With the evidence of evolution all around you, why is it still so hard to believe?

Question

This is a fact: All life on this planet is made of the same four chemical elements. Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Carbon. Slime mold, bacteria, bugs, fish, dinosaurs, apes and humans are ALL made of the those same ingredients. Given the 4 BILLION years of evolution and natural selection, you get the beautiful diversity of the natural world. We may not look much like an oak tree but at it's basic level, we are exactly the same.

With all this evidence in front of everyone, why is it still hard to accept the truth of evolution. It is no longer a theory, it's a fact. It really happen. Here is something Carl Sagan said on evolution in his series COSMOS. He said...

“Our ancestors looked at the intricacy and beauty of life and saw evidence for a great designer. The simplest organism is a far more complex machine than the finest pocket watch. And yet pocket watches don’t spontaneously self assemble or evolve in slow stages on their own from say, grandfather clocks. A watch implies a watchmaker. There seemed to be no way, in which atoms spontaneously fall together and create say, a dandelion. The idea of a designer is an appealing and all together human explanation of the biological world. But as Darwin and Wallace showed, there is another way. Equally human and far more compelling.”

Answer 1

forgive, that's the SECOND law, and it's not violated.

The second law only deals in CLOSED systems and the earth certainly ISN'T one. Dang... why don't people know by now that that argument is bunk?

Oh, crybabies, thumbs down all you like. I know you hate it when you're corrected.

Answer 2

Evoultion is not a fact, it is science fiction. It is unscientific, unitellectual, and if I were you I would be embarrest trying to defend the idea that we all come from a rock billions and millions of years ago.

Fork, cans, and battleships are all made with tin. See how battleships evolved from forks?
Tin, is good building material, that's all. Apparently the materials that you mentioned were good for building too.
I am sorry to see that you believe your great grand father was a rock. Are you dumb in any other areas, or is that it?
1) Cosmic evolution-the orgin of time, space, and matter, the big dud. First of all, where did all this matter come from that got together for the big squish, the big spin, and the big bang? Do you know anything about the laws of physics? The conservation of angular momentum states that, "if an object is spinning in a frictionless enviornment and seperates, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction because the outside is moving faster. So Mr. Genius, why is it then that we have planets and moons that orbit or are rotating the opposite way? Don't forget that when a granade blows up, the fragments move further away with time. Don't forget the first and second law of thermodynamics either. What about Boil's law, and Coal's law. The big bang is a big dud proven wrong over 40 years ago.
2)Chemical evolution-according to the big bang theory, it produced a bunch of hydrogen, so how did the other 105 elements evolve? You want me to believe that uranium come from hydrogen? Look at the table of elements, nothing bonds past iron, so how do we get uranium?
3) Stellar and Planetary evolution-the origin of stars and planets. No one has ever seen a star or a planet form. Some claim they are in crab nebula, but all that are seeing is a spot get brighter. It's just some space dust moving out of the way. We see stars blow up every 30 years or so (novas/super novas), but no one has ever seen one form. And, if you count all the nova rings, and multiply by third, you get a few thousand years. Just like what the Bible says. Maybe God was a little smarter than you.
4)Organic evolution-Spontaneous generation. After if rained on the rocks for "millions and millions of years" life emerged from non-living matter. There's a neat trick. What did the first life form eat, and who did he marry.
5)Macro evolution-where one kind of animal changes into another kind of animal (another neat trick). The definition of science is "knowledge acquired by observation" "things that are testible, provible, repeatable" Evolution is not science. No one has ever seen a dog have a non-dog. There are no missing link fossiles. Fossiles don't count anyway. All a fossile can tell you is something died. You can't prove it had any kids, and you sure can't prove it had different kids.
6)micro evolution-this one is science, this one happens. I believe that the dog, wolf, coyotte, and fox could have had a common ancestor, but it was a dog. Stand back and look at them, they are all the same kind of animal. Even a child could tell you that. But we got college professors can't see it. I believe changes can occur within a kind of animal, but those changes are limited.

Next time before you speak, make sure brain is engaged.

you can call me daddy.

Answer 3

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms." (private interview with Antony Flew, Dec 2004)

This is a quote from the one of the leading atheists of our time, Antony Flew. Evolution is not a fact, it cannot be proven using scientific methods. It cannot be observed, repeated, or falsified. It is a philosophy, a belief system, a religion. Truthfully, Darwinian evolution is dying out, there are very few credible individuals in academia who still subscribe to it. There are so many holes in this hypothesis, that it is hardly worth debating any longer. If you want to continue to believe that the earth is millions of years old, even though there is no credible evidence to support this, fine, if you want to believe that one kind of being evolved into an entirely new and different type of being, even though there is no evidence to support this, go ahead, if you want to believe that the information in DNA molecules just sprung up from nowhere, even though the truth is, information must come from a greater information source, be my guest, but please, do not go on stating it is a fact and proven, neither is true and simply destroys any credibility you may possess.

Answer 4

they do no longer have confidence radiometric relationship so as that makes finding previous organisms ineffective to convince them. in case you will use previous animal continues to be as information then you truly ought to teach radiometric relationship works first. I advise, maximum colleges do no longer even clarify it nicely they simply provide you a nil.5-life and a formula. those individuals who've taken a nuclear classification or 2 realize it. finally, they argue a logical assumption IMO. If animals are to look and artwork the way they do then they're going to have comparable DNA despite in the event that they are no longer appropriate with the aid of fact they desire a similar mechanisms. only like how corn ought to have comparable DNA to people as a fashion to offer particular proteins. it works till you think approximately unused DNA or maybe in a number of those situations it nonetheless works. i do no longer understand any of their different arguments.

Answer 5

Same reason some people find it hard to believe there is a God, when there evidence all around them. Read Romans 1:20.
Heck, when people believed the world was flat, God had already told them in the Scriptures the world was Round, but, they found that hard to believe.

Answer 6

forgiveomatic?

the thermodynamic law states that disorder increases within a closes system - thats the 2nd law - the earth is not a closed system - we get energy from the sun.

Accepting evolution doesn't take more faith - it takes zero faith as Darwin himself proved. He didnt set out to disprove the story of creation in genesis - it just happened because he looked at the facts and evidence in front of him. If you really believe the bible is inerrant then you'll renounce all truth that contradicts your myth and you're beyond hope.

Answer 7

there is NO evidence of evolution. If you have been convinced that there is, can you spell SUCKER????


Darwin was a wacko and if you study him today, you would know it.

4 billion years, what happened to 250 million, or don't you truly believe Darwin?

Why not make it 4 trillion years, no lets make it 5 trillion,I like that number better.

Answer 8

I believe in the evidence 100%...religion is based on fear..and is simply not logical...its an long outdated belief...and has been on a scourge on the progression of humans....science can explain so many things but people are afraid to accept it because of fear....it is a shame...

Answer 9

I DO believe in micro evolution.

I do NOT believe in MACRO evolution.

Charles Darwin never found one single incident of MACRO evolution (species mutating into another species). All he found was micro evolution.

Macro evolution will always be a theory UNLESS and UNTIL they find the many assorted missing links.

Answer 10

Why do you want everybody to believe in what you believe? Yes, I believe in evolution and I am a fan of science myself, but, when I kiss my son on his forhead, before he goes to sleep, I refuse to believe that the love I feel is just a chain of chemical reactions that take place in my brain.

Answer 11

The biggest argument against evolution is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the principle of entropy that states that everything tends toward a state of disorder.

Unfortunately, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in Biblical creation.