what are som points against darwin´s theory?

Answer 1

The evolutionary theory is very factual and it is seen everywhere we look. For all of the doubters out there, it seems that you are just close minded. If God made us perfect 6000 years ago???? then why is our appendix useless, or our caecum, why is our little toe useless....how can these things be explained other than by evolution.
It has been scientifically proven that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, a little more than 6000 as the bible would suggest. Fossilized dinosaur excrement proved that wrong centuries ago.
I am so tired of this argument that I wont even finish this rant, but just keep in mind its okay to question authority, and its your right to have an opinion, but dont try to shun other peoples opinions.
If someone want to believe in magic, then thats fine, if others want to believe proven fact, then good for you, but look at the whole picture before you choose which side of the fence you are really on!
ECMFW, for your information, the stupidity that mankind exhibits is actually the result of evolution, stupid, but good looking people have sex and reproduce, therefore multipying these traits in the next generation. The problem is that there is no natural selection in the human species anymore, look at all these cute little shallow blonde 20 soemthings that date 50 year old men because of their money, or their ferraris, not becuase of their health, strength, intelligence or problem solving ability....its all money my friend, so if this keeps up and we dont start choosing people based on their physical and intellectual triats, we will end up with a good looking but mentally challenged race...........thats how evolution works. So in closing thanks for the supporting statement that evolution actually works, I just filled in the gaps for you!

Answer 2

Much of Darwin's theory was based on observations made before the development of much of modern biology(molecular/cellular biology), Based on the very complex molecular basis of many systems(blood clotting, vision etc..) many scientist believe that the chance of these complex molecular systems comming together through the theory of evolution would be unlikely. Similar to the argument organ A could have evolved from organ B but what is organ A was composed of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST............ each with a specific function related to the other and if any change or mutation occurs the whole organ would cease to function. Darwin's theory or the revised neo-Darwinims is based on the improvment of existing systems based on random mutation and the selective pressure against those individuals who do not posses the new advantage. But if you look at the complexity of many organs as well as the molecular basis of function. The likelihood of evolution playing a role in the construction of these very complex things decreases. A good theory to look up would be the theory of intermediates. Also a great book to look into would be Darwin's Black Box

Answer 3

Which one of Darwin's theories? He proposed
about five different ones. The "evidence" cited in
other answers given is not genuine or has been
misapplied. For example, the comment about
carbon 14 dating not being as accurate as it is
supposed to be. Carbon 14 dating is useful only
for events within the last few thousand years. For
the period within which it applies it is fairly accurate,
it has been calibrated against other things of
known accuracy. In any valid scientific report the
uncertainty of a carbon 14 date is given as plus or
minus some given number of years.

Almost everyone who objects to evolution keeps
saying "it couldn't have happened by chance".
No one ever said it all happened by chance.
Natural selection is an ANTIchance mechanism.

Citing the bible proves nothing. The bible is not
a scientific treatise. Where it makes some statement that can be checked against the real
world it is likely to be wrong. Anyone who thinks
it is completely and literally true has not read it
with much understanding or attention.

Answer 4

There are many arguments against Evolution. As you can see from the above answers, some people focus on one or two of the answers, but you should read a pretty comprehensive listing of all of them. The best place I know for finding just about all of the Creationist arguments intended to refute evolution is at:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
It contains dozens of arguments that have been made over time and also gives you an idea of what Evolutionists say in response. After all, you don't want to make an argument that's easily refuted.

Answer 5

The main argument against Darwin's theory is that it puts most theological beliefs into doubt. But it is not a "theory" in the colloquial sense, it is a scientific fact supported by overwhelming evidence. Those who find fault with it, are, in effect, sitting in front of a bowl of chicken soup arguing that it can't be chicken soup because it has noodles in it, and evryone knows that noodles don't come from chickens!

Some of the "points" anti-Darwinists try to use are:

"-If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

This is like asking "If dalmations were bred from less-spotty dogs, why aren't there any less spotty dogs?" Monkeys & men evolved from a common ancestor.

"-There hasn't been enough time for evolution."

Most anti-Darwinists believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I can't even begin to argue sensibly against this ridiculous notion.

"The chances of something as complex as an eyeball just "appearing" randomly are almost infinite, so it must be designed"

The eyeball arose incrementally, not all at once. The anti-Darwinist complexity argument is a little like finding a pebble in a stack of housebricks, and concluding that the bricks are "natural" because they are such simple structures, but that the pebble (with its complex curves) must have been designed by some higher power!


Hope that helps.

Answer 6

The fact that carbon dating is not as accurate as claimed.

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm

The fact that since all animals, save a few ocean dwellers, are sexual beings. That said, in order for each new species formed by evolution to survive, two beings would have to evolve within the lifetime of the other in order to create offspring. Talk about chance!!!

Also there is the notion that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. Read the entire text of the link below and make your own determination.

http://www.christian-truth.org/God/creation/myths3.html

And it comes in conflict with one of the laws of science which states that anything when left to itself will devolve to a lower state. How does that fall in with evolution?

And you got to love when others call us close minded when they are unwilling to open thier minds to the thought that there might just be something bigger out there than thier egos.

Answer 7

Good question.
I read the Bible and the Bible says it is it is true but anyone can write a book and say in it that it is true. I feel apresence of something that is more powerful then evolution. I can't explain why they say the universe is a billion years when biblicly that wouldn't be possible. I anxuois to see the answers you get. God Bless You

Answer 8

NO fossil record, The DNA changes that would have to take place to change a species are too numerous to happen. A small change in one animal will usually exclude them from breeding. The pre-Cambrian population explosion. Many others.

Answer 9

if you believe darwins theory that means the life is a big coincidence but the miracle is self of life, how possible can by coincidence? it is illogical.

Answer 10

Please have al ook at the below site. I'm sure you'll get the right answers by defeating Darwinism through science evidence as well.