those in which they are not personally experts.

 

[FallingWaters]

... And so with every other alleged "proof" of evolution. The leading experts in the field in question always deny the accuracy of that particular "fact." But they almost always believe the rest of the supposed "proofs," those in which they are not personally experts.

Exactly, they just take other scientists word for it without having proved it themselves, like all the people who forward hoax emails without realizing they are hoaxes.

 

[metherion]

But I AM trying to start an argument. Let's zap the stagnant pond and see what kind of life emerges, eh? =p

But that is neither the point of this subforum nor allowed in this subforum. If you want to zap the pond go to either to OT forum, the TE subforum, or Crevo in the open Discussion and Debate section.


If you don't mind me asking Biblewriter, what field are you in? I'm a senior chemical engineering student, and I'm curious if your field is at all related to mine. (if you think I'm trying to bait you, which I'm not but you don't know me enough to be sure of that yet, I'd be fine with a 'yes, it's engineering', or 'no it's neither chemical nor engineering' or whatever. I'm just curious.)

I'm leaving the rest alone as what I want to say and what I am allowed to say are not one in the same.

Metherion

 

[Biblewriter]

But that is neither the point of this subforum nor allowed in this subforum. If you want to zap the pond go to either to OT forum, the TE subforum, or Crevo in the open Discussion and Debate section.


If you don't mind me asking Biblewriter, what field are you in? I'm a senior chemical engineering student, and I'm curious if your field is at all related to mine. (if you think I'm trying to bait you, which I'm not but you don't know me enough to be sure of that yet, I'd be fine with a 'yes, it's engineering', or 'no it's neither chemical nor engineering' or whatever. I'm just curious.)

I'm leaving the rest alone as what I want to say and what I am allowed to say are not one in the same.

Metherion

I have a university degree in mathematics and science. This rather unusual degree was in mathematics plus either one or two courses short of a degree in each of the major sciences; physics, chemistry, and biology, with a little geology and psychology. I was employed for many years as a mechanical engineer.

 

[shernren]

I have a university degree in mathematics and science. This rather unusual degree was in mathematics plus either one or two courses short of a degree in each of the major sciences; physics, chemistry, and biology, with a little geology and psychology. I was employed for many years as a mechanical engineer.

That sounds kinda like what I'm doing, sans the biology and psychology. Cool!

 

[metherion]

That sounds quite interesting, Biblewriter! I'm just going straight chem eng. I have ... problems with the teaching style of the math teachers, or I'd probably get a math minor (the core chem eng curriculum gives all the courses save one needed for it.) But, I need to be given examples with actual numbers, and they were only ever able to do so with more dummy variables that had no meaning. (I mean come on. How hard is it to stick in a 4 for x and go through, instead of x''' when I already don't get it with x'' or x'?!) So, no more math classes for me.

Metherion

 

[Tissue]

I am a pure scientist by education and an applied scientist by profession. And I, like many of my peers, flatly deny that evolution is a proven fact of science.

As do I.

Evolution is maintained by three principles: broad generalizations, oversimplification, and suppression of conflicting evidence and opinion. This is accompanied by more than a little duplicity in the presentation of evidence.

Perhaps true, though it should be noted that the actual argument-at-hand is focused more upon veracity than why evolution is so popular.

Evolution is a philosophy based on an assumption that was prophetically predicted in the Bible. The assumption that lies at the heart of evolutionary philosophy is called uniformity of process. The Bible predicted that this would come about "in the last days." Its exact words are (from 2 Peter 3 in the King James Version)

The bulk of those who call themselves scientists are willingly ignorant of these things. That is, they do not know because they do not wish to know.

I have no idea what translation you're referencing, but those are not the exact words of 2 Peter 3 in the KJV. In fact, it would be a gross exaggeration to suggest that the people described in 2 Peter 3 are descriptive of all evolutionists. The verse, as you quote it (I assume you refer to 2 Peter 3:5?), is taken out of context. Verses 3 and 4 show us that these scoffers are actually those who suggest Jesus will not be returning, not just anyone who denies that God created the earth. The verse is more specific than you allow.

But your behavior is inappropriate in this forum.

I disagree.

This is a forum where people of different opinions can meet with an open mind and good faith and discuss their position based upon fact and reasoning. The purpose, of course, is that everyone that engages in such a manner is better-informed of the issue, so that they better understand their own stance, the stance of others, and the issue as a whole. The ultimate purpose, thus, is that all of us take a step closer to truth.

Without argument or discussion, with nothing but opinions, there is no step closer to the truth.

Nonetheless, I find it quite odd that I am maligned for wishing to start an argument on this matter, while others have already begun the argument. Indeed, those who think it inapproriate to start such an argument are arguing against me.

And that, friends, is what is known as a logical fallacy.

 

[busterdog]

The main alleged proof of evolution is the fossil record. Evolutionists will universally tell you that it shows gradual change throughout the ages.

I think the best argument for evolution is, "Well, but everything just looks really old." Fashion is judged by the criterion.