Creationists: if evolution is patently false...?

Question

Then why aren't real scientists flocking to discredit it? The one thing just about every scientist dreams of doing is disproving an accepted theory.

If the case against evolution is so strong, how come the only people arguing it are religious wackos with little grounding in biology?

Answer 1

Because it is made by satan, and you do his work.

Answer 2

The concept spoken of by Martin S is known as irreducible complexity, and evolution does not explain it. The case against evolution is overwhelming, and the only reason some 18th century scientists still support it is that evolution is not science, it is religion. It is false religion. It is a cult, and like all cults, it has its irrational devotees. Evolution is a repetition of the Original Lie told Eve in the Garden of Eden: Ye shall be as God.
If Evolution is true, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no absolute standard of right and wrong. If there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then the followers of this religion are free to do as they feel, without any consequences. Hence, perverted homosexuality becomes alternative lifestyle, killing babies becomes a womans choice, etc. Here is something scientific about the age of the earth: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-752906514104097234

Answer 3

Why, haven't you heard? Scientists all belong to the cult of Darwin and worship Evolution, or Humanism, or the Scientific Principle, whatever - they are all tools of Satan. Scientists all conspire to suppress the Truth (Christianity, of course, not Judaism or Islam or Buddhism).

"Evilutionists" try to suppress all the scientific research by creation scientists and intelligent design scientists. They suppress it so well that no actual research has been done, but there will be research done once they have collected all the donations from the believers and sold all their books and films and built their Creation Museums. Once every penny has been sucked out - I mean, collected in the name of the Lord, then maybe they can think about the possiblity of trying to...nah, research is too much work - God did it!

Answer 4

Evolution does not explain how life started. That is a mystery and is one of the reasons scientists are so interested in finding life beyond the earth. Evolution DOES explain everything that has happened AFTER the first life appeared. No scientist worth spit doubts evolution and that life has been here on earth for billions of years.

Answer 5

OK the theory is that we all come from micro organism tell me where they come from?? u cant just say well my theory is in the beginning there were micro organism which turned into blah blah blah blah blah blah without first telling me where the micro organism came from oh they come from rocks colliding in space which created the earth well where did the rocks come from eventually u are going to run out of false explanations to argue your case which makes it a theory and not a fact my theory is you are an alien from planet dumb dumb based on the fact that ask or state questions like this does it make it fact no but i still believe it

Answer 6

"Real" science involves observation. When I took science class we put two teeth in two separate glasses. One had water, the other Coke. After a week we compared and determined from observation that one decayed faster than the other. My point? Science must be observable, has anyone observed evolution? No.

Answer 7

Because there is no case against evolution, there are minor questions to clear up as to the details.

Answer 8

Because the world is so against God. Show me a scientist that is willing to stand in front of a conference and acknowledge God and give thanks. They are so wrapped up in science and what they think they know, that they could almost never acknowledge that they are created by God.
Such predispositions would never admit creationism, even if it is more plausible than tracing our ancestory to worms.

Answer 9

I don't believe evolution is false as long as it doesn't pretain to humans. No other animal in the world comes even close to us in ability because Gods greatest gift to us was a rational mind.
If you want to believe you evolved from a monkey that's fine with me, but I didn't.

Answer 10

Then why aren't real scientists flocking to discredit it?

Scientists are not "flocking" to discredit it but many scientists are discrediting it.

"how come the only people arguing it are religious wackos with little grounding in biology?"

That statement is false.

It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is not more unthinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.

The creation of life

The simplest form of independent life is the single-cell bacterium. Bacteria have been around for several billion years and though possessing an amazing adaptability, unknown in larger creatures, have shown no sign of evolution into another species. Bacteria are amazingly complex organisms and are of the same design as all other living cells of which higher life forms are made. A single cell is a wonderfully complex thing.

Dr Michael Denton, a medical doctor and molecular biologist, in seeking to convey the complexity of a single living cell, uses the following illustration in his book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis:

...to grasp the reality as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity...

According to Princeton biologist, J. T. Bonner, an average-sized cell contains about 200,000 billion molecules. In The Ideas of Biology he says:

...it seems easier to imagine a single cell evolving into complex animals and plants than it does to imagine a group of chemical substances evolving into a cell.

If we want to consider the possibility of this happening, some of the factors we would have to consider are:


The importance of proteins in the structure of the cell. These are among the most complex molecules known, with very precise molecular structure, and with molecular weights up to 50,000. Proteins may contain 200 - 300 amino acids, which must be exactly the right sort in exactly the right order. Some proteins have thousands of amino acids and molecular weights of hundreds of thousands. The APC protein has 2,843 amino acids and is 312,000 in molecular weight. Amino acids come in approximately 20 different types with either left-handed or right-handed shape. All those in our bodies are left-handed.

The complexity of the DNA molecule which every cell possesses. The 'simple' Escherichia coli bacterium (living in our gut) is a 'prokaryotic' single cell (with no nucleus), but has a wound-up DNA strand which is 1,000 times its own length and has 3,000 genes made of some 4 million base pairs. RNA is a shorter, usually single-stranded molecule, but still with large numbers of nucleotide bases.

Proteins and enzymes do not reproduce without the corresponding genetic materials, the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, yet the latter cannot function without the former. Which came first? The old chicken and egg problem!

Without the protective membrane surrounding the cell, which is a very complex structure in itself, it could not survive.

All life must have food of some sort. The first life form would have needed the capacity of either photosynthesis or chemosynthesis to create food from chemicals, or else have had access to organic food from some source. Otherwise it would perish on the spot.


Many have sought to show the impossibility of all this happening by chance. In 1981, Sir Fred Hoyle, mathematician, astronomer, and a long time anti-theist and evolutionist, together with Chandra Wickramasinghe, head of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at University College, Cardiff, and a lifelong Buddhist-atheist - brainwashed, he reported, into believing that any concept of God must be excluded from science - calculated it to be one chance out of 1040,000! (That is one chance out of 1 followed by 40,000 zeros). However, statistics tend to become rather meaningless at this level. Hoyle has declared that the probability of an evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado, sweeping though a junkyard, would assemble a Boeing 747. He says:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

Answer 11

This is not an argument for or against evolution...I just thought you might like to know what some scientists have to say about it:

Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist).

"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).


"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).

"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).


Seems as if there is a bit of difference of opinion among the ranks....