Christians, and other creationist. There is plenty of evidence disproving evolution?

Question

O.K. here is a challege for all you fundies, others who don't think evolution is a reality.
List 5 pieces of evidence against evolution...just 5.
Oh, and it must be current evidence, from a scientific scource that has been peer reviewed, so information for the Discovery Institute, or any other creationism web-sites don't count.
And please don't quote Behe.
Halo's or chilarity.
again if you want to disprove a scientific theory you need to use peer reviewed scientific data.

Information theory? Wow, you really don't know what your talking about do you?

Some people don't know how to read the question. Behe and buddies have been debunked long ago.

Adam:
None of what you stated is evidence. Its all opinion. did you also not read the question? If your going to argue a scientific theory, you need to use science and that means Peer-reviewed data

Sean: I would suggest you learn what the definition of scientific theory is.

Answer 1

And here is a news flash for you. It doesn't matter. You can't shake a true Christians faith.

Answer 2

1. The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

Natural Selection

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

* a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved,
* a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins,
* a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or
* a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.e

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.

Mutations

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Complex Molecules and Organs

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain. For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections, more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.

Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

Codes, Programs, and Information

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

Life contains matter, energy, and information. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly. Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

* Macroevolution cannot occur.
* Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
* Life could not result from a “big bang.


If you want more, I would be happy to provide it.

Answer 3

Wow. You really opened the floodgate with this one! "Theory" is the operative word. Not proof, not evidence, just theory. There are many things that have no scientific evidence. As science "evolves," it discovers errors, & goes on to make more.
The length of some of the answers is mind-boggling. (I scrolled a lot.) Bottom line, the only way most people (especially in the Western world) seem able to comprehend, or debate, is LINEAR. Pooh.

Answer 4

Don't the evolutionists need the definite facts to prove it for a certainty. Evolution is now taught to kids as fact. People refer to it as fact and throw millions of years around like they know for sure. However , it's still a theory, so the only one who needs evidence to prove their point is you.

Hebrews 3; 4 " Every house is constructed by someone, but He that constructed all things is God."

Answer 5

The Cosmological Argument is the argument for the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause.

In logical form, the argument goes like this:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause


THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Thermodynamics is the study of matter and energy, and the Second Law states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas.

So how does this prove that the universe had a beginning?

Well, lets look at it this way: the First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, the universe has only a finite amount of energy. If your car has 1 full tank of gas (first law), and if your car is running and consuming gas (second law), would your car be running right now if you had started it up an infinitely long time ago? No, it would be out of gas by now. In the same way, the universe would be out of energy by now if it had been running from all eternity.

But here we are and the lights are still on.



The Second Law is also know as the Law of Entropy, which is a fancy way of saying that nature tends to bring things to disorder. That is, with time, things naturally fall apart. Your car, your house, you fall apart.

But if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to a wound-up clock. If a wound-up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up.

This aspect of the Second Law tells us that the universe had a beginning. Since we still have some order left—just like we have some usable energy left—the universe cannot be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete disorder (entropy) by now.



THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING

Good scientific theories are those that are able to predict phenomena that have not yet been observed. Einstein’s General Relativity predicted the expanding universe. But it wasn’t until Edwin Hubble looked through his telescope more that 10 years later that scientists finally confirmed that the universe is expanding and that it is expanding from a single point. This expanding universe is the second line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.

How does the expanding universe prove a beginning?

If we could watch a video recording of the expanding universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a single point, not even the size of a pin head, but mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (i.e., no space, no time, and no matter).

In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something—the entire universe exploded into being! This, of course, is what is commonly called the “Big Bang.”

Is the universe expanding into empty space?

No, the universe is expanding into space that is also expanding.

There was no space before the Big Bang.

In fact, chronologically, there was no “before” the Big Bang because there are no “Befores” without time, and there was no time until the Big Bang. Time, Space, and Matter came into existence at the Big Bang.

Atheists argue that as we go back in time before the Big Bang, to when there was no time, and to where there was no space, At this time before time, they imagine a swirling dust of mathematical points which recombine again and again and again and finally come by trial and error to form our space time universe.

This position is not even scientific theory but is actually self-contradictory pop-metaphysics.

It is pop-metaphysics because it’s a made-up explanation—there’s absolutely no scientific evidence supporting it.

It also self-contradictory because it assumes time and space before there was time and space.

This is the point that an Atheist has trouble explaining the beginning. They want to put something where nothing existed.





RADIATION FROM THE BIG BANG

The 3rd line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning was discovered by accident in 1965. That’s when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected strange radiation on their antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey. No matter where they turned their antenna, this mysterious radiation remained. They initially thought it might be the result of bird droppings from the nesting Jersey Shore Pigeons, so they had the pigeons and the droppings removed. But when they got back inside, they found that the radiation was still there, and it was coming from all directions.

What they had detected turned out to be one of the most incredible discoveries of the last century—one that would win them Nobel Prizes.

They had discovered the afterglow from the Big Bang fireball explosion.

Technically known as the cosmic background radiation.

Back in 1948 3 scientists had predicted that this radiation would be out there if the Big Bang did really occur.



GREAT GALAXY SEEDS

Scientists also predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred you would see slight variations (or ripples) in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation the Penzias and Wilson had discovered.

These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies.

In 1989 the search for these ripples was intensified when NASA launched a satellite, carrying extremely sensitive instruments able to see whether or not these ripples actually existed in the background radiation and how precise they were.

In 1992, astronomer George Smoot, announced the findings of the satellite. He said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

NASA not only found the ripples, but scientists were amazed at their precision. The ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself.

Any slight variation and none of us would be here to talk about it.

But these temperature ripples are not just dots on a scientists graph somewhere, or just some theory. The NASA satellite actually took infrared pictures of the ripples.

Also something to keep in mind, the pictures that the satellite took are of the past.


GOD AND THE ASTRONOMERS

So the universe had a beginning. What does that mean for the question of God’s existence?

Scientist Robert Jastrow (atheist, then agnostic) observed in an interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…that there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Arthur Eddington (who found his calculations “repugnant”, also an atheist, then agnostic) admitted, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”

Now why would Jastrow and Eddington admit that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe?

Because these scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces—indeed all of nature—were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something outside of nature to do the job. That’s exactly what the word supernatural means.

Answer 6

1. the logical statistics tend to disprove it
http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys

2. the lack of scientific evidence to back the claim
self explanitory

3. the at least 70 hoaxes used to "prove" evolution


4. the many admitted men who "doctored" there results to prove theories


5. the multitudes of error found in a science book, while yet there is not ne in the true bible.


and I believe in evolution to

Answer 7

God vs. Science

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't need You anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me," replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "We can take dirt and form it into the Likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the Earth and starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no," interrupts God. "Get your own dirt!"

Answer 8

Sigh. Information theory does not weaken evolution in the least. It's hopeless.

Answer 9

I prefer using your way in such cases ...
" the burden to prove evolution is real .. upon you .. not us "
or .. can you disprove god existence ?
ok ..

Answer 10

I believe God caused the "big bang" and guided "evolution" in 7 "days">