Looking for some answers to Evolutions flawed theories? Do you have doubts?

Question

I think we all have our doubts about evolution, but some have accepted it on faith and refuse to be swayed in any other direction, even though science is constantly changing it's theory. Mr. Adnan Oktar is no dummy to Evolution. He has written various books on the fallacy of the theory of evolution. His dedicated intellectual effort against Darwinism and materialism has grown out to be a worldwide phenomenon.

Check out an awsome site he built to help us better see the OTHER side of the evolution theory....


www.evolutiondeceit.com

Answer 1

Evil will always hate the light. The skeptics don't seem to like the idea that some one elses opinion may over shadow theirs. That website is a true samurai sword, cutting to the bone of a silly theory and revealing it for what it is.

Answer 2

On the very first page of that site he claims that scientists "believe that chance brought everything into being".

He's either a liar or utterly ignorant.

Immediately after that he suggests that there are exactly two possibilities ("Darwinism" and creationism) and therefore that we "should admit a 50% possibility that God created living things". So he believes that whenever there are two possibilities, each one has a 50% chance of being true? I'd love to play poker against this guy.

Mr. Adnan Oktar is a dummy.
The site is glitzy, but the content is childish and ignorant.

Answer 3

There are no flaws. a million.) whilst there is opposition, the proper win. you do no longer think the Cleveland Browns are going to be the excellent Bowl champs next 12 months, do you? If a cheetah is chasing a gazelle, the gazelle is going to be eaten. it fairly is survival of the fittest. 2.) you're able to be alive to reproduce. lifeless animals have not got toddlers. The extra "fit" you're, the longer you reside to tell the tale, the extra toddlers you have. Then, the contest is examined on the hot offspring. basically the main "fit" offspring stay to tell the tale. 3.) there is version. you're distinctive, yet comparable on your mom and dad. You share their genes, yet you at the instant are not comparable to them. it fairly is a similar for all animals. version is significant simply by fact it shows that we DO substitute over the years. think of cavemen, with their enormous forheads, or although you think of them to be. they do no longer fairly appear as if us. That wasn't too earlier, whilst in comparison with the billions of years existence has existed. If we've already replaced interior the particularly short volume of time (hundreds of hundreds of years), why can no longer we alter over billions or thousands and thousands of years? In yet another hundred thousand years, everybody is going to speak approximately how bushy and brute looking we've been. 4.) Mutations exist. it fairly is shown, stated, each and every thing. some mutations are undemanding. This introduces new genes into the gene pool. Evolution is in many circumstances seen as being pushed by some rigidity, or some thing. it fairly is no longer. it fairly is basically what happens. There are winners and losers, and if the effect of triumphing is the passing of genes, opposition to stay to tell the tale gets extra reliable each and each era. by how, human beings do no longer compete to stay to tell the tale, so we're not in contact in organic selection. there is not any "rule", this is different from we could enforce organic selection. many human beings have self belief this for some reason.

Answer 4

I am sure that if you scour the internet you will find people with arguments that 'disprove' evolution. And if you pick and choose carefully, and if you employ your right to not think for yourself but just accept any argument no matter how stupid, then I can understand where you get your viewpoint. You are a modern example of getting the prize from a crackerjack box.

Answer 5

Here ya go:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Anything he brought up that's not answered at this website (as it's only meant as a primer, not an all encompassing epistimology) I'll be happy to discuss.

Please, read. I've been through that site you listed, and I only ask that you give the same intellectual integrety to the other side of the argument.

Answer 6

Universities have been reciting the flaws in evolution for sixty years at least. It is not a belief, just a theory. It far out weighs creationism in any event.

Answer 7

sigh.

we've seen all these sites; the arguments they put forward rely on supposition dressed up in pseudo-scientific lingo.

Sites like this are exactly why thinking people don't take "creationism" or "intelligent design" seriously - you've yet to put up a viable argument that stands up to scrutiny, just as any scientific principle gets scutinized.

If you can't take the heat of the bunson-burner, stay out of science. I support your right to live in dogmaland, just don't try to deceive others into mistaking it for reality.

Answer 8

There is nothing flawed about evolution, but this Mr Oktar you speak of is vary flawed,I wouldn't buy his theories for a second, and neither dose other scientists.

Answer 9

He is a business genius making millions off of stupid people of multiple faiths.

Since its discovery, there has never been, and there is not, any alternative theory taken seriously by the scientific community.

You skipped ALL of those science classes, didn’t you?

Answer 10

I've already scoured that site.

There wasn't a single page in the whole thing that did not contain at least two serious scientific errors.