Is there anyone that doesn't believe in evolution?

Question

If you don't believe in evolution, show me your point, or try to convince me.

I attend church every Sunday and believe in God. I still think that evolution is right

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Answer 1

As soon as any evolutionist can answer any one of these questions I might consider evolution as a science instead of a religion:

What is the best evidence that shows that the general theory of evolution is actually a fact with evidence showing change beyond simple variation within a population?

If science is about reasoning and debate, why do evolutionists censor controversies, fraud, and weaknesses of the evolution theory from textbooks?

Science is supposed to be objective and unbiased. So, what justifies an atheistic (naturalistic) bias in science over an agnostic approach that allows for the possibility of natural or supernatural origin?

What specific evidence supports the claim of a natural origin of the universe?

Explain how something can come from nothing in contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics?

The universe is experiencing heat death as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. So how do evolutionists justify proposing that energy always existed and had no beginning?

What is the evidence that the universe increased in its order and complexity after the big bang in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics?

What specific evidence supports the claim of a natural origin of life, life from non-life in contradiction to the law of biogenesis?

What is the scientific justification to study abiogenesis in contradiction to the law of biogenesis?

If life could spontaneously exist by chance, then why have scientists not been able to create life in the laboratory with controlled experiments? Likewise, if scientists cannot succeed in creating life in the laboratory, then what evidence is there that life could create itself by chance?

What evidence justifies the evolution proposal that life spontaneously arose from non-living material in spite of the calculations showing that such occurrence is astronomically improbable?

By what means did the code of life and the enzymes necessary to make the code originate? Which came first: the code to make the enzymes or the enzymes to make the code?

What fossil evidence exists showing the evolution of one major kind of organism into another?

If cars and non-related organisms can show similarity, what is the basis for inferring that homologous phenotypes represent phylogeny?

What evidence is there that mutation can or has produced unique, new structures rather than modified features?

What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply an increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information?

What evidence suggests that mutation and natural selection changes have no limits?

What evidence shows a transitional form with partially developed, nonfunctional features (such as 10% of a wing)?

Why have new body plans not developed since the Cambrian explosion?

Why is Haeckel's "law of biogenesis" that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny still used as evidence for evolution after being exposed as a fraudulent claim?

If fifty years of intensive research on mutant fruit flies has produced nothing but more fruit flies, why is it thought that other organisms can evolve into something else?

Why does Venus rotate backward, while Uranus rotates at a 98 degree angle to its vertical plane?

Why do 11 of the moons of various planets rotate backward?

Why aren't most of the planets composed of hydrogen and helium like the sun?

I think evolution outside of simple adaptation that can be observed is a fairy tale.

Answer 2

There are two different ways to discuss evolution.

1) The frequency of alleles and genes changes in a population over time. This is quite obviously something that occurs in a short amount of time and is well documented.

2) That life on earth began with a common ancestor (genetic material or whatever the theory) and through evolution we have the diversity of life. This is the viewpoint that sparks the debate.

To me the complexity of the universe is the most compelling evidence of a common Architect. The human body alone is so complex that I am unable to comprehend its formation by random mutation.

Answer 3

regrettably, specific. i don't comprehend how they might cope with the cognitive dissonance. you're no longer properly-knowledgeable for the reason which you do no longer understand that concept is the optimal point in technological expertise. that's not a wager. it relatively is ignorant to declare "in basic terms an theory". the consumer-friendly ancestor of all apes (along with people and chimps) is a monkey and which may be shown on your delight. It does no longer count on the theory of evolution. it relatively is a certainty. Theories have not got info which in straight forward terms applies in arithmetic. Theories have info. there is not any info of a god of any style. Theories are falsifiable. it particularly is a function, no longer a malicious program. If info is produced that shows yet another concept or this one desires replace, then we found out some thing and are grateful for it. faith does no longer have that function. And it relatively is requred. So creation by using a god isn't able to being an theory. through fact the invention of mitochodrial DNA ancestry may be desperate by using genetic mapping and we don't choose for bones to verify the theory. Theories make predictions and could be used to strengthen different theories and open up fullyyt new strains of inquiry. the theory of evolution is functional through fact is works, no longer unavoidably through fact it relatively is certainty. Evolution is certainty yet organic decision is an theory. base line is that it works. God as a proof would not artwork for us and could no longer be an answer in that regard. Its an excuse to no longer think of roughly it.

Answer 4

Evolution doesn't explain the existence of good and evil. If evolution is right there could be no good or evil. Everything is just what it is nothing more, but we know that good and evil exists. It seems to me that one would have to say that what happened at Va Tech was bad. This is natural law. Yet for natural law to exist there must be a natural law giver. His name is GOD. He created all things. Evolution cannot adequately explain origins, and the Creator is the best answer to the question of origin and the easiest to believe.

Answer 5

well to tell you the truth my answer might be long but not as long as the other answers are.

i believe in natural adaptation.but i do not believe in evolution. like the theory that we came from a creepy little thing, turned into a "i dont know" creature, and then became a lil monkey etc etc etc...

if evolution was true and we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

lol

Answer 6

I believe in the theory of evolution, but I also support the argument of intelligent design. I know it seems a bit odd, but I think that these two theories can be merged together as one. Although there is much more evidence to support the theory of evolution, I can't rule out ID. Perhaps ID was the fuel to fire evolution as it took it's course.

Answer 7

As the first responder put it, its not "believing in evolution, but the theory of evolution." Remember, despite all of the evidence behind evolution, it is still not a law. Science does not seek to prove evolution, but to disprove it. In the process of trying to disprove evolutionary theory, biologists have examined evidence that exists in every life form, and every life form provides evidence of evolution. Now, follow closely. Just because evolution is the mechanism that explains how life evolves from older and less advanced to younger and more advanced, it does not disprove theology and religious values of creation. Faith is something absolutely intangible. It cannot be measured, and it certainly cannot be proven or disproven. Faith is not something that you can observe in the wild or measure. You cannot hold faith in your hand, and you certainly cannot see it. It is intangible. In the same way that the Theory of Evolution is not evidence of the absence or presence of God, Faith in God is not proof of creationism. Remember, the bible's view of creation is solely written by man, not by God, and because it is written by man, it is subject to his fallacies, lies, and exaagerations.

Answer 8

Yup. 3rd-century B.C. science is still alive and well in America.

Hey 'fastest73torino', there is a place called Yahoo Answers where you can actually ask those questions you list. But is it too much to ask that you ask only one or two at a time so people can actually answer them? Your tactic of asking a huge list of questions in the form of an Answer to other people's questions is pretty lame.

Answer 9

Discarding the theory of evolution requires well-established religious background to support their explanation. As a science major, I also do support this theory.

Answer 10

A lot of religious people do not understand Evolution. But a lot more people do understand it.
Here is a list of religions, and their standpoint on Evolution. Notably, the Catholics support it.