Creationists, can you tell me whats wrong with evolution?

Question

I asked this in biology and only got answers from evolutionists.

I am thirsty.

Answer 1

Theres so much wrong you could never get 1/100th of it on here but here are just a few...

Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould put it this way"Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." In other words, Throughout the geologic layers, which supposedly formed over eons - the various kinds of fossils remain essentially unchanged in appearance.They show no evolution over long ages. Paleontologists call this "stasis."
Wouldn't a fossil record, showing all animals complete when first seen, is what we'd expect if God created them whole, just as the Bible says?
Austin H. Clark, the eminent zoologist of the Smithsonian Institution, was no creationist but he declared:
"No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon the earth we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediates between the major groups of phyla.
This can only mean one thing. There can only be one interpertation of thisentire lack of any intermediates between the major groups of animals - as for instance betweenbackboned animals or vertebrates , the echinoderms, the mollusks and the arthropods
If we are willing to accept the facts we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words that these major groups have from the very first, borne the same relation to each other that they have today."
.British science writer Frances Hitchens wrote" On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change ; to to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form in response to altered conditions, and if at all possibe to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one : to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the soecies.
Why aren't fish today, growing little arms and legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers?Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
Evolution Is not visible in the past, via the fossil record. It is not visible in the present, whether we consider an organism as a whole, or on the microscopic planes of biochemistry and molecular biology,where, as we have seen, the theory faces numerous difficulties. In short, evolution is just not visible. Science is supposed to be based on observation.
L. Harrison Matthews,long director of the London Zoological society noted in 1971:"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parrallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present, has been capable of proof.
Norman MacBeth wrote in American Biology Teacher:
"Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose in Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is to construct reliable phylogenies(genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed...Darwinism is not science."
Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup declared in his book Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth:
I suppose nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology;for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar" Darwinism" vocabulary -- "adaptation","selection pressure","natural selection", etc.--thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.They do not, and the sooner this is discovered, the sooner we will be able to make real progress in the understanding of evolution.
As natural selection's significance crumbles, the possibility of God, creation and design is again making a wedge in scientific circles. In a 1998 cover story entitled"Science Finds God" Newsweek noted:
"The achievments of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing # of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God...According to a study released last year, 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God---not only an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a diety to whom they can pray."
Author David Raphael Klein may have said it best:
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camoflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident-- such a personbelieves in a miracle far more astonishing than any in the Bible."

ScottM, how would any of us ever get through the public school system without learning the theory of evolution? It's you people who've never looked into the other side of the story.

I would also like to refer all to no1home2day's answer. I totaly agree 100%. Excellent answer!

Answer 2

The origin of the theory of evolution began with Charles Darwin.

He was of the mistaken notion that the cell was the smallest divisible unit within a body. He did not know about DNA, RNA, protein strings, mitochondria, etc, etc, etc.

He theorized that the cell, while in the mother's womb, was subject to external pressures and influences, and thus caused the "shaping" of undesignated cells to perform certain functions. (This is really a limited answer because of space requirements, but I trust that you get the general gist of what I'm saying).

However, because the premise on which his theory was founded was false, so was his conclusion.

If you study the cell, there are two very amazing things to look at.

First, the way the mitochondria converts raw materials into energy for the cell. (It has to lose a unit or 2 of energy before it can gain any), and if it were up to evolution, the moment it started LOSING energy, it would have looked in a different direction or strategy to gain energy for the life of the cell.

Second, look at the way DNA works. It rests in a double-helix. It has to unfold itself, one strand has to split apart from the other, and then create a mirror image called RNA. After the RNA is created, it then has to reconnect to the other DNA strand, and fold itself back up into the double-helix once again. In the mean time, the strand of RNA, which is a mirror duplicate of the DNA, has to create two more mirror images of itself, the two strands of the new DNA has to somehow connect together, then curl itself up into a double helix.

This process is so complex, the closes thing you can compare it to would be to take some raw materials, metals, plastic, chemicals, etc, and through an explosion, come up with a fully functioning, fully programmed computer!

We KNOW that computers have to be designed and built, but the DNA and the rest of the cell makes a computer look like child's play in comparison, and yet we think DNA, RNA, mitochondria, etc, can evolve by shere accident.

It's ludicrous when you understand the science behind the working of a cell.

It's only the pseudo-intellectual wannabees who can actually think that something this complex can result from an accident: matter, energy, space and time working in random chaos.

Answer 3

Evolution as differences in organisms isn't incorrect and it somewhat is right and does take place. it somewhat is something geared up into DNA for particular to evolve. although, it has popular limits and you are able to not stretch it or be conscious it in the way that it somewhat is being utilized purely with the aid of fact it form of feels that way on your concepts, i.e. seeing varieties that don't exist - purely with the aid of fact they are able to't see it any other way. The "tree" is already starting to be further and further of a bush for reliable reason - purely wait till it turns right into a grove of timber that's the actuality in the Bible besides. Then the age of the earth and universe in hotly debated between creationists besides and particularly the extra youthful earth creationists are seen morons by using society and to no longer be depended on purely with the aid of fact of having a distinctive view and that's amazingly very incorrect to me. purely with the aid of fact somebody has a distinctive view would not propose that they lack judgment or would desire to be ostracized and not listened to in any respect. technological expertise is a factor of our lives even though it has maximum of barriers while it includes living existence, there is extra to existence than technological expertise and our constrained wisdom of our actual international - it somewhat is incomplete. Many have self assurance we are extra effective than molecules and have reliable reason to have self assurance that with the aid of how we are waiting to % and have interaction with our international - there is extra to it than count, reason, and emotion - there is further and further to the fee of existence than in ordinary terms living, respiration then dieing. i'm no longer able to bow right down to "worship" evolution or any form of technological expertise as I look predicted to do. It misses fairly some advice. The scientific community is not any exception. I even have been to docs presently who can no longer decide warning signs I even have - they placed issues into strict categories and don't hear, do no longer care to make the attempt to determine it out. The human area gets lost in jumbled mess. Strict categories usually do no longer concepts-set solutions or questions throughly adequate - takes too lots with no attention - would not circulate deep adequate.

Answer 4

Show me the missing link between kittens and the legend of zelda then I will believe in evolution.

The only problem with evolution is the fact that we do not know the exact lineage between everything that has ever lived. That will take time, just like everything else in science. The only people who seem to have a problem with the slow pace of science are the creationists.

Answer 5

It is in direct contradiction to what God says the origin of life is. We didn't happen by chance. God created us. God says He knew us before He formed us in our mother's womb. God also says that He created everything and not just man. Do you believe that any Scientist will ever be able to prove millions and billions of years?There are too many fallibility's of putting a time on fossils, rocks or anything where people were not keeping records or living back then. We can't really say millions and billions of years when no one was living back then.

Answer 6

Nothings wrong with it if properly understood and discussed by intelligent people with degrees in a Hard Science. People like me. What we object to is moronic freaks who probably scored ZERO on the Science section of their SATs spouting off about it.

Answer 7

The only thing that is really wrong with it is the fact that people tend to believe that God didn't create the world instead the world created it self.

and you see that is what makes it a big lie and makes it wrong

for evolution is use by people so that they can say there is no God.

Answer 8

I would say you should ask those who susport it, for some evidance. Not some theroy, not some chart, not some drawing in a book, but show me the money, (just kidding) show me a species that no longer exists and then show me the next step and the next untill you have the "new" evolved creature. They cant, I have asked this a dozen times on here, it does not exist. IT is a lie.

Answer 9

Don't count on any coherent answers. Most Creationists have very little idea of what the ToE actually says at all...and even conflate it with other sciences.

Answer 10

It makes the assumption that because mutations and selection happens (antibiotic resistance etc.. even though germs are still germs, viruses are still viruses)
that now it means that creatures without limbs somehow evolved them along with the bones, joints, tendons, muscle, blood supply from the heart, nerves, skin............. What a flying leap that is.