evolutionists , please read and tell me how u can believe in this?

Question

Best arguments against evolution?
Evolutionists do not have solid support from science when they say everything has “evolved”.

In fact, evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three of the biggest problems in the universe.

Problem No. 1
There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

Problem No. 2
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.

Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!

Problem No. 3
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.
And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

All the evidence is on the side of the Christian who believes the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.

Answer 1

I agree
If you take purified water put it in a purified cup take and put in a vacuum sealed room and leave it for oh let's say 100yrs what will happen?.........Nada

Answer 2

Okay - so you believe that the Earth was "created" 6000 years ago, that man and dinosaurs lived together, that Hell is in the middle of the planet, and Heaven is in the sky somewhere above it, and that someone calling himself a GOD is responsible for humans? That a woman was made from a rib bone? That He just blew on a little pile of sand (which came from where?) and poof - Earth and all the other planets and celestial bodies and the sun? That everyone on the planet (if you believe all mankind sprung from Adam and Eve) is from 2 people, yet there are many different races and colors of people? How is that possible? How about the evidence of the Earth itself? Are you contending that the evidence in geological strata is a lie? Next you'll say that the moon landing was actually filmed in a studio and never happened. We are evolving all the time - man is taller than he was 500 years ago. If you breed 2 speices of plant, do you not get a new breed? A hybrid? That is what evoltion is really all about. The Earth has been here for hundreds of millions of years - in all that time, and the short time man has been on it, with climate shifts, ice ages, and the like, we have evolved. And we're not the only ones - birds, lizards, fish - some lived, some died out. Evolution is a continuous process. We did not just appear here after some guy pointed a finger at some dirt and said live. If so, how do you explain early man? No knowledge, no speech, primitive life - all of this has been discovered and proven. Your account of man, I hate to say, has not. All you have to go by is one book - we have hundreds of books filled with real scientific data.

Answer 3

1) Go look up quantum physics on wikipedia. The old "ex nihilo, nihilo" has been long since disproved. And why do you assume that there was ever "nothing" in the universe anyway?

2) This has nothing to do with evolution, and many evolutionists believe that God created the first living organisms. In any case, "miracle" means "something that science cannot yet explain," and abiogenesis is currently being studied; scientists are trying to make very simple living organisms from scratch.

3) You're overlooking two basic things - first, "crossing over," which occurs when an egg and a sperm fuse into a zygote, can form new DNA code; second, evolution, by definition, requires LOTS OF TIME for natural selection to make a difference.

Answer 4

The Bible only says that "God did it". It doesn't say how God did it. It doesn't say how God came to exist. For me, it is a totally unsatisfactory answer.

It is true that Science does not give fully definitive answers to the three Problems you list. But Science addresses them far better than the statements above imply.

For problem 1, there is active research into proposals for how the Big Bang started. M Theory allows for the possibility that our 4D spacetime is just a 4D membrane embedded in higher dimensional space, and that the big bang happened when our membrane collided with another membrane. This could result in a tremendous release of energy without violating the conservation of energy. Other possibilities are being explored.

For problem 2, there is the field of Abiogenesis, and in particular the proposal of biopoiesis, which is non-living but self-replicating molecules that could have been precursors to RNA.

Problem 3 is basically the idea that you can't get macroevolution by accumulating many steps of microevolution. As far as I know, only creationists think this. There is indeed a difficulty in proving this happened because it must have happened very slowly over very long periods of time, and it is extremely rare to have well preserved fossils. Creationsts say "where are the missing links?" But they don't realize that there are quite likley dozens of missing links between any two well known fossils that are considered to be on the same line of evolution. If the two known fossils are millions of years apart, then its not that big of a stretch to assume several transitional forms are completely missing.

Each of the above problems starts with "There is no known scientific law..." In each case, this is wrong in two ways:
1) There are known lines of research that are ignored.
2) This is argument from incredulity. If we really don't know the answer to some question, you cannot therefore conclude that the only possible alternative is "God did it".

I hope you will take some time to read the pages I reference below, and to do some follow up reading. You're clearly reading what creationists have to say, but they misrepresent what Science has to say. The pages I reference are relatively short but are good starting points if you are really serious in learning more.

-----
EDIT
Regina, I looked to see your past questions. I see this is not the first time you have asked about evolution. Each time in the past you chose an answer that reinforced your creationist beliefs. I hope this time you will be intellectually honest and recognize that Science does actually have credible answers to the anti-evolution propaganda that you have been exposed to. If you can't accept this, then be honest with yourself and stop asking these kinds of questions.

Answer 5

Problem No. 1:
That agrument is highly contradictory. Why would the universe need a Creator, but the Creator wouldn't need a Creator? I've heard tons of different arguments that try to refute this "Who Created God?" argument, but all of them seem to come back to one point, "God doesn't need to be created because He is eternal!" Well I say, right backatcha. The universe does not need a Creator because it is eternal. Creationist logic that the 'first cause' is eternal supports that the universe doesn't need a Creator, because it always was, always is, and always will be. And don't try telling me that the Big Bang is proof of a created universe. I would *expect* a highly unstable superreactor of immense amounts of matter and energy into an infinitely small space to explode eventually, by natural causes, wouldn't you?

Problem No. 2:
Actually, there is a scientific law that accounts for living organisms coming from non-living materials. It's called biochemistry. Are you aware that the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen atoms that make up a large majority of your body's matter are absolutely no different whatsoever from the nonliving oxygen atoms that you breathe, or the nonliving hydrogen atoms that blew up the Hindenburg, or the nonliving carbon atoms that's in that shiny diamond affixed to the $200 necklace, or the nonliving nitrogen atoms that fill up the tires in that airplane that always flies overhead? Every single part of your body, my body, your cats body, your mother's body, and any other living thing's body, can be found somewhere on Earth, in an entirely nonliving form. There is overwhelming amounts of evidence that life came from coincidental chemical reactions between the chemicals that were already there. The potential to create life was always there, and the more time the atoms are there, the more likely life will come from it. Since the Earth is many millions of years old, I think that the laws of probability, along with the laws of biochemistry, are highly in our favor.
Did you know:
That 98% of our DNA is shared with chimpanzees, meaning that if we're God's chosen creatures, chimps are a very close second?
That scientists have synthesized DNA from nonliving chemicals, injected that DNA into animal cells, and made the animal cell produce viruses that never existed before, and were 'intelligently designed' entirely by the scientists?
That in conditions thought to be similar to pre-life Earth, bioshells, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins have all been produced by natural causes? And that's only in a few years, not even 0.001% of the time that the real primordial Earth had to create life.

Problem No. 3:
Sigh, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you cannot cherry-pick which part of evolution you can believe and which part you can't. Most Creationists want to believe that micro-evolution is possible, but macro-evolution is not, because the Bible says so. What you don't understand is that they are the same exact process, and if you believe in one, you have to believe in the other. Macro-evolution is the ultimate result of millions of years of micro-evolution. Many little changes make an entirely different creature. The same works in reverse, if you believe in macro-evolution, you must also believe in micro-evolution, because they are both *exacltly the same process*
One is just the immediate result of changes in a creature, and the other is the result of many little instances of changes.

All the evidence is on the side of the scientists who believe in the theory of evolution, largely supported by all known scientific evidence and fields of science today.

Nobody made evolution because they wanted to attack the Bible. They made it because it was the conclusion that they came upon when analyzing the evidence. It's called the scientific method, and it has worked for centuries, and continues to work today. I'm sorry that you feel the Bible is under attack, but you cannot ignore the overwhelming amounts of evidence just because you feel that way. Evolution is a science. Christianity is a religion. This debate is nothing but the classic science vs. religion debate that has been going on since science and religion have coexisted.

I'm not an evolutionist, and I'm not a creationist. I simply choose to believe what the evidence suggests. And all known evidence is pointing towards evolution.

Answer 6

There's no evidence supporting the Biblical account. You're simply asserting that there had to be a creator just because the evidence for evolution that you know of (which seems cobbled together from talk radio and chick tracts), doesn't satisfy your criteria. Second, no one thinks all life came from "nothing." But the current state of science's inability to explain everything about the origin of life doesn't negate the conclusions already drawn about it, and certainly doesn't give you room to just fill in the gaps with religion.

Creationists often like to malign the Miller experiment, where researchers simulated a best-guess pre-life environment to see if organic matter could come from inorganic, saying it's been proven false, because none of the resulting orgainic matter was found in any of our current animals. Except that assumes an element of predestination in the structure of life (ie, that ours is the only way it could be, rather than ours is the way it happened to be). The other problem is that the Miller experiment clearly showed that organic matter could be produced from inorganic materials. And that was only the first in a branch of study that's since made a lot more discoveries.

But I'm not going to try to mount a full defense of evolution here, for someone who's probably not really interested in learning about it. But if you are I recommend you read "Origin of the Species" by Darwin, "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones (which is basically a new edition of "Origin of the Species" updated with new data that continues to pour in) and "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. "Darwin's Ghost" in particular addresses most of the pseudo-points you pseudo-raise.

Answer 7

1. Yes, evolution is concerned with change, not beginnings. I ask you, though: if you can't get something from nothing, where did god come from? If your answer is that he was always there, well the same could just as easily apply to the universe.

2 & 3. You contradict yourself by citing the very evidence you claim does not exist.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the bible's account other than the bible itself. Anecdotal evidence is at best the source of inspiration and design of an experiment that would provide actual scientific evidence. Where is that? The only example I'm aware of is the recent study that found that the only effect prayer had on heart patients was to increase their chance of suffering complications if they knew they were being prayed for.

Answer 8

All of your arguments beg the question, Who or what then created God if it is impossible for something to come from nothing. If everything has to have a beginning to exist God himself must have had a beginning, and if a beginning requires a creation which, in turn, requires a creator then what was Gods creator... and who or what created that creator... Hopefully you're beginning to see the flaw in your logic.

If you answer that God is timeless and has always existed then try this hat on... The laws of conservation (scientific law mind you) state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, they can only change form. With that in mind, if you believe God can have no beginning what's to stop you from thinking that all of the energy and matter in the universe had no beginning... it has simply always existed. Is it easier to believe that something you have never experienced with any of your senses could have been around forever? OR something that you sense and interact with every day, and know is absolutely real, could have been around forever?

Answer 9

Yes you make a good point at the beginning. the first two problems.
On the third one you have stumbled a bit.Paragraph 1 does not jive with the next paragraph.

If your next paragraph is true then why are there still light colored moths at all any where in the world?
Evolution is about things changing to fit there environment which would mean a change in genetic information so that they can or will breed true.

But Yes something has to be created before something can evolve in this Physical Universe.

Answer 10

Geez, get over yourself and learn to read outside of Creationist websites.

There is oh so much proof for evolution, why do you think it's taught in schools as SCIENCE and not speculation while your creationist dogma is only available at church?

The development of the universe is in no direct way related to the theory of evolution, that's just creationist thinking for you - "Since you can't prove that the big bang happenned: evolution can't have happenned."

You don't even understand evolution theory so why are you even debating it? All you've done is copy and paste 'evidence' against it from creationist propaganda websites. None of the 'evidence' you've given has any truth to it, it's just been twisted to represent what you think is true (much like the Bible generally is so no surprise there) so your argument is, to the point, completely flawed.

Answer 11

Problem 1:
Evolution does not deal with this. However, quantum mechanics does. There are currently several theories in which things come from nothing. Do a search on vacuum fluctuations, super symmetry, or zero point emissions.

Problem 2:
Again you seem to be behind on modern science. Scientists have observed RNA being spontaneously generated in closed environments that simulate what scientists hypothesize the early atmosphere on earth was like.

Problem 3:
Speciation has been observed in the lab and field. There are several cases of speciation of fruit flies, fish, and beetles.