Christians, what are your most conclusive arguments against evolution and/or mainstream science..?

Question

Personally I'm a fan of mainstream science and it's discoveries, however there are those who feel it is ALL wrong, especially when it comes to evolution, and particularly when it comes to challenging the evidence for evolution of the human species.

I'd expect arguments like "there are no transitional fossils", of which there are plenty, and I have posted examples here before, as well as "the dating methods are flawed", which doesn't explain why so many different methods all concurr. The often quoted MT St Helens example is long resolved now..

However I would like to see the reasoning behind denying the many independant fields and disciplines in applied science which cross check each other and interweave as part of the scientific descriptions of the natural world.

Remember, ALL mainstream science perspectives concurr across the globe, so any religious explanations which conflict each other will need to be unified in order to present a solid case.

Ok, what have you got then..

I won't single any one reply out here, but I have never seen such a collection of misinformation, incorrect assumptions, scientific illiteracy, and outright lies in one place at one time..
Generally the lengthier replies denouncing evolution are the ones that are even further down the path of ignorance and lies, and bear NO RESEMBLANCE to real world mainstream scientific principles and conclusions.

This is a crucial point, as the creationist type arguments ar based on lies, misquotes and misinformation..

Think about that..! Simply denying this to be true doesn't change this fact, and is subversive manipulation of the truth with an agenda..

DON'T pretend that you are familiar with REAL science, otherwise you would agree with modern mainstream scientific principles and conclusions..!

Answer 1

This is a tired debate. You are confused about fact and fiction. There are no "transitional fossils. NONE. Why lie? Do you really believe the nonsense they've fed you? So many different dating methods concur? Really? You either don't know anything about the different date methods used or you are again lost in your own world of ignorance.

I have nothing against science, but don't throw that junk science at us and talk as if it's truth.

Answer 2

Every time scientists discover something new, I am fully able to fit it in with Biblical truth. I DO have a problem when they tell me what a certain set of facts mean. I do not conform to the naturalistic world view as many scientists do, however that does not mean my conclusions are invalid. Can I explain something please?

Here is the deal. If scientists were to view the world with the assumption that the literal Biblical story was correct, there would be nothing to make them think it did not happen the way it says.
The problem is people started asking, If God didn't do it, what would have done it or how did it happen? And all of this baseless speculation starts becoming good science. (Please don't shoot me yet, I get worse)
The reason why creationists are still around and will always be around is because we have no problem reconciling the data that has been retrieved so far and the Biblical account. And it frustrates the heck out of mainstream science because they want us to see the world through the same naturalistic worldview they have. Let me give an example.
Fossils of fish with fins extended and eyes bugging in panic mode.
Naturalistic view: Fossilization is rare, the only examples to be preserved are a few that are rapidly buried and escape a quick decomposition. Meaning the ones that are found would have been surprised by a mudslide or something millions of years ago.
Creationist: The world pretty much got turned inside out during the flood, tons of stuff was buried in a hurry.
There are other angles that could be discussed with this specific example, but the point is this, data is NOT locked into one interpretation.
Another problem is that geology is not a clear window into the past. To quote a wise woman, "relics found in the earth do give evidence of conditions differing in many respects from the present, but the time when these conditions existed can be learned only from the Inspired Record."
Does this quote make you want to scream? Do you believe that she is wrong? What if she is right and anything that conflicts with the Genesis account is simply being interpreted the wrong way. Here is one more quote.
"in the history of the Flood, inspiration has explained that which geology alone could never fathom." This inspired writer is saying that geology is not the last word. God's word is. I imagine many people ready to thumbs me down, but I do have a valid point. We are trying to look into the past by sifting though layers of dirt. But, we already have a record of what went down. It is the most reliable piece of evidence ever. Geology cannot disprove the Bible, geology in itself "is no hot shakes".

Answer 3

OK, I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert -- I'm an English teacher, not a biologist.

However, when I was a student, I encountered some facts which made me think that the evolutionary model was insufficient.

Evolution preaches that complex organisms come from simple organisms by a gradual process of natural selection.

Well, there is no simpler organism that evolved into a trilobite. The textbooks, and the fancy presentations on the walls of museums, say cheerfully that trilobites (and a whole lot of other very complex organisms in the Burgess Shale, for example) simply "appeared" in the early Cambrian. Appeared? From where?

"The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites. That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins."

A little farther down the page: "Trilobites are clearly arthropods. They exhibit a number of primitive arthropod features which, together with their very early appearance in the fossil record, have sometimes led to trilobites being considered to lie close to the main arthropod ancestral line. On the other hand, the trilobite eye is highly derived – there is nothing else like it in the arthropod (or any other) lineage – which belies this placement."

"There is nothing else like it [the trilobite eye] in the arthropod lineage" -- I'll say it again. There are no examples of this intricate compound eye that appear in any of the Precambrian wormlike creatures, or in any organism UNTIL they just suddenly appeared in the first trilobites.

More to the point, SO MANY organisms "simply appeared" in the early Cambrian that it was called the Cambrian Explosion. Many of these creatures cannot be shown to have evolved from some earlier, simpler, organism. Evolution doctrine cannot explain organisms that "suddenly appear".

Another example that violates, or seems to, the "simple gradually evolving to complex" doctrine is the development of the feet of horses. The ancestors of the horse had four or five toes... the modern horse has one single one (the hoof), which developed as the side toes gradually fused with the central one. But that is a demonstration of a complex structure becoming a more simple structure -- which is just the opposite of the evolutionary principle.

This same question, you realize, gets asked on here several times a day -- the "Why are Christians so CLose-Minded? question earlier today asked the same things, and there was a particularly detailed answer to it by AmeriCelt. You might look at that one too.

Answer 4

Evolution has been much of a misnomer for a long time.It initially started with Darwin who made a study for the Birds. He shows only a worms view of how human existance is related .
The only persons that explained heredity Was really Gregor Mendel(he must have gotten the idea from the Biblical statements concerning heredity)This later evolved into The Science of Genetics which deals with mutation of genes in certain microorganisms and hereditary functional traits in humans which gives them charateristics to they biological structures.The Discovery of DNA solved much of the puzzles of Human heredity.It very much put Mendell as the father of the science of genetics.

Never the less Evolution a la Darwin never became a Science. Too many unproven uncertainties to logically explain existence .
There were so many Biblically contradictory statements concerning creation by Evolutionist Belivers that they started a War With Biblical account of Creation Believers.So now tons and tons of material has flowed to show that evolution theory just does not logically fall in to The Biblical account of how Humans came into existance in this Universe.

Actually since evolution is not a science and no definite scientific proof can be actually credited to the Evolution Believers,That no further discussion or argument is necessary from the point of view of those who opposed the Idea of Evolution a la Darwin. Too many fabrications and speculations which have no real scientific basis.Its become almost a drag.

Most open minded people have just become weary about the repetitious stories that human did not start their existence as Humans;Especially discounting the Existence of The Creator of the Universe Who made it fit for Humans and all Biological Life to live in.

Answer 5

Yes God could have used evolution to bring life to Earth, God could have also created the silver surfer. Of course we know he did not. You see those who argue that people who don't buy into the Darwin myth are doing so on religious grounds are only fooling themselves. I don't buy into Darwin because a study of it reveals it to be unworkable, and illogical. It makes no more sense than some of the passages in the bible. To those of you who think that the only reason anyone would reject Darwin is because of a belief in God try this. The next time you feel overcharged by the auto repair man look at him and say. "your over charging me because you believe in God", or when turned down for a date say "it must be because you believe in God", That would make you sound pretty silly now wouldn't it. So now you can see how idiotic you sound when you say "you reject the science of Darwin because you believe in God". I hope this helps those of you who have an irrational faith in Darwin to understand why educated people reject the quaint Victorian era myth you worship.

Answer 6

The single biggest issue that I have with evolution is that for it to occur, on it's own, completely contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, and the observable trends of everything in our universe. Energy dissipates, it does not increase. Without the addition of outside energy (food, light, etc.) all living matter dies. Matter does not spontaneously appear, it is transformed (with the addition of energy), but it does not begin.

Without an initial action, there would be nothing, without continuing action, there will be nothing.

Answer 7

It's just whatever you wish to put your faith in...

I look at the interior of the eye and I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing anything so incredibly complex and intricate being developed by chance.
But you can see an incredible design that we now mimic in other ways.

Sorry to not give great arguments, but religion is by faith and come to think of it, science is too somewhat. Everything is a theory until proven and how many theories have been disproven over time and continue to do so... yet at the height of their popularity, they are spoken of nearly as fact.

Answer 8

Evolution could very well be accurate, but I choose to believe that God created everything, including evolution.

Either there was a random amount of matter haphazardly floating around in "space" before the Earth was created, or there was God.

One or the other came first, and I choose to believe in God.

Answer 9

I will give you websites and dvds that will give irrefutable proof of a created universe...

Ironically the proof comes from an Islamic scholar... of course they also believe God created the world etc.

Here is one website that will answer your questions.

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php#q1

And this site has 40 DVD's that will leave no doubt that evolution is a hoax. I've watched them and they are fascinating. www.factofcreation.com they also have books refuting evolution.

Answer 10

Lets not keep in beating the air. Until now there is no evidence from Evolution like the Christian. But the Christians have advantage because they have their Bible as the foundation of their faith while Evolutionists have none. Lets be honest. All Evolutionists are liars. evolution has been proven many times over that it is a religion. Their great leader Sir Julian Huxley said it in his book. What more evidence they want? A religion of "No God".