Best answer goes to the one argument against evolution that is supported by evidence. Can you do it?

Question

I really really doubt anyone can, if one person makes one argument AGAINST evolution SUPPORTED by common sense and EVIDENCE, THEN they will get the BEST answer.

and i will worship god and give a public apology for asking all these questions I know are a pain in the *** for people to answer...

Of all these answers, great misinformation and arrogance are evident. Apparently no one here knows much about evolution.

Fossil Gaps: Some of you say there are fossil gaps where there actually aren't! Besides there is this thing called punctuated equilibrium which explains fossil gaps. Also fossils don't form from every dead organism, they are rare.

Time: Evolution has occured of billions of years so you wouldn't see major changes in a period of a few years. Besides, evolution does happen now days, mosquitoes are becoming resistent to pesticide, among thousands of thousands of other things.

Chimps have 98.4% similar genetics, not 90%, and that includes Introns which are genetics that are not even used.

Even if we didn't see evolution occuring it is evident by studying life that it is possible. It is like studying an engine, you never saw it run but you can figure out how it works.

And there are many other things that I choose not to respond to, such as humans coming from monkies (then why are there still monkies?)

Well I'll tell you why. We branched off from monkeys and apes.

Some of you pointed out that the probability of these things happening is amazingly high, but that is why evolution goes slowly over billions of years! Only rarely does it happen in short spurts, and even these short spurts are unfathombly long periods of time!

No best answer.

Answer 1

I cannot make you believe something that you don't want to believe, but I urge you to use discernment, reason and logic when thinking aobut evolution- all the things evolutionists accuse us of not using , but really- do the principles of evolution make sense? If this has taken place over the course of millions of years, little by little, then we are being decieved when we are told we are looking for "the missing link" we are looking for millions of missing links- besides that- there are so many common sense, scientific questions that evolution just cannot answer- no matter how you twist it.
If you are really interested in education and not just disproving something that does not fit your mold- read this article, it is fun reading but very informative and common sense-
Meet Gaspy: the lungfish:

http://www.reflecthisglory.org/study/did...

here are other bits of interesting fact for you to ponder :

Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old), the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been identified. Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties . . . scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax . . . tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year-old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year-old orangutan from the East Indies." Our Times--the Illustrated History of the 20th Century (Turner Publishing, 1995, page 94).

Science Fiction
The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident. The famed "Nebraska Man" was built from one tooth, which was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. "Java Man" was found in the early 20th Century, and was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. "Heidelberg Man" came from a jawbone, a large chin section and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modem man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with good old carbon dating. Now there's reliable proof. Not according to Time magazine (June 11, 1990). They published an article in the science section that was subtitled, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off." Don't look to "Neanderthal Man" for any evidence of evolution. Recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).

What does Science Say?
Here are some wise words from a few respected men of science: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research). "Evolution is unproved and unprovable." (Sir Arthur Keith--he wrote the foreword to the 100th edition of, Origin of the Species). "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA).

"To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

A great resource for some education that is logical and common sense is called "The Science or Evolution: expand your mind" You can get this DVD from WayoftheMaster.com

** I am sure someone here has already pointed this out but regarding your mosquito comment- the mosquito may have adapted somewhat, but it is still a mosquito. Yes bacteria become more resistant because they survive through whatever they are becoming resistant to- but in the end, a mosquito will give birth to a mosquito- not a carbon copy but still the same species, a human will give birth to a human and a monkey give birth to a monkey. Also - if we all came from a common ancestor- why is it that we cannot procreate between species??

I think there are many good evidences against evolution posted here- your refusal to accept them does not make them any less valid or true

Answer 2

Here is my answer:
Evolution scientifically is considered by many as an overreaching concept that draws upon a variety of theories and hypotheses. split into 2 parts Microevolution (the changes made below a species level) is fairly undebated by evolutionary critics. Macroevolution on the other hand which looks at the transformation of a species is hotly debated.
in the argument against macroevolution allow me to point out several facts and ask some questions.

Macroevolution's argument requires the earth to be billions of years old. Unfortunatly our previous method of determining the earth's age (Carbon dating) has been proven to be highly unreliable, with scientists discovering levels of sediment only thousands of years old under levels previously thought to be billions of years old.

now if the earth is younger than we first thought...that would mean the macroevolutionary process would happen more rapidly, which logically would mean we would have more historical and physical evidence of evolution...
And would we not see evidence of humans evolving further?

some questions...
Why is there such a huge gap between the intelligence of humans and apes?
Why are there no apes that have the capability of speech? wouldn't you expect some humans more ape like, and some apes more human like...annomolies?

im not going to argue the creationalist side, simply because you have to be open to the idea that the world and your physiology isn't an accidental combination of mutations, cells colliding and a million year cooking time.

so simply i have pointed out that neither theory can be supported by evidence, because neither theory is at the moment considered scientifically plausible.

If you want to hop on the band wagon and think yourself accidently evolved from apes then be my guest, but i prefer to believe that i was individually created and formed.
By the way...you and i both know that no matter how evidence based an argument gets posted up here, you would not believe in God, because faith in somthing that no one can fully comprehend takes more strength of conviction than any scientific theory in history.

Answer 3

I don't think there has been any fossil found to link apes to humans yet. There have been ape-man fossils, but that doesn't mean we descended from them, their line could have died out completely.

"The trouble with the "missing link" is that it is still missing! In fact, the whole fossil chain that could link apes to man is also missing! The theory of evolution, which states that man evolved from some other species, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub."

check out this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-08-oppose_x.htm

Muslims don't discard the entire theory of evolution. Some say it was divinely controlled, and that each species evolved separately--ancient birds evolved into modern bird, ancient humans evolved into modern humans, but NOT ancient apes evolved into modern day monkey, chimps and humans. This can be extrapolated from the Quran:
"He started the creation of man from mud." and "I am creating the human being from `aged' clay." and "From water
we initiated all living things."


The probability that one cell was the start of a million species is very, very little statistically Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

another link:http://www.submission.org/suras/app31.html

Answer 4

In Natural Bridges National Park in Utah, there are petroglyphs that show men and dinosaurs in the same painting. If this is not a dinosaur, then what is it. If it is, then how did these men know how to draw them if dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before men? (Unless these paintings just naturally "evolved" all by themselves.)

Such ancient forms of art can be seen from all over the world. Like the one in the Grand Canyon, or Montrose County, Colorado.

There are also clay figures in Mexico, Art in Inca tombs in Peru, and sculptures in Cambodian temples. All of these items look amazingly like known dinosaurs. Again, if these men had never seen one, what do these art forms show, and if these are dinosaurs, how did these men know what they looked like?

Combine this with fossils that show mammals, even humans, and dinosaurs together, and most evolutionists have a hard time answering these simple questions. Most just ignore this data or go into attack mode, changing the subject without ever addressing this evidence.

To see some of the items I referenced, see this web site.

Answer 5

Let me prove it by Science:

Is it not true that Science is constant? I've always been taught so.

If we came from monkeys - then how many documented cases has there been where moneys have evolved into humans and now live among us?

In the Big Bang theory - just how did life form from Non-living material? Because if it did - scientist could be able to do it today.
How many babies have been born from these experiments?

Is this enough Common Sense? No - because you atheist always have an out - you won't have an out on Judgment day!

Check out http://www.johnfourteen.com from John 14 in the Bible
Look at "Studies in the Bible" and "Lessons from the Pulpit"
many answers to everyday life can be found there.

Answer 6

Tremendous amount of geological evidince points towards a global, world-wide flood about 4,400 years ago. The Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, the Sahara Desert, the Mississippi River Delta, the Great Barrier Reef--all these point to a cataclysmic global event about 4,000 to 10,000 years ago--a flood that covered the earth and all of its surface.

As I see it, there was a global flood less than 10,000 years ago. And an event like that would pretty much prove evolution impossible--evolution could not have processed through that.

But if that isn't enough, the strata layers of the earth, the radiation in the Van Allen Belt, the accumulation of dust on the moon, and the amount of volcanic activity on the earth point to the earth being less than 25,000 years old--not enough time for evolution to take place.

Y'know, in the world of logic, it's not my job to prove them wrong, it's their job to prove themselves right... but they haven't... "giant leaps" of evolution have never been recorded or observed.

Answer 7

Are you in a house,apartment,ect. How do you know it exsists can you see the builder of it? No right! Well where's there a building there had to be a builder. If you see a painting how do you know there is a painter the painting is the proof that there is a painter.Well GOD is our creator and the earth and all on it is his creation. When you do something that you know in wrong do you feel guilty? If so that is your conscience, con meaning with, science meaning knowledge. Every time you do something wrong, you do it with the knowledge that it is wrong That's how much GOD loves us, he gave us a conscience so we can judge ourselves and make the proper changes before he Judges us. If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Did they feel only two needed to evolve? Something to think about huh. All glory to GOD!!!

Answer 8

Wow, I didn't read anything too stirring. This is one of my favorites: "Why are there still apes if we evolved from apes?" Well, you know, just because something better came along, doesn't mean the old thing just died out. We also evolved from amoeba. Why do we still have amoeba? Because they are still a viable organism. Some of them evolved, but not every strand of DNA changes with every reproduction, so it goes to reason that while a new lifeform may emerge, the old may also stick around.

Answer 9

The argument for BIOGENESIS is the one argument against evolution supported by the evidence. Foundational to evolutionary idea is the belief that life came from nonlife. Yet the LAW of Biogenesis goes contrary to that belief. We have always observed and tested that life ONLY comes from prior life. We have not come across anything that contradicts this law.

Answer 10

When did the process stop? and if it hasn't , why are we not tracking it with the technology we have today.
and people have been looking for the missing link since darwin came up with this idea anyway. a theory is something that can be proven using scientific data, and it aint happened yey after how many years. Give me a break

Answer 11

The only evidence that I need is the Word of God, for it is the best evidence available. Whether you want to believe it or not, God is real, He is alive, and his Son Jesus is returning soon to the earth, to take back with Him to Heaven, those who have accepted Him as their personal Savior; which evidently you have not yet done. So I suggest that you do so immediately. Tomorrow may be too late!