Evolution is a LIE. Want proof?

Question

Okay, I realize that the best way to prove something is to debunk what other people on the other side have said, so here goes:

Evolutionists say that if evolution isn't true, then what is the alternative? Did animals just appear? They ask that if you accept the fossil evidence, it shows that not all animals appeared at the same time. Dogs aren't as old as dinosaurs, for example. If evolution isn't true, then that means that dogs just kind of appeared.

Okay, here's my rebuttal. Stories don't prove ANYTHING. You can't disprove that animals didn't just appear. According to the mind of a foolish evolutionist, that automatically means that it probably isn't true. That is the biggest bunch of bull I've ever heard.

There is evidence for creationism. Just go to a creationist website and they prove that EVILution is not true.

I realize that evolution may seem to be more probable, but here's the problem with it:

How can the first life form from NOTHING?

Answer 1

Way 2 Go Bro .

You just made a new theory .

Your da ***** MAN

Answer 2

First of all, I think you are not well informed on the theories on origins of life and how evolution works. If you go to anti-Evolution pro-Creationism websites you'll find a lot of faults with Evolution (and they are all valid), but I will try to explain why Evolution is NOT a lie.

In 1953, Stanley Miller performed a seminal experiment where he showed that pulsing electrical charges through a cylinder that containing gaseous methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water produced the building blocks of life (amino acids and nucleic acids). This experiment was basically a simulation of how life on earth could have orginated. The early earth was believed to contain those gases, and there were constant electrical storms (simulated by the electric charge). This shows that when the earth was beginning to cool, in pools of water you could form building blocks of life (how life could originate from nothing). This currently is the prevailing notion for how life on Earth originated.

HOWEVER, this experiment did not produce all the amino acids we currently utilize in nature, and does not explain how these small molecules combined to form proteins, DNA, RNA and what we now consider as life.

Another theory is that early life came from a comet or asteroid that crashed on Earth. Little bacteria on the asteroid grew up, specialized, and evolved into the variety of species we currently have. This is just as valid a theory as Creationism as neither can be proven scientifically. But it is another hypothesis to consider.

The greatest argument against evolution is that there are many gaps in the fossil record that can't be explained by evolution. The fossil record is by no means a complete record of all species in the history of Earth. So, just because we can't find a "missing link" doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Science is by no means perfect, and theories are constantly being blown out of the water. But the great aspect of science is that it can be proven. You can't prove creationism, but you cannot disprove creationism either. However, creationism and intelligent design are NOT scientific theories. Therefore, creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive necessarily. You can believe that god created organisms out of nothing, thus explaining the gaps in the fossil record, but that doesn't disprove the fact that many organisms evolve to adapt to their environment. So while evolution doesn't have all the answers, it is NOT a lie.

I hope you have an open mind, so you will hear me out. If not, then don't ask such silly questions.

Answer 3

Unlike bible worshiping creationists like yourself, evolutionists (scientists) dont claim to know everything. We will someday, but until then, we aren't going to make up stories to explain how we got here without evidence. Stories like the the sun revolves around the earth, and all of men came from Adam and Eve. These stories were made before we had the understanding that we do today about our world and our past. There is nothing wrong with not knowing how life first started. There is a scientific answer, but we don't have it yet. In the mean time, we probably shouldn't keep on making up false answers. stories, and books, because that leads to religion. And as history has shown us, religion is the cause of more wars and bloodshed than than anything other reason. Oh, and many of these 'foolish evolvolutionist' are the scientists that also cure cancer and other disease. So go ahead prey your little heart out to be cured of some fatal illness you make get in the future, but without the science, you die. The only one that looks like a fool here, is you.

Answer 4

Scientists don't use emotionally charged and biased terms like "evilution". In fact, trying to use pseudo-science to "prove" creationism shows a remarkable lack of faith.

You look at how hot springs around volcanoes would be good at cooking the primordial soup of all the essential amino acids. Then imagine that some of these happen to link together into RNA some random strands are available and it starts being copied and it can make proteins. Over a long period of time some bacteria might appear.

Animals didn't just appear. They went through many stages to get to where they are now.

Answer 5

The idea behind evolution isn't that things 'just appeared'. Most scientists hypothesize that life originated by a process called 'abiogenesis'. The idea is that the building blocks of life can form as a result of chemicals in Earth's early primordial soup just banging into each other randomly. The probability of this occurrence was certainly miniscule, but here we are.
The "foolish" evolutionists base the rest of their argument on fossil records and carbon dating, both of which contradict the 'young earth' theory espoused by Biblical literalists. As stated, stories don't prove anything, which is why the scientific community's theories reflect those with more tangible evidence.

Answer 6

> "Okay, here's my rebuttal. Stories don't prove ANYTHING. You can't disprove that animals didn't just appear. "

That's it??? That's your rebuttal for the core theory of biology accepted almost unanimously by almost all scientists in the world ... the product of 150 years ever mounting evidence?

Let me give you a counterexample to show you how ridiculous that "proof" is:

You are walking in the woods. You see a deer. How did that deer get there? You can't "disprove" that deer didn't just appear moments before you saw it.

So which is the more "scientific" theory?

A - God created the deer, in its current form, five minutes before you saw it in the woods; or

B - The deer was born, three years ago, a result of a biological process, and has developed to its current form.

Why does a scientist pick B? Because we see the evidence all the time of deers getting born and developing into their current form. We can study the biological process in great detail. We do not have to assume some miracles to explain how something got there, even if no human was *personally* present for the event.

That is exactly how the theory of evolution (or any science) works. No we can't "disprove" that animals didn't just "appear" recently. But we find so much evidence of them having appeared slowly over huge expanses of time, and this explains so much, that we have no need to resort to saying "MIRACLE!" to explain it.

I am absolutely baffled by people who say "you have a point." What point??

This is the type of "logic" we can expect from someone who believes that AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality.

Answer 7

Dogs did not 'just appear'. They evolved from earlier canine creatures.

You says 'stories don't prove anythung'. Sorry evolution doesnt rest on stories, but your ancient Hebrewtales do.

Evolution relies in genetics, biology and literally hundreds of thousands of repeatable experiments done for over a 150 years. Creationist websites are written by preachers who have no expereince in Biology. I'll take Stephen Hawking's and Albert Einsteins position on the age of the universe not Pastor Bob's Creation website.

The origins of life are irrelevant to evolution. That would be biochemistry not biology. All it matters is that life exists for alleles to change. Something can come from nothing as demonstrated by quantum space flucuations.

Answer 8

First off, proving an opposing theory is not true is not sufficient support for your own theory. Scientists do not discount creationism because of its doctrine, or because they are trying to "disprove" it. They discount it for the lack of physical evidence and data provided for it.

Second, evolution is based on fact and scientific principal, creationism is based on belief of something not founded in science. Facts are based on concrete evidence, belief can be based on any notion.

Third, the first life formed from something, not nothing. It has been hypothesized, proven, and well documented that the basic organic molecules found in living organisms can spontaneously occur given the correct circumstances (Miller/Urey experiments, you can check out the original experiment online at the link below). How the first cells and RNA and DNA formed from these molecules is still an unaswered question, but at least scientists realize it is an unanswered question and continue to investigate it. They don't just take one person's word for it and preach it as gospel truth. And they are pretty sure that it had to have happened more than 6000-7000 years ago, which, according to the definitive text of creationists (the Bible), isn't possible.

Fourth, calling people names does absolutely nothing to further discussion.

Fifth, scientists do not believe animals just appeared from nothing. They evovled from groups of single celled organisms that formed a symbiotic relationship. Through the course of time, some of those cells became specialized for movement, some became specialzed for digestion, etc., etc., etc. Please read any biology textbook for my reference.

Sixth, you said it best yourself. Stories don't prove anything. Creationism is a story told in the Bible. It's a good story, but it is still just a story. If you believe the story as truth, that's fine, but because you believe something is truth does not mean it is fact. The theory of evolution presents facts that back it up (fossil records, geographic distribution, homologous body structures, embryonic similarities). If you want to present a scientific theory based on fact (not "truth"), point out some of your sources that are scientific in nature.

Seventh, in response to the person posting about the second law of thermodynamics...thermodynamics has to do with energy. Biologists don't claim that nonliving molecules can evolve; why would physicists claim that living organsims follow the rules of thermodynamics.

Answer 9

Well, you didn't prove anything. There is currently no evidence for creation. Also, given the nature of creation, there will never be any evidence for it XD

All current fossil, dna, geological ect evidence supports the theory of evolution. Actually, I could go as far as saying that evolution has already been proven as a fact. We can directly observe microevolutionary changes in organisms, and there is also clear evidence for macroevolution....all with a complete lack of any evidence to counter them.

Finally, the first life form did not come from nothing. That in itself is your fallacious mistake. It is also a false dichotomy to assume that, assuming evolution is false (which it isn't), that that automatically makes creation true. If anything your statement is pure irony, since you assume God came from nothing and was always there.

Answer 10

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

And some might argue that creationism is also based on stories--which is what the Bible consists of.

Answer 11

Evolution isn't about "the first" lifeform. It describes how any given lifeform ADAPTS to its environment. That's the first mistake both sides seem to make. Darwin wrote "The Origin Of Species" which only discusses how genus diversity works.

"Life" is a structured classification. Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. This is a scientific classification system developed by MAN. The argument is really against itself. Throw away the classification scheme and NEITHER SIDE has anything to argue about.

The Evolution vs. Creation argument is entirely moot, because it doesn't even account for creation. It is entirely about how to classify the lower part - genus, species. As in why are Galapagos Cormorants the only SPECIES of cormorant that does not fly. Are they really Cormorants or simply another type of bird?

"Once it was placed in its own genus, Nannopterum or Compsohalieus, although current taxonomy places it in the genus with most of the other cormorants, Phalacrocorax."

So by placing it in a different genus, an argument is FORMED - did they adapt/evolve or were they that way originally created by God?

I think, personally, that God created all flora and fauna with the ability to SURVIVE and that means he BUILT IN adaptation and "evolution" because He knows better than any of us what is needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!