I'm asking for some responses that include some kind of response against evolution. What I'm going to do is take all of these responses and post them in another question with rebuttals so any and all questions regarding evolution are answered.
I hope that everyone posting will take this seriously and
a) be civil
b) provide good responses that don't quote the bible, and use real-world evidence or reasoning
c) will check back in...uhhh.... 4 hours or so for the question with the responses. You can bookmark my profile page or something like that if you'd like to.
Please don't respond and then not check back, that is very immature and intellectually dishonest.
2007-09-04 09:47:33 · 23 answers · asked by Patrick T 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, Socrates, posting a rebuttal is not intellectually dishonest, but ignoring rebuttals from me are.
2007-09-04 09:53:30 · update #1
S.H:
SHUT UP!!!
That's what I was going to use in the next question!!!!
2007-09-04 09:58:03 · update #2
jesus horses... full stop.
2007-09-04 09:50:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
The Scientific Law of Biogenesis...
The mathematical formula that calculates populations...
The LACK of a true Evolutionary Geological column ANYWHERE on the earth...
Darwin's own words that, "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (The Origin of Species)
The "Cambrian Explosion"...
After the "Cambrian Explosion" almost no new phyla appear in the fossil record...
The 'evolved' bacteria that are now resistant to antibiotics also die when placed in an environment without said antibiotics...the mutation has just become detrimental to that species.
Stanley Miller's 1953 experiment...
Homologous structures are often developed from genes that are NOT homologous...
2007-09-04 17:34:29 · answer #2 · answered by cbmultiplechoice 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I was looking to see what kinds of posts you would get and I noticed that most of the bases were covered for evolution.
I would suggest that you do a little reading on neo-Darwinism. it varies from the traditional.
Dr. Gould realized that darwin can't stand up to scrutiny and worked on the problems he could.
the creationist are actually winning the court battles on evolution as darwin and neo-darwin do not have solid bases of confidence even among the scholarly supporters, not people who really don't understand the details.
punctuated equilibrium, the tautology of darwin and other things leads to its collapse.
I can go on, but the support for evolution is faith based. you have faith you have the facts.
2007-09-04 11:02:06 · answer #3 · answered by magnetic_azimuth 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I read about a frog that turned into a Prince! Check the link below.
If that is possible then I'm sure anything is possible - in fact, monkey to man would be easier - esp. with our brilliant scientists working on it!
Disclaimer: I don't believe in fairy tales.
2007-09-04 10:15:18 · answer #4 · answered by Andy W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Against evolution?? Not a christian and Im not very godly, but will give it a try. Evolution,,, if everthing was equal, we should not be the only intelligent species on this planet,,,, in 4 billion years evolution has tought us that biological creatures adapt themselves to their enviroment, we are the total opposite ,,,,from primate walking on all fours too walking up right took nearly 140 million years of evolution, but supposedly we evolved to modern man in just 200,000 years. Our blood salt content is higher than any other primate in existence, almost to the point where we match the mammals living in the ocean (dolphins, whales, ect..) leading to a conclusion that man himself evolved from the ocean only a few hundred thousand years ago, but according to fossils we have been on land for millions of years,,, dna evidence at this very moment states that man is related to ape with a 99.8 percent accuracy, the problem is it also states than with the aqautic genes we have mixed through our dna, the evidence states that we are 99.94 percent sure we did not evolve from ape,,, folks, that leads to only one other conclusion.... Dont be so sure we were created from dust, every christian I met never has bothered to look at creation from a logical point of view. If you were going to create intelligent life on a planet, would you create is using magic and dust? Or would you start with whats already there.. ofcoarse if you make god a logical being,,, that opens up a whole new can of worms.
2007-09-04 10:05:27 · answer #5 · answered by cliffcc078 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
LOL. Intellectually dishonest. You mean, like the rebuttals to evolution that are intellectually dishonest???
2007-09-04 09:51:29 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
HAHA!
Oh you naive person you. Cute in your idealism though. No, no matter HOW many arguments we refute of theirs, nor how many times we point out the lack of logic or facts, those who choose not to accept science will simply continue to do so. I applaud your thought, but this argument has been had an won...It's just never going to sink in for some people.
2007-09-04 09:52:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Um...you want REAL-WORLD rebuttals? Well, that's gonna be pulling some serious sh1t outta anyone's a55....I kinda do agree with the guy who said Micheal Jackson is proof...but still, we have freaks in any species...
2007-09-04 09:54:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Common ancestor with Apes though a process called natural selection, yet Apes are far superior to humans physically.
Survival of the fittest, yet Apes are far more fit then any human.
If a process called natural selection took place and still is, why are there thousands upon thousands of different animals, insects, reptiles? Wouldn't the process have at least cut that number by half, by now?
Science fact and number one rule of science, "nothing comes from nothing."
If, in the beginning bacteria were thriving, why would they change?
2007-09-04 10:03:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Anything anyone can come up with against evolution is answered HERE:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
They have a giant list of all the claims against evolution, and they answer them all with evidence and cited sources.
I just looked at the answers above this, and they're all answered somewhere in the link I gave.
You just have to find the name they're under.
(Wow, look at all the arguments from incredulity.)
2007-09-04 09:57:17 · answer #10 · answered by RED MIST! 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Irreductable complexity, "That couldn't have evolved, it's too intricate!"
Gaps in the fossil reccord
Goes against Biblical literalism = hell-bound-Satan-spawn!
Improbability, must ignore basic idea of natural selection and say "random" a lot.
2007-09-04 09:52:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋