why dont you believe in evolution?

Question

this is for all those who dont believe in evolution
1. i know it to be a theory so dont give me crap on that, its just logic and science, thats why i believe it to be true
2. if your going to quote the bible, i dont need it, just put, i dont believe because, bible
3.as for everyone else, what is your reason, cause i just cant comprehend how you cant, also, if you feed me a website, just know, anyone can post anything on the web, doesnt mean its true.
believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see

C, my response is simple, look at the human race and how its progressed, since we came from being the hunter gatherer, we have locked ourselves in homes that keep us out of the harshness of the outside world. when technology expanded for use of travel and recreation we became weaker. every step forward in technology limits us in evolving physically, but we have stilll be evolving mentally.

for those poking holes at the evolutionary chains,
do you have any idea how hard it would be for an animal to stay intact after it had died. most of the time nothing is left. so as thousands and millions of years of pass there is bound to be a few holes and missing peaces.

Answer 1

I'm a skeptic, I don't believe in anything. I know that the process of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Answer 2

This depends on what you're defining evolution as. In terms of molecules to man evolution I have a problem with organisms being able to develop new organs, features and abilities by mutation. There is no proof that mutations can improve the DNA code. I have seen the talkorigins site and none of their examples is the kind of improvement needed. Basically the first organism did not have eyes, nose, ears, heart, brain, muscles and other things that make up our bodies, mutations have to account for the added information in the DNA code to develop these things and there is no proof that they can. I also find it hard to believe that intelligence just came out of nowhere. Look at the way the world is today, we may gain intelligence but it all comes from previous knowledge. If you put a baby in a padded white room (gave it food and water) and never taught it anything, how intelligent would it become? It may learn to eat and drink and babble, but it wouldn't learn much outside of that. There is also a problem with abiogenesis, it has never been observed and scientific law says that life comes from only life. The world as we know it follows laws and looks well designed, so logic says that it had a designer. That is logical and to say that because living things can reproduce makes the design argument irrelevant is stupid because according to evolution at one time living things were dead things. I don't see where atheist think that God is more illogical than no God. Yes, the idea of God can seem way out there but when you think about it there had to be something that has always existed, no matter what you believe and when I look at the world around me it seems more logical that an intelligent being outside of our time and space dimension created our universe than an unintelligent force that operates within our same dimensions of time and space. It really goes against everything that we know. In our dimension things don't create themselves, they are not created by the same processes that they work, intelligence, operational laws, information and logic doesn't come from nothing. I do believe in evolution in the aspect that things change, but there is a limit to that change and I don't see how it can account for the development of species from the first organism to humans.

Answer 3

The term 'evolution' is oftentimes used to describe how the international began and stepped forward (stepped forward) over an extremely l-o-n-g span of time. i think of that is refered to as Macro. Micro evolution / progression is over a short span of time. i'm questioning that technology / drugs can be conscious how various ailments exchange into proof against drugs over a era of 30 - 40 yrs or so provide or take some years. organic decision / survival of the fittest isn't the comparable as how various animals crossed the line to alter right into a distinctive animal. An occasion i'm questioning that's a horse and donkey that may mate however the effect of it may no longer reproduce. A pelican and a robin, nevertheless the two are birds / can no longer mate and bring yet another fowl. Animals of the comparable style and comparable community section can mate and reproduce. A canines and chipmonk are unlikely to mate and bring yet another style of animal. for sure guy and animals are right here. guy desires to describe those with out giving God credit for it. That way mankind isn't to blame to a greater robust ability. yet whilst a individual takes time to think of approximately it -- there has been no choose for animals Or guy to have 'stepped forward'. there exchange into no choose for a huge Bang the two.

Answer 4

Mike, evolution does rely on three coincidental aspects:
1. heritable variation of traits
2. traits related to survival fitness and repriductive success
3. differential survival and reproductive fitness in a population
We can state these coincidental events in the form of a mathematical algorithm, which shows that given these coincidental events evolution must happen.

Sarge, Darwin never recanted his theory of evolution. Read a good book on his biography rather than lies put out by JW's watchtower. Remember it is a sin to bear false witness.

C, evolution is not a teleological process. Read any good introduction to biology textbook.

cpm and Champ, we have a complete line of transitional fossils all the way from Paleozoic amniotes, to every founding order of mammals. Also, with the burgeoning field of molecular genetics, we can now fill all intermediate stages. In the junk DNA of our own human genome we have deactivated chunks of genes from our ancestry, even 335 million years old amphibian genes.

Christian, as well, we know from studies of molecular genetics that DNA evolved from phenotypic RNA. And that the genome of each living species contains only about 1.2% genes actively assembling proteins. The rest is junk DNA, a landscape of our evolution with deactivated genes from our distant ancestry. Also species which are closely related share similarities in DNA (humans and chimps have 98.77% same genes...and the differences can be tied to individual mutations occuring at different eras, thanks to molecular clocks based on interspersed segments of DNA), so your thesis of each species having unique DNA is erroneous.

Answer 5

Evolutionary biologists assume methodological naturalism. This is the idea that only natural causes and processes are allowed to account for the complex, information-rich structures of living organisms. So even if God exists we would have a God who has nothing to do with origins, the development of life. Instead, undirected natural causes explain the origin and development of life. So, for all practical purposes you assume the position of a philosophical naturalist or a scientific atheist if you're going to hang your hat on the notion of "undirected natural processes."

There's another point here, and that has to do with Genesis. Is it literal or non-literal? Well, that might be a false dichotomy. Genesis, like the rest of Scripture, has to be read as literature. In other words, if you want to interpret the Bible literally you have to interpret it as literature, and then pay close attention to genre and figures of speech. This is particularly true of Genesis, which is a historical narrative that's interlaced with symbolism and repetitive poetic structure. If Genesis were reduced to a mere allegory conveying merely abstract ideas about temptation, sin and rebellion, devoid of any correlation with actual events in history, the very foundation of the Christian faith would be destroyed. If the historical Adam and Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit and descend into a life of habitual sin resulting in death, there is absolutely no need for redemption. On the other hand, if we consider Satan to be a slithering snake, we would not only misunderstand the nature of fallen angels but we might also suppose that Jesus triumphed over the work of the devil by stepping on the head of a serpent rather than through His passion on the cross.

There's one last point I want to make in response to this question and that is, the biblical account of creation specifically states that God created living creatures according to their own kinds. As confirmed by science, the DNA for a fetus is not the DNA for a frog. The DNA of each creature is uniquely programmed for reproduction after its own kind.

Evolution is fighting for its very life. Rather than prop it up, thinking people everywhere must be on the vanguard of demonstrating its demise. It is no longer tenable in an age of scientific enlightenment. We can suppose, in 19th century science, that a fertilized human egg is merely a microscopic blob of gelatin, but in an age of scientific enlightenment we now know it is among the most ordered, complex structures in the entire known universe, and to suppose that something so sophisticated can be the product of undirected natural processes, I think, stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

Answer 6

Because Darwin himself said that if one intermediate stage could not be proven then this theory is nothing. Thats why. Darwin created and then this statement (a paraphrase) shot it down. If that is not reason enough for a person then they really want to be a monkey's uncle.

Mike at the top makes a good point also, that Evolution relies too much on chance, although chance can be somewhat mathematical, you get into chaos theory which is still not understood fully.

Answer 7

Too many holes in the evolutionary chain to account for such a highly complex sentient being like a human to have evolved over time from a "lower" life form. P.S.: Did you know that Charles Darwin, the founder of the theory of evolution, later recanted his theory and embraced creationism?

Answer 8

Evolution is JUST a theory and thats it. Its nothing more. The reason I don't beleive it is bc of the bible. i have seen all the miracles that god has done in my life. Like my friend caleb...who almost died. I prayed for him and then got a phone call saying that his brain activity was up. And he may still be in a coma. But it could be worse. and I KNOW that the bible and everything inside of it is real. Thats why i don't beleive in evolution..

Answer 9

Some people belive in both religion and evalution. Each is everyones opinion, so don't critize it. God COULD have put animals on the earth. AND from there they COULD have evolved. Or it could be just one or the other. Its al about personal opinions.

Answer 10

Personally I don't see the reason for even arguing the point. If you live in the past, you never move forward. We are here now and today and I know how I got here and that is all I really care about.