There aren't any with any realistic chance of being factual. Evolution is a Scientific Theory - which means it fits all known facts.
Therefore arguments against evolution are based primarily on faith, which does not require factual evidence to support it
2007-10-23 09:02:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
The real issue is there are none. Science is done via the scientific method--observation-hypothesis-theory-eventually a few make it to natural law. The point is--science is self policed by something called peer revue. You can't make outlandish claims, others have to be able to duplicate your work or observations for the theory to be taken with any validity. Evolutionary theory has been reviewed and examined inside and out (specifically because of the emotional reactions some have to it). If there are any valid arguements out there against it, they haven't been heard yet. If there were valid arguements against--the theory would have been discarded a long time ago by the scientific community.
2007-10-23 09:02:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Usually they are:
I want to be special, and not just another animal. So evolution must be wrong.
My pastor says so.
I'm too stupid to understand it, so it must be wrong.
A 4000 year old book written by nomadic goat herders says it is wrong.
All the 'scientific' arguments are total bollocks. Like demanding the existence of crocoduck fossils.
2007-10-23 09:07:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Simon T 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
the arguments that are not totally fallacious amount to pointing out that evolutionary theory is not "proven". of course no scientific theory is proven to the standards that creationists demand, so this objection is a bit silly - and by those same standards the ideas of the creationists fail completely. funny how they don't mention that bit.
2007-10-23 09:09:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by vorenhutz 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
If you are looking for scientific ones, you will only find ones that are based on ignorance, not science. But there are plenty of theological arguments against it.
Edit:
Near of DN, the thumbs down is because your link provided all the ignorance-based arguments we have all come to laugh at.
2007-10-23 08:59:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
10⤊
1⤋
They can tell you they do not understand it and that we are missing fossils. They have no clue how rare fossils are and no clue in general.
Near of DN, that might have been the stupidest bunch of arguments ever, she took some of the basic arguments and dumbed them down. In her defense she was writing it for home schooled people though.
2007-10-23 09:00:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
The day before that he created all the animals and the day before that he created the fish and the whalesand blah blah blah.
The biggest problem with creationists is that you have to ignore literally mountains of evidence to the contrary OR believe that God created false evidence to decieve us.
2007-10-23 09:07:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, without using copy/paste from other questions like this that I've already answered, it'll take awhile, so hold on while I edit my answer and add to it.
I've learned a long time ago to save your work when you're typing, so I will save this often, but I'll let you know when it's complete.
First, the very THEORY of evolution was derived from faulty science. Charles Darwin believed (wrongly, I might add) that the cell was the smallest divisible part of a living body.
From this misconception, he used logic (not science) to build up a framework of ideas that ultimately lead to his theory.
Of course, anybody who knows anything about logic, can tell you that if you start with a faulty premise, you're conclusion will be wrong.
Darwin didn't know the first thing about the cell! He didn't know about the nucleus or it's contents; he didn't know about the mitochondria and the energy cycle by which raw materials are converted into usable energy in the cell; he didn't know the first thing about proteins or protein synthesis within the cell; and above all else, he didn't know about DNA!
I trust that YOU realize that the double-stranded helixical DNA unravels itself, splits into two, attracts molecules that will form a mirror image of itself (called RNA), then the two strands will once again attach to each other and curl up once again to form the helix.
The RNA, of course, goes on to attract molecules to form a mirror image of IT self, thus forming a duplicate of the original DNA strand, which then joins with the other newly formed DNA strand and again curls itself up into a cute little helix in it's own little nucleus split off from the original cell.
Of course, the DNA is like a highly complex computer pre-programmed right out of the box!
Actually, the DNA makes the Cray supercomputer look like child's play.
We fully understand that a Cray has to be designed, built, and programmed by intelligent men and women, and yet we are still convinced that the even more complex DNA was the result of a series of accidents!
But to make matters worse, the information encoded in the DNA had to come from SOME where. If you know ANY thing about information retrieval and storage, you know that random bits do NOT compose valid data!
Now, the argument?
In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the author of Sherlock Holmes novels), "When the impossible is removed, whatever is left, no matter how improbably, is the truth."
Anybody can see the fallacy of believing in evolution if they but study the facts - in fact, even the energy cycle totally disproves evolution if you take time to study it!
But, once the impossible is removed (ie evolution), then whatever is remaining (ie God created man in His own image), no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
I could go on to demonstrate the fallacy of believing this by challenging you to take a Cray computer and take it all apart - but no - that would be WAY too expensive. Take something simple like a Timex mechanical watch (not a digital), take it all apart, screws, springs, the works, and seal it in a plastic baggie, and put it in the clothes dryer for about 3 or 4 months. If you can't afford to buy a timex watch, I'll buy one for you, but if you honestly believe in evolution, you would be convinced that the random movement of matter and energy in space and time would recreate the watch in 3 to 4 months.
(Note, I say 3 to 4 months, because the relative complexity of a timex watch compared to a strand of DNA is such that the comparative time it would take is also relatively shortened.)
Again, as I've said so many times before, disprove me by either showing me facts to the contrary of what I've presented here, or demonstrate that, even with the facts of the complexity of the living cell, intelligence is NOT required to build something by taking my timex watch challenge.
In either case, if you can't disprove it, then you must blind yourself to the facts, thus demonstrating (yet again) that you don't believe because you don't WANT to believe.
I have not seen a single intelligent response to my challenges here, which only proves that people are just stubbornly blind. Why else would they give me a "thumbs down" to the facts? Like I keep saying, evolution is based neither on science OR logic.
I'm done now.
2007-10-23 09:00:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by no1home2day 7
·
0⤊
7⤋
Logical ones? No.
2007-10-23 08:59:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Nea 5
·
7⤊
1⤋
Here you go.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html
Phenetic analysis & cladistic analysis.
2007-10-23 09:03:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Steel Rain 7
·
0⤊
4⤋