Evolution can't be true. Your reply?

Question

I am a Christian and I once bought into the evil lie of evolution, but then I started to really pray and read the Bible and now I know it's false.

Don't believe me?

Watch this video (the ENTIRE video) and give me your thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI

This guy does a wonderful job of proving it's not true. There are even photos of giants and demon skulls being found that are mentioned in the Bible which proves it's true.

Here's a link that works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZxoU6Y0LRs&mode=related&search=

Answer 1

how gullible and uneducated can you be? Do some better research and use google or wikipedia!

Answer 2

One of the anti-evolution comments here says...

Fossil Record :;
lacks evidence

more than 140 years of searching has not even revealed one transitional species.

Bacteria's Immunity to Antibiotics ::
development of resistance against antibiotics is supposedly direct evidence for evolution.

this is not the case.

What happened was only a weeding out of non-resistant bacteria.

... Well, there are actually many transitional species alive today. An example is 3 kinds of similar birds, A, B and C. A and B can reproduce... B and C can reproduce.... A and C can't reproduce. Why? Coz they live on opposite sides of a mountain range and the original species... as shown in the fossil record.... is seperating.

As for the 'only a weeding out of non-resistant bacteria'... what do you think evolution is? That is exactly it!! A population has lots of individuals with certain characteristics that can be beneficial or not. The beneficial characteristics help you survive and the population as a whole changes.

I've never heard anyone give an argument against evolution that wasn't based on their faith in an old book or revelation from god.
Anyone who thinks clearly will know that evolution is true. It is an incredibly simple and beautiful process, and why not believe that it was created by God to create us!

Answer 3

Evolution is a medical certainty... in certainty no person, no longer even the main ardent creationist can doubt that on account that we do in spite of each little thing breed animals ourselves utilising man made determination. man made determination is the place the traditional random occurrences in nature that ought to reason selective rigidity and mould a species are replaced by skill people people intentionally doing the determining on... under regular circumstances the ecosystem could do this and at a slower %.. Thats evolution... it happens, it particularly works, we are able to now even artwork out how and why it happens or maybe instruction manual it ourselves. the thought that 'evolution isn't a regulation or no longer a certainty and in basic terms a theory' relies upon completely on the guy asserting that no longer having a clue what a certainty, regulation, concept or theory actual advise. those stupid suggestions additionally remember on you never getting into touch with somebody that ought to latest you with say a regulation of evolution or a mathematical theorem that defines the way it particularly works in absolute words. So in case you open yet another tab on your browser there and type 'expenses Theorem' into the hunt bar you will discover that even that final final false impression will vanish. As you will discover, its no longer in basic terms a certainty yet its been utilized in biology for the previous one hundred years very properly. no longer likely particular why you're asking a question approximately of course axiomatic issues no longer being authentic in technological awareness section.

Answer 4

It's really hard to listen to that all the way through!

I've gone two minutes and forty nine seconds an am pausing to comment thus far.

He is well spoken. He is confident in what he says and that comes through.

His arguments seem disconnected, at best. I can't quite figure out how satan via the snake attemting to convince Eve to gain the knowledge of God is linked to theories of evolution.

He suggests those who believe in evolution think earthworms are a direct ancestor. To me all this shows is that he has not actually studied evolution. One can study it and not believe it. Actually studying something you disagree with can even help to make more effective points.

Of course a banana is the least related object when the other three are a dog, coyote, and wolf. That does not mean they have nothing in common. It certainly does nothing to suggest any theory of evolution is incorrect.

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." --Adolf Hitler. Just because a person is Christain, does not believe in evolution, or has any particular ideas at all does not mean they can't abuse the same power. This seems another irrelevant segue.

Going on he claims that biology textbooks claim that whales evolved legs and became cows. His evidence is a text book that explains that whales have pelvises and femurs. Darwinian evolution makes no such claim about this direct relationship between whales and cows at all. Again, all he has shown is that he hasn't studied evolution.

He says it's the stupidest thing he's ever heard. Funny in that it was his idea.

Even funnier that the pelvis and femur, the FEMUR! is part of the whales sexual organ. Is that true for males and females?

Ahh, now we're into the fossil record. This should be fun.

Though I'm not sure that anything can beat using a femur for sex.

Oh my goodness. The evolution of cutlery. This is being compared to the evolution of horses. The horse picture shows artists renditions of horses and their ancestors. The cutlery picture shows a bread knife, a spoon, two sporks, and two forks. All plastic. Seems like thay are all modern Western cutlery to me but I'm sure I'll be shown how I'm wrong.

Oh, over billions of years the knife evolved into a sponn, into a spork and so on. Well, at least sarcasm isn't lost on Creationists. Maybe ;-)

No mention of horse evolution. No mention of historical cutlery, either.

Now we get to the good stuff.

I hope.

He is now telling us that evolution denies the possibility of an intelligent creator.

I will here interject:

Just because it didn't happen exactly as we think the Bible says does not negate intelligent design. It might just be possible that his god's concept of time is different than his. Maybe, even, the Bible attempted to use language that we could understand to convey ideas that only a god could understand. Maybe God's seven days is our 4.2 billion years or more. Maybe he had some way to control evolution so that humans would exist in his image. Personally, I think even that a little too pat but it seems a pretty logical interpretation if one does believe in Christianity.

Back to the comedy...

Evolution discredits the concept of intelligent design in favour of "blind chance."


How does he know what he considers to be "blind chance" is not his creator's design? And, of course, there are factors that go into evolution that preclude complete randomness. He only shows his lack of knowledge in evolutionary theories.

Ok, so if I don't believe I was designed by a god I am a slave to chemical reactions in my brain. Well, how those chemical reactions develop is dependant on my eaxperiences in life. And, anyway, if it is all a god thing wouldn't I then still be just a slave to god. Chemical or god, does it matter? At least the chemicals won't condemn me to Hell.

And can I trust my thoughts any more is God made me rather than chemicals? Will you bother to show me how or why?


No. But but he does assume I agree that I can't trust my thoughts (rest assured, fair reader, I do. It's his thoughts I question). He goes on to ask how I can believe in evolution if I can't trust my thoughts.

Well, gee, I can believe in evolution because I do trust my thoughts.

Remember what that annoying English teacher once said about assumptions and what it makes of u and me? Let's us not assume you know what I think.

His defense:

I was created intelligently so that discredits the whole evolutionary theory.

Oh, well, ok, then, that clears that up so nicely!

Crap, we're only half way through.

Ok, seriously, I can't listen to the rest of this. I have to actually do other things.

Maybe it's entirely possible he will stumble his way into actual evidence and real arguments. Maybe he will use examples that actually apply to whatever it is he is trying to say.

I find this unlikely.

In any event if you want to make a convincing argument for anything pretty much a good idea not to use irrelevant statements and express your lack of knowledge of that which you speak in the first half of your argument. You're not gonna win any one over when you lose their interest half way through by expressing your own ignorance.

And regarding giants and misshapen skulls? Do us all a favor and google skull shaping and endocrine disorders. Hoaxes may well be another way to go.

Just because you believe it does not make it so. As soon as you can find a way to argue it intelligently I'll give my full attention and take you seriously.

What's saddest is that I'm sure there must be people who do support your view but cringe at the way in which you present it and the things you call evidence.

Cutlery? Seriously? Oh, evolution is all wrong then. That spork cleared it all up for me!

Answer 5

Where are his paper references? Unfortunately science is not decided on the basis of one kids opinion. He doesn't even understand evolution (hence the phrase "we came from monkeys").

Here are the notes I made whilst watching.

Using the bible in no way proves evolution is wrong as the bible is not a scientific paper.

The bit with the banana is absolutely stupid, they are all made of similar cells, with similar DNA (about 95%) all coming from stem cells. The split between animal and plant cells was a billion years ago.

Whales disn't evolve legs and become cows, whales evolved from similar mammals to cows millions of years ago.

Cutlery is not self replicating.
Evolution has nothing to do with chance.
Why favour the biblical creation over greek or egyptian creation?

Once again, the bible is not a scientifically accurate text book, any more than you believe that the Hindu vedas reflect an accurate description of creation.

Edit: Haha unbelievable, this guy believes that the white house is at the bottom of a giant pentacle, and this means that satan is ruler over America, I can't take anything else he said seriously now.

Answer 6

LOL. If this video is a joke, it is hilarious. If it is serious, it is scary. Nothing he presents is real in any way. He makes claims "evolution says..." "evolutionists claim..." which are complete lies. All of his evidence is either a lie or pseudo-science that actually has nothing to do with evolution. My favorite part is when he shows that chart with a banana. All he successfully does is prove that dogs, coyotes, and wolves are closer related then a banana. Which actually supports evolution.

Answer 7

I didn't really see anything that I could consider proof for or against evolution besides the boys own words. He compares a slow genetic development to the manufacture of forks. I understand the arguement but still doesn't prove anything. I know alot of Christians try to explain that there's a conspiracy theory to conceal the giant skeletons but it's not the first time I've seen them before and there were giant apes too, Gigantopithicus (not sure exactly how to spell it). His strongest arguement was biblical philosophy but he the boy doesn't understand that we're not taught that we are animals. Every species in the world has a it's way of living. Human beings are a social creature and in order to survive well in a society, people must uphold ways of relating to other people and building relations. Morals are the only way that we can do that but it's ingrained. Every individual has "personal convictions" no matter how indoctrinated one is.

He also tries to use social deterioration as a result of waning Christian values. Most of the mass-killings that we have witnessed in our history are some how related to religious scriptures. Charles Manson got his ideas from the Book of Revelations and thought he was meant to fulfill it. Waco Texas was someone who thought he was at war against the Anti-Christ. The more aggressive leaders in history have been the more religious ones. Violence was also socially accepted in the past while today's generation would be horrified to witness what their predecesors committed agains their fellow man.. and for stupid reasons such as false accusations of witchcraft, practicing other religions, and being of a different race.

Only those who were sheltered behind their picked-fence life styles and lived in a homogenous communities never witnessed the crimes committed against man. But the older, more pious generation will lie to us and tell us that morals and societies were better back then. Our ancestors only within the last 2 centuries used to burn people alive, torture, force people off their lands, hang, and strap people to spinning wheels and beat them without mercy with clubs.

Please take a trip throughout East Asia... into Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, ect. These are societies that understand the importance of morality and its relation to society. They are not founded on Christian values, but I guarantee you may never meet a more noble society of people. Poeple really treat eachother with respect and dignity and children honor their parent much more than they do in the US or other western nations. ...... And by the way, they teach evolution in their schools, and they act the least like animals in their societies....

The more modest and gentle societies of the west also tend to be less religious. The more religious are also the one's who live a more fatalistic life style believing that they have no control over their lives. They woud just as well purchase lottery tickets than actually put forth effort to survive.

They boys philosophical arguements are invalid when measued against societies that understand what humanity really is.

We're different from the animals because we live in a different paradym as them. Our world is based on "survival of the wisest" not "survival of the fittest".!!! Survival of the fittest doesn't work in human society because we need eachother collectively for our own survival and push into the future.

Answer 8

We know that the word of God story about Adam & Eve is not true because when people of the same family bear children they are always born with genetic defects including sterility. We know that the word of God story about Noah & the Arc is not true because there are over 1 million different species of insects (where did he keep them). Religious people are taught to believe these things (that are proven wrong) and you will get a reward after you're dead. They know that once you're dead, you can't come back to complain that there is nothing there and you have given them so much money. Please study the history of mankind at a university (not a religious one).

Answer 9

Yeah and a great poet too. He has no idea of hat he is talking about. The only reasonable conclusion is that it's a spoof a joke a put on. And not well done. I've heard better arguments than that. But it's kind of fun to be reminded of how gullible people are.

Answer 10

Oparin's hypothesis ::
life began in the oceans on early earth between 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago.

Miller's Experiment ::
aroused great excitement among evolutionists at that time and was claimed as proof for Oparin's hypothesis. However, there were serious problems with Miller's experiment.

Most of the products of the experiment were right-handed amino acids.

In addition, Miller's experiment did not reflect the primordial conditions on earth.

The gases that Miller used also were not realistic.
Miller also left out oxygen.

Le Châtelier Principle ::
Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule.

Sydney Fox ::
suggested that the first amino acids might have been dragged to some cliffs near a volcano right after their formation.

tried to prove his hypothesis

managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of 'proteinoids'

These experiments showed that not only proteins could not have formed under the primordial conditions, but also amino acids could not have formed.

'Natural Selection' / Mutations ::
can't introduce genetic information into DNA

'mutations' have never been obversed

Fossil Record :;
lacks evidence

more than 140 years of searching has not even revealed one transitional species.

Bacteria's Immunity to Antibiotics ::
development of resistance against antibiotics is supposedly direct evidence for evolution.

this is not the case.

What happened was only a weeding out of non-resistant bacteria.

Homologous Structures ::
this idea is only based on apparent physical resemblance

should be coded with similar DNA codes, we find that in most cases the genetic coding is quite different.

Vestigial Structures ::
body structures that have no function in a present-day organism but were probably useful to an ancestor.

S.R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, wrote in his article titled "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the magazine Evolutionary Theory

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

In 1895, the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim, made a list of vestigial structures in humans that included approximately 100 organs. As science progressed, it was discovered that each of the organs in the list had important functions in the body.

it was discovered that the appendix is in fact a lymphoid organ that fought against infections in he body.

tonsils have a significant role in protecting the throat against infections, particularly until adolescence

the thyroid gland is effective in providing steady growth in babies and children

the pituitary gland controlled the correct functioning of many hormone glands.

There is another problem with vestigial structures. Though they are supposed to have been inherited from their ancestors, some of these structures are not even found in the living species claimed to be the ancestors of human beings! The appendix, for instance, does not exist in some ape species that are said to be the ancestors of man.

Embryology ::
argument of evolutionists is that the embryos (the earliest stage of growth and development of both plants and animals) of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals are very similar and thus are evidence that they evolved from a distant, common, ancestor.

Research has shown that the "gills" in the humans are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus. The "tail" is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

Conclusion ::
Sir Arthur Keith admits in the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1959: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."

Answer 11

Evolution is true to a degree. The Church has evolved, people have evolved. I don't think you'd get along with the people in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, nor would you be happy with the way they lived!

If you don't believe in Evolution, what are you doing here on line. Go live like the Amish. Go build things without nails. Go live without electricity. Go live the simple life of simple people who had to go out an slaughter a lamb for dinner, dig up the ground to grow potatoes.

I don't think Jesus was approve of the auto, something that dumps tons of flith into God's clean air.