Why evolution is wrong!?

Question

I believe in Evolution. I have argued before, with my religous friends over evolution vs creationism and never had an inteligent debate. Can anyone who disagrees with evolution please provide their arguements over why it is wrong, with proof.

Thanks

Answer 1

Sorry to tell you this, but you'll never get an intelligent debate from them with proof.

Answer 2

Scientists initially considered the platypus to be ‘primitive’, but then they discovered the incredibly complex electrolocation techniques the animal uses to find food. To evolutionists this made it a ‘highly evolved animal and not a primitive transition between reptiles and mammals.

The platypus, along with its fellow monotreme, the echidna, was believed to have evolved in isolation when the land mass that would become Australia (Gondwana) broke away from the other continents supposedly 225 million years ago. This idea of evolution in isolation followed the theory of Darwin, whose affinity for evolution may also have been influenced by his early studies of the platypus during his time on The Beagle.

However, the discovery in the early 1990s of three platypus teeth in South America—almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia—threw that theory upside down. (Marsupials, too, were once considered to be exclusive to Australia, but their fossils have now been found on every continent.) Adult living platypuses do not have teeth, but the discovery of platypus fossils in Australia had already identified that their ancestors did have teeth, which were unique and distinctive.

In reality, there is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that the platypus was ever anything other than a platypus. It is not a living ‘transitional’ form. It is a truly unique creature.

There is no evidence that platypuses have evolved, but there is abundant evidence they have degenerated - which fits the Genesis record precisely.

Answer 3

There are many reasons to believe evolution is wrong. Among these are the transformation from a-sexual reproduction to sexual reproduction, the lack of an explanation of how dead rocks and dirt became life, missing links, problems with radio-carbon dating, fossils that show advanced mammals and dinosaurs together (like the dog sized fossil found a few years ago that had a dinosaur in its stomach), and fosilized trees that are verticle through several layers of rock that are supposed to be seperated by millions of years.

The one I want to focus on is the idea of men and dinosaurs coexisting. If evolution is true, then this would not be true.

In Montrose County, Colorado (USA); in Natural Bridges National Park (Utah, USA); and in the Grand canyon there are ancient rock drawings (petroglyphs) that show dinosaurs. In Mexico hundreds of clay figures have been found that look like dinosaurs. In Peru, Inca burial stones have been found that have pictures of donosaurs on them. In an ancient Cambodian temple, there are carvings of dinosaurs. Evidence such as this exists all over the world. Much of this art shows known dinosaurs in great detail!

If dinosaurs never lived with men, then how did these ancient men know what they looked like? If these drawings and sculptures are not dinosaurs, then what are they and why do they look just like known dinosaurs?

See the links below for some examples (including photos) of this ancient art!

There is much more evidence! Too much to list it all here!

Answer 4

If we all originated from a swampy existence, why aren't humans emerging on the shores of every swamp like they used to (according to you?)
If you say everything came from a "swamp" why are there so many different species?
Humans, canines (domestic, wolves, hyenas, fox, etc), felines (domestic, tiger, lion, cheetah, bob-cat, mountain lions, etc), Insects (I won't list the billions of different insects there are), germs, viruses, micro-organisms.
Yes, everything evolves--humans did not know as much 100 years ago. Is evolution not just a result of humans learning to control their environment and thus making changes to/in it?
And, was the water in Africa a different color than that in China? Is that how you explain race. If the "swamp water" there was different, how could it still produce a human as opposed to a new type of amphibian?
Fact is, evolution is a theory just like religion. Neither can be proved.

Answer 5

I, too, find it amazing of all the thumbs down on Circle of Life's answer.

Some aspects of evolution are probably correct, however, you would think that in the millions or billions of years many of you say the world has been in existence that just once, just once there would have been a half monkey, half flying spaghetti monster.

Think about it, if the world can just evolve, just hit all the right points to make what we see around us, then you'd think that the odds would be more in favor of a four-legged human, with arms.

Evolution just doesn't add up in the grand scheme of things.

Answer 6

I suggest reading the book the Icons of evolution by Jonathan Wells. In it he dicusses many of the proofs of evolution presented to us when we were in high school which have been disproven/ disguarded or questionable. In it he mentions a number of known frauds which are still being used in high school text books. Such as Haecknels embryo's drawings, drawing which have been known to be frauds for a hundred years. The peppered moths. Moths that were staged. The fruit fly experiments. There is a number of other good illustrations inclding even the highly interpretable bones. This book was criticized by Eugenie Scott although she admitted it was technically correct. She is the executive director for the national academy of science education.

Answer 7

I've never had an intelligent debate over this subject with a religious person before. First they ask questions that only a scientist can answer and then they start accusing me of believing in evolution only to live my "wicked life" guiltless. Wait....I think Circle of Life just did that...

EDIT: Bry Bry's answer is hysterical. Sweetie...things don't live forever. You see, things die and then some leave things that we call "fossils", which are actually more than 6,000 years old....

Answer 8

Don't BELIEVE in evolution. Belief is the realm of religion. You can study evolution, understand it, know the evidence, know and understand the criticisms, use it for further scientific inquiry or even challenge it and try to refute all or part of it.

But do NOT believe in it. There is no room in science for belief.

Answer 9

Evolution is false. It's impossible for there to be a big boom and have all of these wonderful things that we have on this Earth, including beautiful sunsets, flowers, the sun, clouds, rain, snow, fog, things like that. There is a God who created the Earth and the whole universe, and his name is Jehovah, which is stated in Psalm 83:18. You should read the Bible, and you'll understand it better. You can't claim to read the whole Bible and prove that evolution is actually true.

Answer 10

Good question.

I agree with you.

A couple of jehovah witness ladies keep on coming back to my door (I know, i am too polite in person!) but they talk about God creating the earth literally as it is in the bible and I really disagree but they are adamant!!!

No disrespect to jehovah witnesses but people CAN be good and lead good lives without belieiving the events happened as written in the bible!!! (sorry to digress)

Answer 11

because it tries to claim that the earth is 4.5 billion years when its not even1 bilion year or even 1 milion did you know that the oldest tree in the worls is leat than 4,400 years old and the oldest barrier reef is less than 4,200 and the sahara desert is only 4000 year old and i could go on and on so why do you think that the oldest things in the world are so close together in year and not even billions of year old well me personally i think the world is at leat 10,000 year old at least and then the flood happened and every thing grew back which maked them all in almost the same time range