What are the arguments AGAINST Evolution? People say it's been disproven, well, SHOW ME!?

Question

All I hear on Creationist sites are things like "it goes against Bible!" And then they say it's been disproven!? Come on! There's SO much evidence for it, and we've even been able to see evolution in bacteria over time! Well, what's so wrong about it and do you (creationists) have any TANGIBLE evidence?

Answer 1

There isn't tangible evidence. All creationists can do is attack the scientific method and our current few pieces of evolutionary history that's not yet been filled in due to the difficulty of finding species that no longer exist.

Creationism is a huge load, and the only way to attack evolution is to make up lies against it and pick apart the same tired old facts that have long since been shown as non-legitimate: giraffes and bumblebees. They're not going to be able to provide suitable evidence because there is none against it.

Answer 2

In bacteria... I believe that adaptation would be better. From what I understand, there were no changes made to the genome.

I am a Creationist. I do not believe that evolution has been disproved. Though there is evidence.

I'm going to quote Darwin here twice.

"If evolution is true, then the fossil records, over time, will have to prove it."

We have not found many links between species. There should be millions upon billions of them. And we haven't discovered many at all. The few we have discovered, such as Lucy, were put together wrong (an interesting article, but I can't find the link. And another fact, they used the fact that her arms were 79.1% the length of her legs to call her a missing link. 75% is normal. My dad is 89% due to a birth defect. And 79.1% is a very precise number considering that much of her legs have not been found.)

And the other quote "if there was an animal so complex that it could be in its current state without numerous, successive changes, my theory would absolutely fall apart."

I would recommend Internet searching "irreducible complexity" (sp?) But to give you an example...

The flagellum is a tiny little bacterium. It has a little motor in the back of it capable of spinning something like 100,000 times in a second, and can stop in 1/4th a rotation.

It has three parts to it. The little string in the back, and motor, and the connector.

Without the motor, the string that spins only slows it down. It can be caught and killed. By the idea of survival of the fittest, it should die.

Without the connector, same thing.

Without the string, the motor is for nothing, it will gain nothing by evolution, and eventually die out. Only the beneficial changes make a difference.

That's one example. There are thousands of animals like this.

If you're actually interested in this, I recommend "A case for a creator" by Lee Strobel and "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe.

I hope that that helps.

Answer 3

The arguments are always profound like, "monkey+monkey=monkey" and not "monkey+monkey=man" or they go for the missing link as if the term actually ment that it was a non-existent link rather than evidence still not discovered.
We know that all domestic animals were selectively bred by man to enhance characteristics that we found useful but they cannot accept that nature would select for characteristics that the animal found useful to survive.
Don't hope too much for a rational response because you will be seen to be attacking their faith and they are going to try to defend it and since no rational defense exists there will be a lot of irrational argument.

Answer 4

Cash ... You make some good points. We're not going to settle the argument in Yahoo Answers, but maybe we can have a good discussion about it.

I DO believe there is evolution. However, the fact that life forms evolve does not explain the ORIGINS of life. "Why is there ANYthing," I keep asking myself.

I have some other points, too. While I don't expect to convince anyone, I hope I can help to promote more thoughts about the subject. Let me continue with my points . . .

I've wondered ... With AlLLLL the many different life forms we have on Earth, how is it that nothing has yet evolved with two sets of eyes ... one set pointing forward and the other set backwards. It seems that this form/feature might have developed in a species by now AND with the excellent defense provided by this configuration of its eyes, SURELY some life forms would have survived that have a set of eyes that point backwards. Yes? No?

Again, let's continue discussing the eyes. I've wondered why all life forms on Earth that have eyes have just two. It's never one, never three ... It's always two. That seems odd to me and suggests to me that we might be the product of a design, not a series of a billion evolutionary accidents.

Additionally, why are the eyes always horizontally situated? Couldn't something have evolved into a two-eyed creature with one eye above the other? Eyes always come in a group of two and they're always horizontally situated, i.e., side-by-side. I find that strange as well.

Lastly, someone with some powerful math skills decided they wanted to calculate the likelihood of DNA forming accidentally from the "primordial soup," as they call it, that covered Earth before life forms began to appear.

I certainly cannot remember the number. But a team of mathematicians determined that the odds of life beginning by accident were like a 1 (one) followed by thirty zeros to one. I confess that I've not been able to recall the names of the people involved, but I don't think that merely having the names is going to convince anyone. Also, that number I offered (1 followed by 30 zeros) is just an expression to indicate astronomical odds.

Knowing that most people would not be able to appreciate the enormity of those odds, they "translated" it this way. They said take a metal scrap yard and have a tornado go barreling through it. After all the scrap metal is banged, slammed together, and tossed into the air, imagine the odds of all the metal falling back to Earth and forming a functioning Boeing 747!!!

I get dizzy just trying to imagine this. That's like the old story about taking all the parts of a time piece (watch), placing them into a container, and beginning to shake ... and keep on shaking until ALL the parts happen to fall into place to form a working watch.

As I said, I've probably convinced no one, but I think it's worth thinking about ... at least for a few moments.

Nice and well-worded question, Cash. Thanks for challenging us with it.

Answer 5

It is not that is has been disproven, it has never been proven to begin with. For naturalistic evolution to be true, they have to demonstrate scientifically how life can spontaniously start from nothing. They have to futher demonstrate how new species can generate off old ones with no inteligent help. They have lots of evidence for "micro" evolution which is variation WITHIN species such as a birds beek changing size gradually over time. There is no evidence of one species completely becoming another such as a fish becoming a mammal which shouldve happened.

A big strike besides lack of "transitional model" is also the aquatic fossil record. Why is it that we have vast mountains of fossil records in the sea yet evolutionists always turn to homos for proof? If evolution is true, shouldnt it be all the more clear from the vast fossil records we have in the oceans?

Read a book called "defeating darwinism by opening minds." Its a great start for refuting evolution.

Answer 6

>foundation of life it rather is an entire strawman. i do no longer think of any severe evolutionist proposes that a very formed present day cellular merely popped out of user-friendly chemical compounds all of sudden. the surely technique replaced into probably thoroughly diverse, invalidating this analogy. >progression of life and the tree of life on the different, many transitional fossils have been found. that is merely that as quickly as one is located, creationists in many circumstances merely turn around and element out that there at the instant are 2 gaps interior the fossil checklist as a exchange of merely one, as though they assume paleontologists to cutting-edge them with a fossil of each and every organism that ever lived. regarding transitional fossils, evolutionary concept has rather lived as much as all authentic looking scientific standards, the only standards it does not stay as much as are the absurd ones placed on it via creationists (who, it rather is well worth noting, place no such standards on their own hypothesis). >DNA and complexity The assertion that intelligence is mandatory to generate information is carefully ridiculous and unfounded. apart from, the implication that evolutionary concept claims that life arose randomly is likewise ridiculous. No clever argument could be consistent with 2 such ridiculous issues. >Dualism/understanding Do you have a source for this declare? For that rely, what might it even advise, scientifically, for the concepts to be cut loose the concepts? some extra element as to how this replaced into allegedly mentioned could be extraordinary. >Thermodynamics 2d regulation the suitable sentence of this section is likewise a thoroughly unfounded declare. you're merely throwing interior the be conscious 'intelligence' without justification for it in besides.

Answer 7

There is apparently an issue with the 'Missing Link' of evolution. It's claimed that the gradual progression from ape to man has a bit missing that they are yet to find evidence of.

Answer 8

Its a complicated issue but you can look for books on both sides of the subject and make up your mind for yourself. You may not be a scientist but you sure could play one on tv. There is interesting info on both sides. Why don't you write a book on the subject?

Evolution happens, I believe, but it isn't Darwins rendition of it. Its something else. There is more proof for that than there is for the creationist or darwinist points of view.

Answer 9

We are not against evolution; we are against the claim that evolution alone can tell the origin of the physical and the spiritual worlds of the One True God. Our seeking for the truth must be based on both science and religion.
Religion without science is superstition; science without religion is gross materialism.

Answer 10

evolution was PROVEN to be wrong, ead all about it in the book of Genesis.

btw, what is your proof? You guys keeping saying you have proof but you never present the evidence, here's your BIG chance, present your proof right here on yahooo r&s site. I am so anxious to see your evidence, where is it????