It is funny, you asked for evidence against evolution. But that must not have come through on people's computers. Instead they answered this question:
What can you write about evolution that shows absolutely no knowledge of science?
So many people have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and it is starting to get a little annoying that our school systems are failing many of these people.
2006-12-04 10:19:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Evolution is not just the loss of something but the creation of something better and more complex. If you were to show an example of something that was added to an animal, and not through breeding. Such as proof of the idea that a creature came from the water and evolved to live on land.
This example that you gave could have happened by disease or cross breeding. Changes are bound to happen. Also enviornment changes may cause those with a ressesive gene trait to flourish. Mutations due to environment also occur. There is no evidence of evolution that has been complete enough to be definitive and has not eventually been disproven. Scientist take a piece of jaw bone that they think resembles and ape, but is somewhat man like. They have never seen an ape with this bone though so they theorize and entire link man from it. They didn't have leg bones or anything manlike found with this jaw, just a jaw. It was used in a court case that is primarily responsible for evolution being taught in school. Years later, they found an ape with that jaw in South America. Not an ape man, just an ape. But they still don't admit they are wrong. Every time they are proven wrong they ignore it and show us different "evidence" to support the "fact" of evolution. Evolution is a theory. And it takes more faith to believe it than creation.
So can you give me airtight evidence for creation not occuring exactly as described in the bible?
2006-12-04 17:34:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by micheletmoore 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Darwin himself noted that the human eye is good evidence against evolution and said that if a solution was not found within a few decades, he retracts his theory. The eye could not have evolved gradually over time. All of the various complex components must work together exactly in order for the eye to function. If a mutation would have arisen with a partial eye, it would have just been dead weight, an evolutionary disadvantage, and never survived to evolve further. It is infinitely improbable that something as complex as the eye simply mutated into existance all at once. We know that the universe must have had a begining because it is continuously expanding. Whatever the beggining was, it defied one of the most basic rules of nature, that things can only be made out of pre-existing material. Once we say that the beggining of the universe broke the laws of nature, why not say that things came into existance already formed?
2006-12-04 16:59:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by barx613 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
There are some bacteria that has a motor and a propeller. The design of the motor is far better than a man's design of a motor. The bacteria motor can stop turning in a quarter of a turn while a man made motor wold take hundreds of turns to stop making the bacteria motor more efficient.
What environment pressure would cause this bacteria to develop a motor and a propeller if it can survive without it knowing that there would have been bacteria in the same environment and didn't develop a motor or a propeller?
2006-12-04 17:02:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by A follower of Christ 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Horizontal evolution occurs all the time. Evolutionists use horizontal evolution, or change and adaptation within a species, in order to prove vertical evolution, an inferior life-form evolving into a higher form of itself. Even Darwin used horizontal evolution with his finches on the Galapagos Islands.
Evolution happens, just not vertically.
2006-12-04 16:53:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by . 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Check out Michael Behe's book called "Darwin's Black Box".
The book centers on the idea of "irreducible complexity" and is pretty close to what you are looking for, I think.
Here how it is explained, in brief:
"It's really a quite simple concept to grasp. Something is irreducibly complex if it's composed of several parts and each part is absolutely necessary for the structure to function. The implication is that such irreducibly complex structures or machines cannot be built by natural selection because in natural selection, each component must be useful to the organism as the molecular machine is built. Behe uses the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap has five parts that are absolutely necessary for the mousetrap to function. Take any one of these parts away and the mousetrap can no longer catch mice."
2006-12-04 17:03:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by nildesperandum777 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
I don't think that you want what you ask for because one cannot give evidence of what is not, only evidence of what is.
Excepting of course, faith. Do you really want to go there? We can. If we drop our human perception and preconceptions, God makes everything clear. Biblical truth is a paradox that our human minds can't grasp without God's help.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Evolution didn't occur by itself. Imagine yourself as a future archaeologist in what is now Detroit. you unearth a pile of parts that you manage to assemble into a line of vehicles, from the "Model T" through to the "Lincoln Navigator"
Can you say that you are seeing an evolutionary process? Yes. Do that means it happened without intervention. No. The evolution is a pattern, the mark of the same maker.
God entertained himself with a pattern of creation for a while, then stopped and said, "It is good".
Not trying to win points, trying to make a point. GOD IS.
God bless you.
2006-12-04 17:22:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Eric O 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Creationists are pretentious enough to believe that they know more about biological science than the 99% of professional biologists who accept evolution as an indisputable fact. Maybe someday common sense will prevail and creationists will become aware of just how absurd their beliefs really are. If there's so much evidence against evolution I'd love to know why literally tens of thousands of biologists worldwide accept its validity.
2006-12-04 16:58:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Being that not a 1 of us were around in the Beginning we will probably never know. All the rest "Darwinism-Evolution" The Big Bang Or God - Higher Power Creator are for now Just Theories. No one can give an Air Tight answer as of today.
2006-12-04 16:56:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Scott 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
Religion is a sure sign that de-evolution is occurring. People select for the least desirable traits and these traits are successfully past on to the next generation. If we can cure religion, we can reverse the cycle and continue to evolve naturally.
2006-12-04 16:53:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by iknowtruthismine 7
·
1⤊
1⤋