50 Reasons I Reject Evolution (stolen from another forum)

show me the proff of one species turning into another. not conjecture but proof.

creationists and skeptics arent arguing that natural selection doesnt take place.

 

The problem is you'll reject it as proof. The fact that bears, dogs, and raccoons all share similar dna, won't be poof enough for you. Yes, natural selection is evolution.

Maybe it would help if you told me what would qualify as proof for you, and to define what you think evolutionary theory is.

 

This might help:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution[/ame]

 

a mouse is not gonna give birth to a squid, it doesn't work like that. Natural selection is the very basis of evolution

 

Then show me the transitional species. We have millions and millions of fossils now and surprisingly the gradual evolution of one species to another just doesnt exist. What you get is huge leaps of supposed evolution. The warm blooded bird is supposed to be a descendant of a cold blooded feathered dinosaur because they look similar and yet there is no intermediate species or the hundred or thousand or so intermediate species it would require to change from one to the other. where are all ther fossil records of these intermediate species.

 

1) spontaneous generation. All evolution is based on the premise that at some point we all evolved from a single life form. chemicals and gases mixed together and poof...... life was created spontaneously. Reproduce that in a lab and one of the flaws will go away

2) show one mutation that has increased genetic information (not changed but increased). To go from a single cell organism to a human would require the ability to mutate an increase in genetic information. So far, zero proof of this ability.

3) show the hundreds of transitional mutations from one species to the next. Right now its all based on faith

 

Before Celtkin answers these, I'd like to ask what you think made people?

 

teenage aliens on a pitstop to get high on oxygen

 

There are literally 1,000's upon 1,000's of transitional species. Some are still alive to this day. Is it your contention that our current crocodilians lived at the same time as super croc, or all the cat species lived at the same time as saber tooth tigers, from beginning to end?

 

No seriously.

 

I'm open to any explanation. Blind luck, an omnipotent God, Aliens, even evolution once they have better proof, etc..... I lean towards some creator. The mathematical odds of blind luck producing beings that can split atoms seems to me a sucker bet. Someone creating the complexity necessary for human life seems to me to be a much safer bet

 

Proof, proof, proof. All anybody who is against evolution can ever do is go on about the lack of absolute proof despite the enormous amount of evidence. Nevermind the fact that nobody can prove that an omnipotent, eternal entity snapped his fingers and poof... life was created. I'd say a good bit of evolution is based on evidence rather than faith.

Reproduce life in a lab? You know that theories like the one you're referring to about the origins of life have it taking at least a billion years or so with ideal conditions for the first life forms to crop up. How is a lab going to simulate billions of years?

 

You have a concept of "proof" and "safer bets" that I cannot grasp.

The massive amounts of evidence, from fossils to dna, to like 90% of the biological scientists, who've researched, tested, every possibility available to them, all not just point, but resoundingly say its evolution. Cells multiply, dna is traced, bone structures compared, and you just categorically dismiss all of it. And the only thing you really think is the answer, has absolutely no evidence behind it. None. Nada. Zip. That's the safer bet to you? Really?

More power to you, but I just don't understand that.

 

what evidence? there is no evidence of spontaneous life. This is what your theory proposes. Scientists are in love with the spontaneous. Big Bang, Evolution.....everything in science just appears magically with zero explanation. And yet this concept somehow is seen as more sane then a more conventional viewpoint that someone or something started the process. The odds are billions to the 100th or 1000th power that all the elements would just happen to fall the way they do.

once again i'll state that there is zero opposition to natural selection amongst any group out there. dog and horse breeding prove that. its a straw argument. where evolution gets mocked is where it purports to know the origin of life. it doesnt and it has major flaws that it must answer on how genetic information multiplies from 5 chromosones to 30.

it seems the christian community is the one doing the actual science here in that the basis of science is asking the hard questions of theories and trying to poke holes. it seems to me its the science community that is on the defensive here and doesnt want to admit their flaws and is more interested in silencing their critics ratherr than finding solutions. kinda like the church vs galileo only reversed this time

 

Nope. Evolution is not about the very beginning. Evolution is about after the first "cell" essentially. The reason is, ALL THE EVIDENCE points towards evolution which, again, IS natural selection. Evolution is fact. How the first "cell" happened is up to speculation, but from that point, there is no question.

ID people are the ones that try to bring creation into the discussion. They are the ones that say evolution isn't true, therefore, natural selection isn't true.

Religion does not do science in this. They have not a single stitch of evidence to even imply, we did not evolve. All they have are sayings and questions.

I can't remember the official name for this question, but its something about a person finding a watch in the middle of the woods, and knowing nothing about watches, would think it was created by someone. This is the type of evidence that is presented. I truly think you haven't done the research on this. Many of your questions have been answered. Your view on what evolution is, is inaccurate.

Religion has a long and storied tradition of being at odds with the science community, because science often says things different than dogma. Science has always proved to be right in these instances, and in that sense, you're right, evolution hasn't happened.

I'm ending this conversation because I do not want it to get heated. Good luck to you and your beliefs.

 

Uhmmm....

I know that wasn't fair, but couldn't resist.

 

if it was only natural selection there would be no argument. there isnt a person out there that doesnt believe in natural selection

 

i was waiting for someone to bring up genetic drift and mutation. aww you're no fun doesnt gould's theory contradict askoxford

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote: "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change....All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."[65][66]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

 

In 1985, Gould was more specific regarding his claim that there were intermediate forms and asserted that Archaeopteryx was a intermediate form.[73] Also, according to Dr. Batten, in 1994 the following occurred in regard to Gould's stance on the fossil record:

“ "[Gould] abandoned his earlier position that there are no indisputable examples of transitional fossil series, either inter-specific or between major designs, and has embraced the ‘walking whale’ story as evidence for transformation of one species into another. The evidence for this transition is scant, but Gould uncritically accepts the fanciful description of how Ambulocetus natans walked and swam, as given by Thewissen et al."[65]

same source. I like this one though I think Gould was wrong. Whales have the beginnings of legs because they will transition to the land instead of escaping the land. I cant wait for this to happen. We just have to train them to play nose tackle in football

 

science was wrong about how lions hunted and how snakes could hear and the bible was right. Besides modern science owes its start to the church. Copernicus was a believer

 

*cough* Gregor Mendel *cough* *cough*

Newton as well.

 

And therein is one of the more interesting aspects of the discussion, what is wrong about asking for proof of higher order evolution?

A lab is a poor substitute for a theoritical environment that A. Existed B. Contained the elements to create life C. Ordered themselves to create life D. then branched off into incredible biodiversity.

4 Billion years on earth is not enough time Muscle, I'm not a 6 day Creation kind of guy, I also think Evolutionists have overstated their case based on limited data and understanding.

 

Newton published his findings:

Bacon was a courtier, any mistake would have led to his death:

Mendel:

Copernicus:

Galileo:

Do note, he took a Augustinian view.

Copernicus:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus[/ame]

Francis Bacon:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon[/ame]

Galileo:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei[/ame]

Mendel:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel[/ame]

 

No, the first paragraph of the Bible disproves the "6,000 yr old earth" theory, some well meaning folks are so invested in a King James Version understanding of "the Earth was created and it was made void" they overlook the principle that a Creator would not make something imperfect..

Do tell, 4 million or more species identified, and that is without transitional species that charitably could be said have not been found as of yet, and all arising from Evolution's "primordial soup"?

How long would it take to produce a blue whale under that theory Celt?

Ballpark it if you'd like.

 

Isaiah something lol I think. Thought it was funny. As for the church going after scientists its the same as the communists or nazis going after priests and rabbis. That's a human problem not a religious one. Some people simply dont like opposing viewpoints. Kinda like me with jets fans

 

In theory, aren't all animals and plants, transitional species?

I think the confusion comes in, because a true lack of understanding as to how evolution works. I think when people ask for the "transitional species" they think there should be fossils of a 75% bear & 25% pig, then a 50/50 bear & pig fossil, then 25/75 bear & pig fossil. Again, I want to lay a lot of the blame of that misconception at the feet of that old chimp to man graphic, that is still being used today to describe evolution.

 

When the Earth was "made void" that was pre Adamic Covenent, meaning a Epoch had occured.

As for Transitional species, that is not what I inquired about, how long, from primordial soup to blue whale, did that specific process of a blue whale evolving take to happen?

And while we are on the subject of transitional species, can you show an example of higher order species? And that is one of the problems I have with Evolution vis a vis Biodiversity, with 2 million existing species today, each would require several series of genetic ancestors, where are they?

 

Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.

Religion is just a form of organization, and people in groups normally do not like change. Same thing with the global warming group now

I'm sure before modern religion people were getting ostracized and killed for their outside the box views. That's human nature. Not just religion.

Jets fans are ALMOST human. Almost. They're only at 4 letter words but they're coming along nicely!

 

Piranha's too.

We need an anti-association law. No more associations. Less people will get killed.

But your analogy doesn't work though. Wolves do kill elk, in groups, but they still do. Need to come up with a weapon for wolves (maybe their fangs) or a specific cult/religion causing them to kill, and hunger isn't one of them!