and this is your best argument against evolution...?

Question

i don't think i've read one response here from someone who says they have studied evolution and they still deny it, that doesn't go something like, "i've studied evolution and i think it's crap." that's all i read though. no explanations why. just simply that they think it's crap. so, to those who have studied evolution and still think it's "crap", care to elaborate why you think so?

tisker, i think you have the wrong understanding of evolution. evolution is in part due to survival. not entirely on natural selection. for example something that is 5% different from the norm, and possibly 5% more like something that a predator would not consider eating, that 5% mutation has guaranteed that particular breed a greater chance of survival. imagine that the shift continues to happen in the direction to where something looks 90% like something a predator would not eat, you have a much greater chance of survival. i recommend either reading or watching the blind watchmater for a better explanation of this process. or if you have any questions, feel free to email me. there's really not enough space provided to really go into detail.

magnetic, scientists have not unlocked the mystery of how life started. that seems to be the bulk of your argument. and they don't claim to know either. if my question seems weeks, it's due to the answers i get that deny evolution. yours didn't seem to deny it much either. you tried to cleverly get around my talking more about the origin of life than even discussing evolution, and hoping nobody would notice. nice try.

"The problem with this is that if you were to ask any Information Specialist, they will tell you that data can not be created randomly. Information MUST be the results of intelligent interaction."

i didn't know information specialist mean the same thing as biologist. i'll keep that in mind...

"When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

then i say a magical jelly donut created the universe. it is improbable that such a thing occured but, thanks to the fictional detective we can rest assured that it is true.

someone really needs to do their homework on topics such as piltdown man. here's a brief explanation of how it was exposed. if you're not satisfied with the wikipedia link feel free to visit your local public library for more information. there are many books which support evolution which discuss this hoax.

Answer 1

Of course they deny it. If they didn't it would mean admitting they are wrong.

Answer 2

You make a good point. People should explain themselves. Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of evolution. God could have used it as a tool for creation. It is the mechanism of random mutation that science proposes gave way to all variation that creates problems. It is like if i rolled a billion pairs of dice every minute for a 1000 years. Would I ever roll all ones and crap out? The chances are extremely remote. Now considering that every trait and every gene of every different species of living thing would have to go through a similar process to change into new forms, I find evolution controlled by random mutation as the complete cause for life on earth, a mathmatic improbability. And a statistical impossiblity. Now if the mutations were calculated and caused... well that is something I could fathom.

and on a side note, consider this DNA needs protiens to form DNA, but proteins need DNA to be formed. One does not exist without the other. So on the basis of the evidence at hand one can conclude an outside source created the system. To say otherwise is to say I can take a complicated watch apart and toss the contents randomly around for an amount of time and create the watch again.

What sounds right? evolution without control or evolution with control(God).

Answer 3

actually i have studied studied it and I find that the criteria for establishing any credibility with the origins do not stand up.

for example, and I will be brief, some things like genetics I don't claim to know it all, but Dr. Crick says it is too complex to originate here and needed to come from somewhere else.

also, the early world, methane and ammonia with heating by ultraviolet light. ammonia would have killed any life forms in the water since some of it would have been absorbed and the ultraviolet light would have gotten the remainder.

random chance describes a mechanism, but what is that mechanism? abiogenesis describes a mechanism as well and the best minds still don't know what that mechanism is.

I find the whole thing too full of holes at this time to find credibility. one could argue the existance of santana clause (seeing how it is christmas) more strongly than for evolution. After all I bet you have seen a "santa" at some point.

sorry I don't have time to get into the single cell creatures and the conversion of ATP to ADP and so forth, but i really think if you are a self honest person, you can find the problems yourself. After all, i found this question, certainly you can examine the science and keep all the science you know resident in your mind while you go over these things.

by the way, this question was a bit weak. work on making a better presentation, for this could have been stellar in the history of yahoo answers, and I mean that quite honestly.

edit: you misunderstood. i don't believe in evolution. i do think it is possible that man will in time (given time that i don't think exists) will come to be able to "make" something that is alive by artificial methods, but that does not prove evolution.

years ago when the first probes were landing on mars a hot debate broke out about life there. one fellow I worked with said he in his opinion he thought it was unlikely to find life. when pressed about finding life he said, he would change his opinion if they find it. (personally i hope they do find life or at least solid proof it once existed but for personal reason).

science assures me that creation is the only explaination. you and i can both look at the same datum and you say, ah, evolution and I say, creation.

yet, I try to keep balance when I answer. while i believe in creation, science is the tool both of us use to see what we see. and what an amazing world it is around us, isn't it!

Answer 4

Ok. You obviously have missed my answer to this question numerous times in the past, so I'll share it with you.

First, in the words of Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), "When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is the truth."

Let's take this systematically.

We'll start with Charles Darwin and his "scientific" approach.

Darwin attempted to use logic on a scientific supposition to draw a conclusion. In a moment I will show you he was off base scientifically, but for now, realize that if you start with a wrong premise, then the conclusion will, likewise, be wrong.

Darwin, believed (wrongly so, I might add) that the cell is the smallest divisible part of a living thing.

He just made stuff up after that, and he said that when a foetus was still inside the mother's womb, the "undesignated cells" as he called them, could be modified by external stimulii.

Of course, he didn't know anything about the nucleus, or proteins or protein synthesis, or the mitochondria, or DNA, etc.

I'm sure that you're well aware of the way that mitochondria converts raw materials into usable energy in the cell by first using 1 or 2 units of energy. Of course, if evolution were in charge, this process would have been stopped immediately when energy was being used up in the process of generating new energy for the cell in this energy cycle.

And I feel confident that you know about DNA and how it works.

You are, I'm sure, aware that DNA is a double-strand of highly complex molecules that make up the most complex data storage and retrieval system, preprogrammed with all the information necessary to formulate the person or animal in which it resides. This DNA is coiled up in a double helix, and when the cell is ready to duplicate, this double-strand uncoils itself, splits into two strands, then each strand begins to attract molecules to itself (yes, like a manget), so the end result is a mirror duplicate of the original DNA. This strand is called RNA and goes off to do other things. In the meantime, the two strands of DNA find each other, reconnect, and then coils itself back up into a helix. The RNA moves into the nucleus of the new cell and starts attracting molecules to make a mirror image of itself that is an exact and identical copy of the original DNA. These two strands of DNA then find each other, combine, and coil up into a helix.

The information encoded in this DNA strand is like a fully programmed database. The information had to be there before the life could be formed, but if the DNA was the result of a series of accidents, then the life had to be there first.

The problem with this is that if you were to ask any Information Specialist, they will tell you that data can not be created randomly. Information MUST be the results of intelligent interaction.

This highly complex Data Information Storage and Retrieval System is even more complex than a Cray Supercomputer. We understand that the Cray had to be designed, built, and programmed by intelligent scientists, yet you still think that the DNA design was the result of thousands of tiny accidents, built, and fully programmed without any intelligence behind it!

Let's look at some of the so-called scientific research that has gone into supporting evolution.

There are quite a few, but the one I especially want to point out (which is only one of many) is the famous "piltdown man", the missing link. This is so unscientific that if I were the evolutionist, I would go hide my head in shame.

You see, this evidence was "planted" by some over zealous archeologists, to be dug up and discovered later. Unfortunately, these fools must not have know much about biology because the main bone they used was the tooth of a boar - a dead pig!

Let me tell you that this kind of "evidence planting" is so extremely and totally contrary to the scientific method of discovery, that it is fraudulent beyond understanding!

There are, as I said, other examples of this type of thing, but suffice it to say that evolution is supported by fraudulent claims, unscientific methods, and an attempt to support a pre-biased view, rather than an honest search for truth. It is TOTALLY dishonest.

I started with the origin of this theory, I have shown the science that demonstrates the impossibility of evolution being a valid method, and I showed you the fraudulent means by which evolutionists have pushed their unscientific theory onto the world.

Back to what I said in the beginning, "When you have eliminated the impossible (ie evolution), then whatever is left, no matter how improbable (ie God and intelligent design), is the truth."

So, THAT is why I think evolution is "crap" - because it IS!

Even Dr. Flue had to renounce evolution, even though he received a lot of static from his colleagues. He said in an interview that it would be intellectual suicide to continue believing in evolution in light of all the facts. He is working on the DNA, and his conclusion was that the DNA was so extremely complex, it could NEVER occur naturally without the aid of some kind of intelligent design behind it!

So, are you committing intellectual suicide by continuing to believe this fraudulent lie?

You got it yet?

Actually, the only reason why some people do not believe in God is because they do not WANT to believe in God. It's not an intellectual issue, but rather a moral issue. Jesus said "People refuse to come to me because their deeds are evil." (Jesus said it, not me!)

Answer 5

Ok, firstly I do not believe in creationism, but I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea of evolution as it has been explained to me.
Here is why.
This is an example of evolution.
After generations of mating ,under environmental pressures, an isolated group of monkeys has some wonderful evolution occur. A super baby monkey is born, it is evolved, it is unlike its parents and is super smart, this is not from natural selection, this is a new species. Ok, I can understand that, but here is were it falls apart on me. What does it mate with? It is an isolated creature of a new species. It needs to find it's own kind to reproduce. It can't mate with the monkeys it came from, because if it can then it isn't a new species. So that for me is the rub.

Answer 6

I have taken an evolution class, and I don't disbelieve it. I do see that it in no way proves that God doesn't exist as most people try to imply it does.

What I do think is that the implications of evolution are rather depressing when you consider that we evolved by and that any sort of humanity we possess is due to random mutation and natural selection. Frankly I believe that there is a method to the madness and a higher purpose.

Answer 7

The salt in the oceans has Been measured for quite some time and from that a rate of ever increasing salinity has been pr oven using the rate going backwards in time it indicates the world is just about as old the bible clams it to be. and how about petrified wood from mount saint Helen's with a cowboy boot in it these are proven documented facts the theory of evolution is just a theory.

Answer 8

Sit down son. I have the answer!

If evolution is true why are monkeys more intelligent than Creationists?

Answer 9

Usually I encounter the "really big numbers" argument. They concoct "odds against life evolving from 'goo to you'" and then say "look at these huge numbers; numbers this HUGELY HUGE mean that evolution is totally impossible".

Answer 10

It just takes so much more faith to believe in "goo to you" than to believe that somebody designed it all...the world just screams "design"...not order from chaos. Does anybody really believe that order comes from chaos without an outside influence? If you do, I've got some swamp-land in .......

Answer 11

Evolution does have its flaws, but it is the closest we've got to the truth as of now, and it certainly will lead us to the right path.