Evolution: does it really make sense???

Question

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone

Answer 1

The evidence does not favor evolution! Out of all the fossils that have ever been found (that weren't hoaxes) there has never been one showing the transition from one species to another. Ex. a fish becoming a bird. We all agree with micro-evolution but macro-evolution is imaginary!

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. But what evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed. They want you to think that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that all natural systems which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials. The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

Answer 2

So many errors in the creationists/IDists knowledge. Big Bang theory and evolution are completely independent of each other. One could be falsified and the other wouldn't necessarily be affected. Big Bang is current theory on the start of the universe and evolutionary theory is the explanation of what we see has occured to life on our planet since it arose. Evolution is not a chance process. Mutations may arise by chance but natural selection is the process that drives evolution and it is not a random by chance process.

You argue that complexity and design are proof there must be a creator but this is not so. There are natural explanations and no evidence for a creator other than our minds can't conceive of how things like life and the universe could come about without some anthropomorphically derived being. Far more proof of evolution than God breathing into dirt and a human springing fully formed from it.

Answer 3

Ah yes, the Augustine argument. UNfortunately, it is fallacious. There is no necessary reason why all things that exist must have a conscious creator. Take, for example, the Grand Canyon. It is possible that at some time in the past, Arizona was completely flat, and then a divine being spontaneously caused the Canyon to exist. Nothing inherntly wrong with that theory. On the other hand, simple physics (and observation) provides a different explanation--that water wore a hole into the rock over a period of many years. Both explanations have an internal validity, and are based on different standards of evidence.

Now, when we talk about the Coke can being created, over the period of millions of yeas, you're talking about a vastly more complicated theory. But it is still possible, from a strictly argumentative stance, that there was no Creator.

Don't waste your time trying to prove God's existence. It doesn't work (I've actually seen far stronger arguments that show that proving God's existence is impossible). Instead, rejoice in the idea of faith, where God lets us explore the evidence, and make our choice based upon that, rther than based on some sort of "logic." Faith is part of the beauty of religion.

Lastly, just so that you can stop making Christians look stupid--evolution (a biology theory) refers only to the change in living beings over the course of many generations--it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang theory of comsmoogical creation (a physics theory). We Christians do no benefit to our cause by displaying profound ignorance of our opponent's positions and theories.

Answer 4

Despite the fact that the rest of the world thinks of evolution as a fact rather than just a theory, I believe in a Creator, for many reasons. But, even despite the many logical reasons why and how, I know that I would still get grief from a lot of people, with most of them calling me illogical or stupid or blinded. This, I don't mind, as I know that there are a lot of people out there that will believe things that science and what the education systems teach, thinking that everything that comes out of their mouths MUST be true, rather than putting trust in a Universal Creator.

THAT is the only thing that doesn't make sense.

Answer 5

True, but assigning the label "evolution" to the mechanics through which the creation of the coca cola can was accomplished makes sense IMO. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Answer 6

The question you need to answer as you ask this one, is how do you determine if a thing is designed or not. The reason for this is that you have accepted that humans are designed just because they are "complex". On the other hand, humans along with most lifeforms have many attributes that point to no design or at best really poor design. For example vestigial parts like the appendix or our tail bones (and actual tails occasionally); the human eye has several problems with it, our knees are not well suited for upright walking.

So can you build a case for humans being design other than just because of complexity or critera for determining design?

Answer 7

I DON'T GET SOME PEOPLE! So you are telling me, that your tinny little brain, lets you except that some man, created everything on earth as we know it today, and the earth is only 6000 years old, even though its proved to be over 5 billion years old and that humans, not to mention other animals have been on earth much longer than that, but you so blindly(and idiotically) put your faith in a fairy tale, you deny that. Your right that makes way more sense...Have fun living in your fantasy world, it must be great to not have a real life and be concerned about anything,and be mindless SHEEP! Have fun with that

Answer 8

Hey guess what? You just described the big bang, not evolution. That puts YOU into the intellect-free zone.

Did you know that..

-Evolution does not address the origin of life?

-Evolution only describes how life changes over time?

Nice try though.

Answer 9

Just because you personally, do not understand something, does not mean that it is wrong. It just means that you need to be better educated.

That is obvious from your very juvenile attempt at describing evolution, which has absolutely nothing to do with Big Bang Theory.

But of course you would know that had you not been home schooled.

Answer 10

Just because some people who done belive in macro-evolution make very poor arguments, that does not mean that all people who do not believe in the current Macro evolutionary model make poor arguments.

Big bang idea aside.....

Macro Evolution is not a theory.
Its an idea that is in flux.
If any evolutionists tells you that it is proven fact, they are lieing.

It is a guess that some scientists have made based on the information they have gathered.

It is educated opinion.. but it is not fact and not proven... it is simply not proven wrong yet.

Answer 11

Do you really understand the "Theory of Gravitation"? Many distinguished physicists do not - but you accept it as fact because those who are qualified in the field understand it. You could make equally ridiculous statements about gravity as you are making about evolution.

Your rant is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis.