Christians, Disprove Evolution to me.?

Question

Evolution/Creationism debate please.
Feel free to quote scripture and even another's opinion.
I just want to see you disprove it.
Don't prove to me Creationism is correct.
Just DISPROVE that any type (micro/macro)biotic evolution is not correct and should therefore be put to shame.

Answer 1

The truth is that this is a religious debate because neither creation nor evolution can be "proven" because they are statements about the past. Even if God created a man in front of us, or we suddenly saw a monkey have a man child, neither would prove that this is what originally happened, although both would provide strong evidence.
So we have to recognize from the beginning that this is about examining evidence and seeing which theory is more plausible. In the end we chose to believe one theory or the other.

It is therefore possible for us to point out many inconsistencies, and scientific observations that cannot be explained by evolution or that predict that evolution is false. But in the end a committed evolutionist can still hang onto their belief and reinterpret all of the evidence because of a strong pre-commitment to not wanting to be accountable to any higher being.

But if you are open to thinking about the question, there is a lot of room for discussion.

1) Abiogenesis - also known as chemical evolution. Although evolutionists are shying away from that term and association with it. But the bottom line is that life had to start somewhere. If we reject the super-natural, and agree with the obvious that life has not been around forever (current science shows that the universe began at a distinct point in the past) than we are forced to the conclusion that life arose from non-life.
Of course this goes against all scientific observation and the more we understand of the complexities of proteins and amino acids and right-handedness vs. left-handedness and the sheer number of permutations and combinations that are possible in these long chains that have to be exactly right. Even if all the conditions were right and all the appropriate chemicals were present and recombining multiple times a second would take many orders of magnitude longer than even the present estimated long age of the earth to come up with a single one of these complex protein building blocks, much less a protein, much less a reproducing, sentient being.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

2) Information theory
The reasoning goes:
i. All languages, codes, protocols and encoding / decoding mechanisms that we know the origin of come from a mind - there are no known exceptions
ii. DNA is a language, a code, a protocol, and an encoding / decoding mechanism
iii. Therefore DNA came from a mind.

Taken from http://www.1cosmos.org - further information and discussion can be found there.

3) Congenital heart defect
Here is an example simply from my personal experience. I was in the hospital surgical waiting room waiting through my son's open heart surgery. Another woman was waiting for her son's eighth such surgery. She explained that while her son's heart was forming in the womb, the major vessel were transposed which meant that the un-oxygenated blood would be pumped straight back to the body without going to the lungs. This would have been immediately fatal, but the body mysteriously sensed this and grew some collateral veins that would alleviate the situation and allow the child to live a few hours until he could have his first open-heart surgery.
I started to think about what the evolutionary explanation for this marvelously design backup plan was.
Natural selection postulates that there is a random mutation that is beneficial to survival and that is passed on in the genetic code. But until a generation ago, this "beneficial mutation" would not have helped the child survive more than a day or so. Even with today's plummeting morality the child would not have had the opportunity to pass on this beneficial mutation before he died.
The only logical explanation is that this backup system was there by design.

I could go on... but I think there is enough here to think on with an open mind.

Answer 2

Everyone here seems to be missing the elephant in the room. The question is not simply does evolution explain everything or does Creationism explain everything. The question should be are the two mutually exclusive? I posit that they are actually complimentary.

Evolution, or more correctly natural selection, obviously exists. Simply stated, a trait that would improve the chances of a species surviving long enough to reproduce would naturally be passed on to subsequent generations. The strong survive.

It is equally true that this does not accommodate the emergence of man. In historical terms man suddenly appeared on the scene equipped with something remarkable. A super powerful, high functioning, expensive to operate brain. A brain with massive amounts of storage capability. A brain that is the same today as it was when it first appeared.

Why would nature do this? This brain has enormous storage capacity for knowledge even though when it first appeard, there was very little data to put in it. It was capable of advanced calculus even though simple arithmatic had not been invented. It was capable of learning several languages even thought speach did not yet exist.

In other words, it would have been as if the first computer ever invented was as advanced as the most advanced modern computer. As we see the evolution of computers we see how crude the original vacuum tube monsters were all the way through to modern laptops.

This did not happen with the human brain. It was perfect right from the start. This is not evolution. As we can see with other primates, thousands of years of evolution has not made them more intelligent. There are no early versions like man 1.0, 2.0 etc. If it is obiously not natural selection then what was it?

.

Answer 3

Just because something is true on a small scale (micro)
does not meant it is true on a large scale (macro).
The fossil record used for macro is extremely elusive
and arbitrary according to many a scientist.
It is mere speculation - a fairy tale really.
Micro evolution - of this I have no doubt.
Mutations are rarely if ever helpful and can't possibly
turn one type of creature into a completely different type.
DNA is much more stable than that.
Life at the most basic level is extememly complex,
more and more so as we find out more about it.
I believe things are degenerating - evolution is
just wishful thinking.
I don't believe there is any proof of terrific
advancement by any natural means/process.
We have advanced technologically and have
gianed some knowledge, but I actually think
we all used to have a much higher IQ and were
much more genetically perfect to begin with.
That is my theory.
There is very little evidence (that would be
considered evidence) either way!
Mankind can only actually speculate about
these things - we are NOWHERE CLOSE
to either theory or fact if we were honest
with ourselves!

Answer 4

Macro evolution is the only pertinent debate, and has and is being debated very extensively. I would suggest looking at the arguments here, http://evolution-facts.org, which offers many substantial ones (though i would not use every one), or here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

Proving that everything came out of nothing, or that mindless matter was eternally existent, and developed into a systematic and orderly universe is far harder to evidence than that a Creator was behind creation, and a Designer was behind obvious design.

Apart that that, the existence of Jesus is empirically evidenced daily by the scientific method of cause and effect, in which true believers realize effects that correspond to the promises of the object of their faith, and are contingent upon faith and obedience to Him, and which in many respects defy simple against naturalistic causes.

Go interview hundreds of born again believers whose lives testify to their faith, and find out through them and relatives and acquaintances what their hearts and lives were like the day and years before their conversion, and what they were like the days and years afterwards. Then demonstrate why natural causes are more fitting than the supernatural.

Here are a few stories that will get you started:
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3682855866783766146
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4136610474021109864

To God be the glory.

Answer 5

Great question!

I won't attempt to prove or disprove evolution, but there are a couple of things which bother me about evolution:

1. the lack of transition creatures in the fossil record. if evolution were true surely there would be an abundance of transitional creatures which lived and died because they were not strong enough to survive, because they weren't fast enough or their systems weren't developed enough.

2. if a creature couldn't reproduce properly in the first generation of that creature then it would logically die out correct? reproductive systems (and all other systems) are extremely complex. the systems in a human are different to those found in a fish or a lizard for example. so how did each of the systems change in such a way as to enable the creature to function correctly? and do it within one generation? all the systems would have had to work first time every time in every combination of transitional animal that existed.

While both are difficult to disprove or prove, these are questions which evolutionary biology been unable to answer, when you consider the evidence and the probabilities of such events happening. we need to seriously think through the ramifications of both our scientific and spiritual beliefs

This is a great question and I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

Regards
WM.

Answer 6

OK, I've got a couple of facts for you to consider. All are true, and from reliable sources:
1) The time it would take for a monkey to genetically correctly grow a feather, a single feather, is over 1 million years longer than evolutionist scientists say the world existed.

2) where there are layers of rock, which many scientists say were formed over millions of years of building up, some times are imprints of trees over several layers - fairly impossible, but worse, some of the imprints are upside down - utterly impossible.

3) for the grand canyon to have been created in the way we are told it is, a river would have had to run uphill.

Answer 7

I don't think anyone, Christians included, disagrees with evolution...

We've all evolved, look different, grown taller, stronger, less hairy, smarter, these days fatter etc.

What hasn't been agreed on and is yet to be proven, transmutation of species from ape to man, as such it remains a theory.

The earliest "Hominid" found is Orrorin tugenensis (6 million years ago), at 6 million years old, O. tugenensis lived near the time when genetic analyses suggest our oldest hominid ancestor split from the oldest ancestor of the great apes.

This means that there's a chance O. tugenensis could be the proverbial "missing link" -- or at least one of them.

Unfortunately, much about this species, including the suggested close relationship between it and Homo sapiens, is extremely speculative and hotly contested.

Check these verses from Genesis out, they seem to imply more than 1 species of humans... I've always found this interesting. Perharps creationism & evolution are not as controversial they're made out to be.

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." Genesis 6:1-2(KJV)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:4 (KJV)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 8

The first posters link led to a site which had a lot of big words that ultimately showed a supreme lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. They tried to sound intelligent but utterly failed, citing logical fallacies that aren't there.

Answer 9

The same thing I say to Christians, I'll say to you. Evolution debate (such that it is) belongs on the biology board. I know you're directing the question at them, but to be fair, I have to be consistant in telling you the same thing I tell them. Go to an actual science board. If they can't disprove it there, well there may be a reason for that.

Answer 10

jim, you know your link doesn't disprove evolution.

actually no jim, it doesn't 'raise some very interesting questions on parts of evolution that we accept as fact with no real proof.' it's nothing but smoke and mirrors. have you checked your question on that link in the biology section lately? some very good answers there now.