evolution deniers?

Question

why do christians try to disprove evolution by asking for evidence that they know doesnt exist yet (transitional fossils is my favorite)

why do they try to disprove evolution by pointing to the gaps in evolution as if to say "SEE!! science doesnt explain this so it MUST NOT BE TRUE and I'm right!"

this is their whole debate style because they have nothing else

cardlover:

please provide a credible link....the link you provided is nothing more than opinion

Answer 1

'scuse me....

Transitional fossils DO exist.

Answer 2

It's not because they have nothing else, it's because what better way to disprove evolution than by showing the holes in the theory? How would you propose they argue against it?

If people, plants, and animals all originated from the same source it would make sense that they have similiarites in their DNA, right? Why then should it be expected that the same wouldn't be true if they all originated from a single deity? Just because the DNA is similar doesn't mean they evolved from it. Christians point at the lack of evidence to illustrate this.

The difference, DNA-wise, between some animals and humans is very small, yet that tiny difference represents a massive shift. It's made the difference between us swinging from trees and building skyscrapers. The difference between thought and emotion rather than acting on instinct. The difference of being able to look up at the night sky and dream of one day exploring it.

Christians who say they know they're right are wrong. They can't know they're right, they can only believe strongly that they are. The same can be said about evolutionists, however. It is merely a theory, one that is not proven. To believe strongly in evolution is really not all that different than believing in a God. Neither can be proven and both have to rely on a certain amount of faith.

Answer 3

Evolution is factual. Science does not want to discredit religious values because of the cultural impacts it would have. There have been some wonderful dissertations presented on this topic at many top schools. College students should take advantage of your electronic journal resouces (others too) - This is actually closed to discussion in the scientific community and has been closed for a number of years. To satisfy various relgious entities, the theories are still tossed around several journals. I can state that everyone that has responded to this poster is wrong and that I have the true facts.... We have to BELIEVE them for them to be true, science is science and philosophy is philosophy....don't try to marry the two.
Being a former minister, I like the school of thought that feels that evolution is part of Gods plan. Knowing what I know to be facts and what I know about my own faith leaves little room to side -

You are certain to be disappointed if you put all your faith in EVOLUTION or CREATION. There is evidence of the first and hope in the latter.

Answer 4

Beer God,

They do it because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science IS. They truly believe that pointing out any sort of flaw or lack of a complete and total explanation for any phenomena they choose consitutes proof that the theory is wrong. They think in a way that is fundamentally different than the way scientists think, and this is why debates rarely go anywhere. Evolutionists and creationists literally play by different rules.

(And by the way, your argument is stronger than you give it credit for... you are right that the absence of transitionary fossils does not disprove evolution. But as a matter of fact, there are many, many, many, many transitional fossils. It's just that creationists have such a narrow definition of "transitional fossil" that they don't accept the ones that exist for what they are.)

tuberoot--
I agree with you 100%. I would never try to disprove God, and I don't think that belief in evolution precludes the existence of God.

cardlover--

Evidence#1
You have your facts wrong. There are a multitude of transitional fossils, and literally mountains of evidence that evolution has taken place.
Evidence#2
This, like the previous statement, is untrue. Natural selection is perfectly capable of moving a system to a higher state of order, as are many other natural processes. Mineral crystallization is another example.
Evidence#3
WHAT!? What on earth does that mean? You make a broad, sweeping generalization (that is untrue) without anything to back it up whatsoever. Where, sir, did you come up with that?
Evidence#4
This is not true. Are you just making stuff up and hoping that people will believe you? There are plenty of fossil finds from previous hominids that demonstrate the gradual transition from early hominids to homo sapiens.
Evidence#5
Humans and apes have over 99% genetic material in common, therefore any apes and monkeys can be considered "part" human in a genetic and evolutionary sense, even ones that are alive today.
Evidence#6
See above.
Evidence#7
What? What does that statement even mean? Please explain yourself.
Evidence#8
No, it does not. If you want to make this point, cite one. Give me an example of something that is logically inconsistent about natural selection. Don't just say ridiculous things and ask other people to accept them as truth.
Evidence#9
That doesn't make any sense at all. And yet again you make a broad, sweeping generalization and support it with NOTHING. Scientists have an amazingly logical and consistent explanation for every rock strata discovered to date that fits in with the geologic timeline. How exactly does ONE FLOOD give a better explanation.

iraqisax--
What on earth are you talking about? Yes, evolution is based on science. And yes, (on a certain scale) it is observed. Furthermore, yes, evolution is constantly revised BECAUSE it is based on science. That's how science works. The more information you find, the more you revise your theories to make them a more accurate descriptor of nature. Your argument SUPPORTS the fact that evolution is science, and you somehow don't realize it. Your beliefs are static and do not change because they are NOT science.

Still Searching--
I can tell that you feel passionately about this. On certain points, I agree with you. But you are assuming that evolutionists are trying to disprove God. We are not. In fact, I believe in God. Science is not trying to detract from the wonders of nature, and the amazing state that life has attained today. I have the greatest respect for how amazing life is. But the fact that it is complex and the fact that it is amazing does NOT imply that there is no scientific explanation for it. It does not mean that we have to invoke a creator in order to explain what we see (although I do believe in one). And by the way, you state "and for those who are not sure what a theory is, it’s nothing more that a speculation with no hard evidence." This is NOT TRUE. A theory, by definition, is an idea that is backed up by evidence. I will be open minded, as you say. But I hope YOU will try to be open minded as well, and consider the possibility that evolution DID happen, and that regardless of this there is still the "creator" you speak of who guides us to this day.

Answer 5

Ignorance. The "transitional forms" business is particularly egregious, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetics works. Genetic information is stored in digital, not analog, form, and a one-bit mutation in the code will cause at least a minimum change in the organism's offspring. But there is no maximum; a one bit change can activate all or part of an intron, or de-activate all or part of an exon, causing a change that is arbitrarily large. Hence, an alleged "missing transitional form" may simply have never existed. In any event, evolution is now a proven fact (details available on request -- please provide an e-mail address), so any criticism of it is necessarily erroneous, and one need waste no time even considering such.

Answer 6

I have had it with people who call them selves scientists and self appointed solution makers who keep on ruling out the existence of a creator even though the complexity of life around them and the fact they cannot explain zillions of things point out they might be wrong.
I explain, why is it that science develops crazy theories about the universe and the laws that govern it which happen to be way more far-fetched than the work of a creator ? They admit that the universe is too complex to be governed by chance, and they realize that if earth for instance was to be few centimetres closer or farther from the sun, no life could have existed on it in the first place ! The same thing applies to our own existence, they say there is no way the complexity of our brains, our hearts, the way we breath etc could have evolved from a simple organism that gave birth to this immense Varity of creatures all with a very precise purpose to play in the complex game of life ! And why are we the only creatures to ponder about our existence, why aren’t cows or squirrels making theories and using computers ?! why didn’t they evolve to the level we are now if we evolved from monkeys ? why didn’t some monkeys evolve to our standard ?? all these questions and many many more remain unanswered by the scientific community which keeps on proposing some far fetched “theories”, and for those who are not sure what a theory is, it’s nothing more that a speculation with no hard evidence.
So here we are, in a universe we barely understand, we try to deny the existence of a creator in order to allow our selves to behave like animals and therefore ignore all moral values which by the way, where did we get those values from, and why are they so perfect in making our lives more organised and prevent chaos and mayhem ?!!! if we are mere animals descending from monkeys why do we think steeling for instance is not good, animals do that all the time, and move on with no hard feelings or grudge for each other, the same applies to killing in the animal kingdom…oh and yeh cheating on your girl is also ok in the animal kingdom why do we get upset when that happen to us !!!
Now that the scientific community is stuck and cannot explain how perfect the design of life is they go as far as imagining a new theory which proposes that our universe is one of many other universes and that some of those universes might be so much technologically advanced that they would have the intelligence to simulate our universe just as we today simulate a computer game?? (meaning we are now living in a super massive computer system and on the other side of the screen are super smart green men enjoying their brand new 11 dimensional game !!!! Doesn’t that eerily remind you of something ?? someone intelligent controlling our lives and the laws of nature ??? !!! This is just instance, anything is possible, any thing is acceptable but God, no way !!!!
I never said Science should be ignored and that we should turn to religion only , quite the contrary, I believe that science could be much more productive if it were to introduce the concept of a creator to its dominantly secular belief system, God actually encourages to us to ponder and search for truth in this life because he is confident we will eventually find out the truth about his existence as Albert Einstein said on his death bed: “God is not hiding anything from us, he only wants us to look harder”
Take the hint !
I just wish they open their eyes before it’s too late !
Ps: When I say God I don’t necessarily mean Jesus or the Christian God for that matter, there are other religions too you know, if you really want to know God he will make himself apparent to you all you have to do is go out and look for him, it’s that simple.

Salam !

Answer 7

Even Darwin himself said there should be an abundance of transitional fossils when even a half a century later we have very few that are highly debatable. I think you are speaking on things that you yourself dont have observable facts which is science but promoting some agenda based on opinion. Its funny to me how the oldest fossil on record today of a foot print of a man is exactly that , of a man, everyone in science knows that the thing that distinguishes apes from humans is their feet and the fossil we have today show no signs of transition but is the same as the foot of a human today.

Answer 8

GOOOOOLLLLYYY!!

I've NEVER attempted to disprove the theory of evolution. All I do is allow it to try to prove itself.... so far it has a mixed record. Some swear it to be fact, some swear it to be fiction, while others just swear at it!

I just let the debate roll on and on and on and on. I'll stand on the sidelines licking my ice cream cone before it melts.

Have a blessed day.

Answer 9

Probably because Evolutionists try to claim that their belief is "scientific", which it is not. Were Evolutionism based on science, it could be observed. It wouldn't be the product of continual revision, and it would not be defended so dogmatically by Evolutionists.

That said, Evolutionists are entitled to their beliefs. Just don't claim that is is science.

Answer 10

I agree with your question. However - it is just a few so called Christians who deny evolution with ridicules arguments. Most accept the science and therefore understand that Genesis is a metaphor and myth.

Answer 11

There are thousands of transitional fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Most of there "science" is just easily disproved jargon, devoid of facts. They are quite willing to make assertions, but squirm away when faced with facts counter to their assertions.