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

Awsome site. Too bad schools don't allow their kids to read that stuff!

Answer 2

I do not need faith to accept the theory of evolution. It is based on scientific data.

Scientist have been trying to prove and disprove this theory since Darwin got credit for it. And it still stands.

Each time a new field of science develops or a new technique, (for instance, genetics, carbon dating, EvoDevo, etc) , more evidence in favor of evolution is found.

To spend so much time fighting against a scientific concept seems like a tremendous waste of energy. And as far as I can tell, it is usually by people of religious faith.

And there is no battle between evolution and religion except for the one created by the religious that are unwillingly to learn or see it as some threat to their faith.

It is not.

Answer 3

I get so frustrated when I hear about intelligent design. If any of you would actually take a real class on science and religion, you would realize that science came into existence because of religion, and the inability to be able to explain things. Things are CONSTANTLY evolving before our very eyes. If they weren't, we wouldn't have people with brown, black, red, or blonde hair. It's called mutations within genes! As these small mutations add up, it can lead to new species, but it takes time, as in.... millions of years!! I know there is going to be some person who says the earth is only 6000 years old, but science can disprove that theory with carbon dating, and many other methods. Yes, you cannot prove anything within science, and it only takes one thing to disprove it. That's why evolution is still only a theory, and not a law. Look up scientific methods. It still has a few kinks in it because you can't expect every animal, much less every species of animal, to have a fossil record. Throw into the mix the fact that the earth's surface is constantly changing due to plate tectonics, and it's a wonder that we find as many as we do. Another instance that shows evolution can occur is by looking at all the domestic breeds of animals that people have developed. Once again, we are picking out traits that are desireable to us, although they may not be desireable to the survival of the species. Basically, it's natural selection on speed. I was curious and looked up the website, specifically the site on Archaeopteryx. Scientists have admitted for years that it is not a great example for a missing link. As for feathers being a unique trait only to birds, it's well known that feather imprints have been found on dinosaurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs There is also more evidence that dinosaurs were warmblooded, and that feathers developed from scutes to provide insulation, and that flight inadvertently developed from that. http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/scutes.htm Have any of you ever heard of Robert Bakker? He has done extensive research on warmbloodedness in dinos. One feature that he points out is that some dinos have Haversian canals in their bones. http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/00FallClass/geo143/lect/lect16.html And teeth? Birds are STILL capable of growing teeth. http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/hensteeth.html Even baleen whales have teeth while they are in utero. http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ I guess I could go on and on, but the biggest point is... Where is the scientific evidence that is solid and physical and not just ideas that are written down on paper. Much of the evidence presented by evolution can be backed up by molecular studies, genetic studies, and fossil studies. Most of the stuff that creationists throw at evolutionists can almost instantly be rebuffed. And much of the creationist beliefs that has any strength has already been admitted by evolutionists, such as Archaeopteryx not being a transitional fossil. However, what about recent discoveries in the fossil record? Sure, you could go on about the Big Bang and where did all the material come from, but we are really close to explaining it. Like another person mentioned, it took a long time to figure out the the earth went around the sun, and not vice versa. This too, shall take time, but it will be backed, with hard solid evidence. For you evolutionists out there, check out the site below.

Answer 4

Let's go over this one more time:
1. Evolution is a scientific theory.
2. Creationism or Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It's a speculation. There's no direct evidence for it. There's no direct evidence for existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer(s).
3. Even if evolution is completely false, that wouldn't mean that a god or gods did it. Even if a god or gods did it, that doesn't mean that it was the god of Abraham who did it.

Answer 5

Here. Read this: "Lies on the Evolution Deceit Website"
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ed.htm

But my real answer is not to play dueling websites.

Adnan Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya) is a well-known, self-promoting fraud. This web site is a very nicely designed presentation of some really really BAD science. Anybody with an undergraduate college education in any kind of science field can pick these arguments apart easily.

Take his argument on Thermodynamics:
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter12.php
> "Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. ... The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered."
No. But it IS enough to make a self-ordering system CONSISTENT WITH THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. In other words, the poor man doesn't even understand the objection he is addressing. This is a consistent theme with all creationists who bring up the 2nd Law objection to evolution ... they inevitably reveal that they don't understand the 2nd Law at all ... much less the rest of Thermodynamics.

And THIS is why it would be criminal to expose schoolchildren to this kind of rubbish. Any scientist can see the enormous flaws in this guy's criticism of evolution, but a 7th Grader, or even many 10th grade biology *teachers*, don't have any grounding in issues like Thermodynamics and are vulnerable to being swayed by BAD science.

But to address your original question. Scientists are human beings and can, individually, make mistakes or be persuaded by preconceived notions. But the TRAINING of science makes it very very difficult for the scientific COMMUNITY to accept things on faith. Evidence really does rule.

Scientists AS A COMMUNITY, are neither stupid nor fraudulent. Individual scientists make mistakes and some have perpretrated frauds (which were exposed by other scientists). But AS A COMMUNITY, there has never been, in the history of modern science (since emerging from the controlling thumb of the church) a global conspiracy by scientists to defraud the general public. So why do religious fundamentalists single out *evolution* as the first time that scientists have been "wrong" on such a global scale? Is it because scientists suddenly found a global skill at conspiracy, or suddenly succumbed to mass stupidity? Or could it be because *evolution* is percieved by these religious fundamentalists to contradict their fundamentalism? Which is the more *logical* choice?

So why would someone choose Harun Yahya's version of science over the theory of evolution accepted by over 98% of the world's professional (and Ph.D'd) scientists? Only because Harun Yahya reinforces your preconceived notion of the answers. And you creationists have the hypocritical *nerve* to say that it is we who accept things "on faith and refuse to be swayed in any other direction."

And let us not forget 'NoLib's illustrative quote: "Science is nothing more than guesses supported by more guesses." Now *there's* the kind of deep understanding and love of science that leads to creationism. Obviously a person who has never benefitted from medicine, or flicked on a light switch ... and somebody must have turned on his computer (built on pure guesses) for him so he could type those words. (Why is it always an Einstein like this who calls other people "morons"?)

Oh, and as far as the "constantly changing it's theory" THAT'S WHAT A THEORY DOES! It grows. It changes. It is constantly being improved based on new information. Why are creationists so anxious to reveal that they understand science so badly that you don't even know what the word "theory" means?

In summary: Sites like evolutiondeceit.com would be laughable except that gullible people take them seriously.

Answer 6

I personally have my doubts about people who take seriously the rehashed and repeatedly refuted arguements of ID proponents like this mug you quote.

Intelligent design doesn't actually answer any questions and has a great deal less supporting evidence than evolution. Why don't you actually try thinking for once? This 'God of the gaps' rubbish really gets on my nerves. Just because you don't understand it don't just put it down to some ineffable higher intelligence, just accept that you aren't intelligent enough to understand it. Two thousand years ago people didn't understand how the sun rose, they believed it was dragged across the sky by a chariot driven by a god. Of course people didn't like it when Copernicus pointed out that we weren't at the centre of the solar system but that didn't stop him being right, even though his explanation was more complicated than the religious one.

Of course people can't prove evolution, of course evolution doesn't explain everything. Unlike Mr. Oktar who can explain it all to you in really simple terms. That alone should raise your suspicions.

If you want to test these arguements out yourself why not hop onto richarddawkins.org forums and have a shot. You would last about two minutes.

Answer 7

Evolution is no more flawed than other scientific theories that have been borne out through centuries of observation and experimentation, such as gravity and the laws of motion. Yes, there have been modifications and additions to the principles of natural selection and evolution over time, because THAT'S THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS. New data leads to reinterpretation and reinforcement. If a theory doesn't work, it's either thrown out or modified. Science is not set in stone.

Those who criticize evolutionary theory have NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary. They simply can't accept that their comfortable little divinely-inspired world view might be wrong.

Answer 8

on the first actual web page of that website he claims that scientists "have self belief that probability presented each and every thing into being". he's both a liar or fully ignorant. as we communicate after that he signifies that there are precisely 2 opportunities ("Darwinism" lol and creationism) and subsequently that we "might want to admit a 50% risk that God created living issues". So he believes that each and each and every time there are 2 opportunities, each and each and every has a 50% probability of being real? i'd like to play poker compared guy. Mr. Adnan Oktar is a dummy. the positioning is glitzy, although the content textile is infantile and ignorant.

Answer 9

You think we all have our doubts about evolution?? You should get involved with some people outside your closed group and look at the facts of the world around you.

What is your intellectual Oktar preaching? Intelligent design for which there is no evidence whatsoever?

Evolution is fact. So-called intelligent design is belief without facts.

You want us to look at your chosen web site. Will you go read a book on evolution, like maybe Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker both by Richard Dawkins. It is disengenuous to expect us to read what you want us to read while you refuse to read anything by the best minds in the biology world.

Answer 10

Man here they come. All of the brain dead or brain washed anti-religion morons coming out of the woodwork with their idiotic and unproveable evolution crap. They sit there all popus and tell creationists they have no proof, yet they cannot answer half the questions about evolution that would provide an ounce of proof for their wrong theory. A gree with one postee, if your damn theory is so air tight, where did the very first piece of matter some from that evolved??? There is NO answer to that question because your theory would then have to admit that truth about the existance of a higher power somewhere. Using science as an end all proof is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Science is nothing more than guesses supported by more guesses. Thats not proof. At least the creationisim theory has artifacts to back up most of what we know. But thats never good enough for the narrow minded evolutionists. They conveniently dismiss solid evidence, and attempt to turn the tables and say they have the only proof whan in fact thats exactly what they do not have.

Answer 11

Every single theory is going to have flaws and contradictions, but if it comes down to science or religion, I would go with science, is easier to believe than somebody or something just going, puff!!! and magicly everything came to exist from nothing, kinda the same like science, Don't you think?