What is the best argument against evolution WITHOUT quoting the Bible?

Question

This is really just a test to see if anyone can refute evoltion without quoting the Bible. (I don't think they can!)

Answer 1

I have asked this very question before also and no one could give an adequate answer.

The truth is so plain in front of people's faces but they choose to keep their closed minds firmly in the Bible instead.

The funny thing is that most of them don't follow all of the Bible. They pick and choose which verses will best suit their wants and desires. (If they DID follow ALL of the Bible, they would be forced to NOT wear jewelry in church and women would have to be silent in church...it's all there in the New Testament!)

Answer 2

What if they quote the Koran or Torah?

OK, seriously, speaking as a palaeontologist, entomologist and student of evolutionary biology, there are still some arguments made against evolution that are harder to dismiss than others. The arguments made by simply quoting the bible are usually easy to disprove, these are a little tougher:

Abiogenesis - The actual origin of life itself, and the evidence that life arose through selection of increasingly complex chemical interactions is much harder to prove than the theory of evolution through natural selection. The fact that most Creationists confuse the two (totally separate) theories doesn't help much. It should also be noted that the Creation myth is in fact a story of abiogenesis, and not a story of evolution. Even if biblical creation or an 'intelligent designer' were somehow proven, it would not discount Darwin's theory of speciation through natural selection in the least.

Mutations are rare and when they do occur, are usually harmful - This argument against the purported source of genetic variability that natural selection acts upon is based on faulty assumptions, as actually mutations are not rare, and are usually neutral.

Mutations are random noise. They cannot increase information, or increase complexity, only take it away - This is often used as an argument against evolution, however it is also untrue. Merely increasing the genetic variability in a population (i.e. a normal organism and another organism with a benign or neutral mutation in their gene sequence) increases the amount of genetic information available in the population. There are many other ways as well.

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, and there are no 'intermediate' forms that would be functional - This one is a bit trickier to explain. Basically, irreducible complexity can evolve through the addition of single parts with no change in function. The study of the evolution of the Kreb's cycle is a good example of how this works. There are also some allegedly irreducibly complex systems that are not irreducible. The explosive discharge of the bombardier beetle is one example, in which there are numerous living species that actually bear intermediary adaptations.

And the biggie: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution because entropy always increases, order cannot come from disorder - This argument ignores the fact that the Earth and biological systems are not closed systems however. There is constant energy input from the sun. It also ignores the fact that life itself is an example of order arising from disorder, fighting against entropy through the use of outside energy. There are also many other examples of order coming from disorder.

These are some of the strongest arguments against evolution, and all of them can and have been explained and dismissed by science.

Because all of these counter-arguments have been explained and dismissed, the theory of speciation through natural selection remains as the most likely explanation for the observed speciation and diversity of life on our planet.

Answer 3

Irreducible complexity.

This is a rather classic example that examines the rotor motor of the bacteria's flagellum. Some bacteria move by whipping around their flagella. According to evolution, it would be necessary for each component of the motor used in the action to develop over time. However, without the motor being formed entirely at once, there would be no evolutionary advantage to just having one of the components. Neither the motor by itself nor the flagellum by itself would provide an advantage to the bacterium. It needs the whole package all at once. Therefore you have irreducible complexity.

I learned this in college, however, and do not know if it has been disproven or not.

Answer 4

no longer in all danger. whether you stumble on some undesirable quote via Darwin or an early promoter of evolution it rather is a technological awareness so the rightness or wrongness of it rather is extremely cut loose the different ethical characteristics of the 1st human beings to point it. There are presently thousands and thousands of things of information accumulated via 1000's of diverse researchers all pointing a similar customary direction to ovrride any early embarrasments. we are no longer speaking homeopathy or different psuedosciences right here, as new data got here to easy, old concepts have been remodeled or perhaps thrown out leaving a miles greater sturdy theory (that's the actual meaning of it being "in basic terms" a theory). there have been disagreements, there nevertheless are disagreements, there have even been embarrassing diversions (such via fact the MISuse of evolutionary theory via racists and eugenicists) however the customary development of organic determination and evolution is very practically previous doubt at this factor. yet, in case you may make a fool, say Hitler, some different random issues, then Stalin, greater random statements, say wood do no longer exchange into canines and plug your ears and picture you gained.

Answer 5

I believe in evolution. But I like to try what you are asking here.

Question Number 1

According to Evolution
Life started from a single cell. Agreed.

When they get bigger they they split by mutation and increased their population.

Now advanced life forms do not use mutation to reproduce. They have sophisticated system of reproduction The evolution theory does not answer how mutation has evolved in the current advanced reproduction.

Question Number 2

This is regarding DNA.

Initial single cell doesn't have DNA. How the DNA came in to existence is not explained.

If the evolution answers these 2 basic questions then evolution is prooven. If not It is still a open question. No answers how we came.

I dont advice the creationist to dance yet. I have lots of questions to doubt creationism too

Answer 6

"In 1668, Francesco Redi, an Italian scientist, designed a scientific experiment to test the spontaneous creation of maggots by placing fresh meat in each of two different jars. One jar was left open; the other was covered with a cloth. Days later, the open jar contained maggots, whereas the covered jar contained no maggots. He did note that maggots were found on the exterior surface of the cloth that covered the jar. Redi successfully demonstrated that the maggots came from fly eggs and thereby helped to disprove spontaneous generation."

Now I know all the evolutionist are going to say... but way back we had all this premordial ooze floating around and lightning was stricking it and it was hot and all of a sudden a single cell organism came to life. Sorry, that is not scientific. Thats kind of like saying lightning makes the grass green. Why? Everytime it rains and lightnings the grass is greener the next day.

There has never been any scientific proof showing how non-living matter can become living matter. So where did the first single celled organism come from for evolution to start?

Answer 7

That the earth would have to have been around for alot longer than several million years, it would have to have been here trillions of years for all the plant, animal and sea life, including humans, to establish themselves to the point where our cells are so advanced.

There is also ample evidence of intelligent and deliberate design within all living things. If one of a hundred processes within one living cell was not there or did not evolve correctly, our cells would die, or never multiply, grow or exist. That means plants, humans, animals. That our cells work in perfect unison with other parts of our bodies is testament that the possibility of something evolving to this sophisticated state is ludicrous. The only evolutionary evidence based on Darwins stuff is that Finches in different parts of the world managed to adapt slowly to their environment in order to eat the different foods in different areas. some had larger or longer beaks than others, but not extreme beaks.. just subtle differences.

If our planet has been around for as long as it would take for cells and our bodies to grow and for nature to go by its due process of trial and error and catastrophes, the earth would already be uninhabitable due to cosmic fatality. Our sun would have gone nova already and just disintegrate earth, or some celestial body would have collided with earth, maybe several times, to the point where the earth could not sustain the atmosphere. Its possible for a fairly large body to impact the earth against its rotation and cause a planetary shudder, to slow its rotation.

Arent the odds a little too high that one planet in the entire universe that we know managed to spin itself into just the perfect speed and mold itself at just the perfect distance from the sun, with a moon just the right size to have an important effect on the tides of our oceans, with just the right amount of distance from us, while keeping a constant orbit around the earth? Doesnt that seem a little far fetched?

Saying that all this was caused by the big bang and evolution is like what the odds are of you winning a global lottery tomorrow if the tickets only cost 10 cents each and everyone bought $20 worth. unfathomable.

Answer 8

Some believe we all developed from some primordial soup. Ha! That is just absurd. Why have we not been able to recreate life from NOTHING then. We cannot manage to build anything without first using something that previously existed. Where did a Hydrogen atom come from? If an atom is made of protons, neutrons, & electrons, where did these 3 things come from? What makes up a proton? If we can figure that out, what makes up the objects that make a proton? It goes on and on...

Oh yeah, if anyone believes in the big bang, what started the big bang? Something had to put the events of the universe in motion. You cannot create something from nothing.

Gravitational Singularity

Based on Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, some believe that the Big Bang was produced by a gravitational singularity. Many physicists and astronomers believe that the universe is, and always has been, expanding. If this is true, then if we go back far enough in time, we eventually reach a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. When this size reaches zero, it is said to be a "gravitational singularity." According to this model, time began at the same "instant" that this singularity exploded in the Big Bang, so there was nothing "before" the Big Bang.

But where did this gravitational singularity come from? What caused time to begin?

Faith

Some say that there does not need to be a cause. We know it happened because we are here. But that answer is based on faith, not science.

The Big Bang is not science--it is an article of faith.


Also, to reverse the question on you, there is a Christian multi-millionaire who will pay anyone $1,000,000 if they can prove anything in the bible to be wrong. Nobody has been able to do that.

Answer 9

I guess the best argument is that there is no connecting species that link one being to another.

We did not evolved from monkeys - if you read it correctly man and ape/monkeys/primates evolved from a common ancestor. It is this common ancestor (the missing link) that would provide the smoking gun to evolution.

Find the missing link find the evidence.

Now there is no direct proof, there are commonalities and general relationships but no direct link.

Answer 10

Evolution must be true or explain the following:

If man and the dinosaur did not exist at the same time where did man come from?

We know that stone age men existed. Did they evolve from Adam and Eve or were they all there at the same time.

After the flood I asume that man then evolved as Noah's decendants. Did this take place before or after the stone age.

There is too much to ignore if creationism is true. I accept a few missing links but I can't accept that nothing has evolved.

Answer 11

The argument that creationists often believe is effective is that something as complex as an eye cannot have been evolved through adaptation, it can only be the work of divine creation.

Anything that is too complex for most humans to comprehend was made through natural selection is used by creationists to support their ignorance.

The Bible has many truths passed on by milleniums of generations. However much of it should be taken as allegories and not prevent people from learning from the science of today.