Can anyone give evidence that goes against evolution that is not from the bible? Facts only no opinions.?

Question

I notice everyone is just giving their own beliefs. The question asks what evidence condradicts evolution. A blelief is an opinion.

I notice everyone is just giving their own beliefs. The question asks what evidence condradicts evolution. A blelief is an opinion.

Cannot one person who believes in creation give me one piece of evidence that goes against evolution?

Answer 1

No one has that proof. Just like no one has proof there are aliens and UFO's. It's a matter of your personal beliefs.

Answer 2

I don't have a source for this but there's a picture I saw of a skeleton pf a whale that is preserved in many layers of oceanic sediment. These are the same layers that scientists say prove the evolution of the world because the lower layers are from 500 million years ago and the layers on top of those are from 400 million years ago, etc (paraphrasing of course). How can a perfect skeleton be perfectly preserved in layers that come from such different time periods? The knowledge about the sediment layers was widely accepted as proof of the evolution of the world before the discovery of the skeleton. If the people that knew this before can unknow it and look to other theories, it makes me question how sound the rest of their theories are.

Answer 3

Ihad a professor once remark over discussions of anthropithicus africanus that although species become similar as we travel back in time, they do not cross over. Of the millions of species on this planet, we don't have a missing link for any of them. Evolution of species is pretty obviously a fact. The sickle cell trait combats malaria and look at how the horse has evolved for instance. But origin of species is a different matter. The earliest form of a horse is very similar to say a dog for instance, but it is still a horse. There are small but major differences in skeletal structure that differentiate the species and never cross over. These have evolved over time of course.

The hypothesis of human origins is not a direct line. It looks more like a web and every new find completely changes the chain. Neandertals were originally believed to be earlier than Homo Sapiens, but fossil evidence changed them from Homo Neandertalis to Homo Sapiens Neandertalis. Many of these species existed side by side. They pop into existence and immediately snuff out in very small geographical areas. Science can't explain these things and has a tough time determining which of three species that all cohabitated could be our ancestor. We know for certain that they were all unique species and we have similarities but no links.

The presence of a North American Indian myth of a man and wife taking two of each animal during a big flood and floating on the back of a turtle has shown that some of the Jewish Torah stories are very very old. The fact that the word "Ma" means mother in every language that has ever existed points to a common language ancestor.

It is interesting stuff to ponder and I am of the opinion that neither side can discount the other. It is unfortunate that a discussion created by Rene Descartes has led to an opposition of church and science. Scientific skepticism defeats existing theories in an attempt to produce a better one. Religion tries to use scientific logic to prove that science is falicious because its foundation is replaced so frequently with new evidence. One cannot use science to prove or disprove the validity of science. On the other hand, science cannot prove or disprove stories that have existed for thousands of years in every culture. They both fail when applied to the other. The argument is hundreds of years old and the outcome is still the same: both are useful. I'm not sure how the argument has benefited society, however. In an argument, one hopes to convince the other side, or reach an understanding of the two positions. As long as each position seeks to benefit society, there shouldn't be a problem with either.

Answer 4

Evolution is still theory in itself. No one can prove that carbon dating is accurate, nor have they found all the "missing links", nor can they explain why things started.

Even as far back as the big bang, scientists theorize how it may have happened, but cant answer why. They cant answer why animals evolved, since they have proved that the climate of the earth changes too rapidly for evolution to work successfully, and according to the theory of evolution it takes hundreds of thousands of years for a species to acclimate enough to a climate change to thrive. When the climate changes so does the vegetation, a creatures ability to metabolize energy, and thus have a functioning gastric system and circulatory system.

They cannot understand how any animal could have survived the climate change the killed the dinosaurs, let alone how so many new species grew from that point on. let alone how so many living things not only survive the rapid climate changes of today, but how they survived the atmospheric changes of the milena.

Beyond the animals theres is no solid proof that the earth is a reliable time table. They have found layers of sediment they cannot account for, and remains in those sediment that not only confuse the theory of evolution but seriously threaten it.

Everything is subjective, and any person who assumes they know everything about the creation/evolution of the world is not only presuming they know too much, but insinuating that they witnessed it for themselves.

We date things by carbon and by sediment because as of now it has been a fairly reliable method which gives scientists a ball park date range, but neither are fool proof and all have to be compared with other sediments, time theories, and what little information they consider as facts. None of them are certain about anything, but according to their theories they can account for what they find to be true. This is for both sides of the arguement.

Many scientists and ancient historians have changed their beliefs and lost their faith in modern geology and palentology because of conflicting data which suggests that if evolution is not wrong, it is seriously miscalculated.

Your best bet is to be as well educated in the field as possible so you can gain your own beliefs, and then seek to defend them, instead of attacking the beliefs of others. Since that does nothing but give rise to contention.

Answer 5

******
the chariots from when noah parted the river where found...one of Jacob's boxes in a bible story was found in asia..there IS proof

****

How does that disprove evolution?? That has nothing to do with the topic! Also, where are you reading these stories about the chariots and "Jacob's boxes," whatever those are?

Oh, and faith is NOT proof! If you had proof, you would not need faith! There is abundant proof for the process of evolution, NONE WHATSOVER for the biblical creation story. I don't understand why people want for these stories to be true. They are content to wallow in ignorance, saying "Goddidit" for every strange thing that they can't understand. If they had their way, there would be no science, only religion, and we would be no more advanced than the primitive goat-herders who invented the creation story...which, btw, is borrowed from similar myths of other cultures.

Answer 6

Well, one fact is that it is very hard to prove it. No large animals have gone through an observed change that can be credited to evolution. However, viruses and bacteria have done, for example avian flu.

Also there are large holes in a lot of animals going from one animal to the next. For example there is(are) a(some) missing animal(s) between humanoids and other apes.

Despite these reasons there is a lot more evidence (not religious or opinionated) for evolution than not.

Answer 7

The answers I listed have absolutely nothing to do with belief. Purely factual. I think the originator of the question is too set in his ways to have a true dialogue on the subject, is just blowing smoke about the topic, and has automatically ignored any scientifically-based argument that does not support his position. Oh well. Here are some facts:

Extremely limited and questionable evidence of intermediary species between lower and higher species.

No current intermediary species between the vast majority of lower and higher species.

The continued presence of lower species not having evolved.

The presence of characteristics in various lower species that would be beneficial in higher species but are not present in those higher species.

Answer 8

you wants facts? Here you go..

The likelyhood of us "evolving" from matter is according to scientific theory and molecular biologists is 1 in 10 to 100,000,000,000 th power... Even if all the matter in the universe were converted into the buildding blocks of life (amino acids, and nucleotides), and assembly of these blocks were attempted every microsecond for 17 billion years (the approx. age of the universe). the probablility would still be 10 to the 84th power which is 10 with like 5 hundred zeros behind it! I personally find it much more compelling a case to believe in god and the Bible than think we just evolved from matter. Do the research numbers don't lie...

PS If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes ? ....

Answer 9

common sense does every thing about evolution make sense to you, a single cell the big bang theory, where did the single cell organs come from, there's evidence that Jesus existed and did die on the cross. there's evidence that moses freed the slaves of Egypt and walked through water. but weather you believe or not the facts are the facts and when Jesus returns every eye shall see and every head shall bow, and give glory to the lord. i wish i could help you understand. and if we can from apes and monkey tell me why are the apes not evoluing into human beings right to day. we are totally different from them.

Answer 10

I can offer a booklet:

Scientists and God: What 90 Scientists Say About the Creator and Creation.

It's a real eye opener, available free from [e-mail].

Answer 11

The problem with your question is that evolution is a hypothesis. It's not accepted as proven fact. One can refute a 'fact'. A hypothesis at it's core is a question.