What is the strongest arguement you have against Evolution?

Question

So many in the religious world calm evolution to be unproven. What is the strongest argument you have against evolution?

So many of you have given some great comments, thanks so much! A few of you have NOT stuck to topic though...the question is not to defend creation or evolution but to state the evidence you have against Evolution, specifically the scientific evidence. Stick to topic please and play nice :)

Answer 1

Some mathematicians calculated that the possibility of life forming by chance was one in ten to the 146 power. one in ten to the 31st is accepted as being an impossibility. Kent Hovind, and Carl Baugh present about a dozen persuasive arguments against evolution. Have you read CREATIONS TINY MYSTERY by Robert Gentry? He has found radio halos in granite caused by isotopes of lead that have half lives measured in minutes. They are microscopic, but they are totally incompatible with the general theory of evolution.

Answer 2

Here's a fact that evolutionists don't want you to know...evolution doesn't even satisfy the three basic tenets of the Scientific Method.

All science and engineering students know that, to satisfy the requirements of the Scientific Method, an outcome must be:
- observable
- repeatable
- predictable

As a Creationist, I can hypothesize that, at any hospital, the offspring of two humans will also be human. That hypothesis is observable, repeatable, and predictable.

An evolutionist says there is a chance that the offspring of two humans (or any species for that matter, which is the very crux of speciation) may end up being some further-evolved life form. It is certainly not predictable, it is not repeatable, and has never been observed.

Therefore, evolution fails even the most basic of scientific validation.

To all you who hate science, please give me a thumbs-down.

Answer 3

another way religion makes us all dumber.. making claims about something it should not.

EDIT - K J V said

"1--the fact that things fall apart left to themselves
2--people,animals,plants get weaker as time goes on.Why are there no 50 year old men on any NFL teams?
3--No one has ever seen it take place.ALL we have ever seen and observed is what is in the bible:
"Each brings forth after its kind""


1--mountains get built day by day naturally
2--Turritopsis nutricula can live forever unless it is killed by outside influences
3--so how can religion make such claims about things.

learn your science

EDIT - Antioch
"Is a Creationist, I can hypothesize that, at any hospital, the offspring of two humans will also be human. That hypothesis is observable, repeatable, and predictable.

An evolutionist says there is a chance that the offspring of two humans (or any species for that matter, which is the very crux of speciation) may end up being some further-evolved life form. It is certainly not predictable, it is not repeatable, and has never been observed.

To all you who hate science, please give me a thumbs-down."

evolution does not work they way you described it sorry. a spiecies does not just pop into existance from others it is a slow seperation from spicies isolated from one another. humans will never be isolated from one another so we may never see humans evolve into 2 different species. evolution is observed through fossils and repeatable through gene mutation studies....

saying "give me thumbs down if you hate science" is your way of impling that anyone like me who know your full of it, hate science but in fact we know it better then you so i will give you a thumbs down for now not knowing science

Answer 4

No missing links have ever been found, for any species.

I know evolution might explain why animals are different in Australia, for example, or Africa...but God might have done that just for fun.

Personally I am glad aides carrier primates are limited to africa. Ditto for lion attacks and elephant stampedes.

If not for sexual experimentation with beastiality and same sex adultery, aides (which primates have imunity to, but not men) would never have come to the western world!

Maybe God liked Kangaroos being a one continent tourist attraction, and keeping Pandas and Koalas seperated by an ocean. So what! Who are we to question GOD!!!

Starlings were beloved in England, but when men brought these lovely, sweet birds over to North America, they became a horrible plague on the farmers.

Different bees were in Africa and the western hemisphere; but South American researchers brought killer bees from Africa, across the ocean, and some escaped, and are spreading into the USA!

Now bee attacks have killed farmers (killer bees attack black especially) and American bee colonies are mysteriously disappearing!!!

Here in Canada, we love our national animal, the busy beaver; but beavers introduced to islands off the coast of South American have become PESTS, and are spreading ominously toward the mainland.

So keeping animals seperated by oceans might be a good thing that God did.

You know St Patrick never chased the snakes out of Ireland, as the legend says...there is NO proof snakes ever were on that island sanctuary from them!!!

God is always right!!! PG

Frankly, if I get to heaven and God says He DID used evolution, I will not care in the least.

The universe in His calling card, so non can doubt His existance with a clean conscience. That is the only issue!!!

How he creates is for Him to decide, and for us to discover!!!

Answer 5

"Some mathematicians calculated that the possibility of life forming by chance was one in ten to the 146 power. one in ten to the 31st is accepted as being an impossibility."

If the universe is infinite as we believe it is, then the odds can be 1 in infinity and still have a chance.

Answer 6

From what I've seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

Natural selection explains how the dogs can adapt and survive in different environments, not where the dogs came from in the first place.

Evolutionists will often say their best evidence is bacteria, but as Dr. Carl Wieland said, “Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilized in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.”

Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to (like antibiotic resistance in bacteria) are usually only a rearrangement or loss of information, not a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information. They have a survival advantage in a hospital, but are actually defective and can’t compete as well with ordinary bacteria. As Dr. Carl Wieland says, we shouldn’t call them “supergerms” but rather “superwimps.”

And as Dr. Michael Behe (who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry) said, “...most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes—and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes.”

Evolutionists will also say their best evidence is the fossil record. But as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said, “While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.”

In the fossil record, we find abrupt appearance and stasis with the organisms found there, and that is why Gould and Eldrege came up with the Punctuated equilibrium theory—they claimed it could be explained by the transitions occurring quickly. Why did they feel the need to come up with such a theory?

One real problem for them is what is called the “Cambrian explosion” where we have the sudden appearance of all these diverse and fully formed animals in the fossil record, with no evolutionary ancestors. It has also been called “biology’s Big Bang.” As Dr. Jonathan Wells said, “...the Cambrian fossil record doesn’t start with one or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera, then families, then orders, then classes, then phyla. Instead, most of the major animal phyla—and many of the major classes within them—appear together abruptly in the Cambrian, fully formed . . . Whatever the source of the Darwinists’ convictions may be, it cannot be the Cambrian fossil evidence. They can only affirm their belief in Darwinian evolution in spite of the Cambrian fossil record, not because of it.”

OK, what about homology? Don’t we see similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different animals? Sure we do. Evolutionists like to argue that these similarities prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor (common descent).

First of all, there are plenty of problems—like homologous structures that are not produced by homologous genes or the same embryological development, or homologous structures in animals that are not suppose to have a close common ancestor (no evolutionary relationship), and so forth.

But the thing is, homology can just as easily point to a common designer; it fits quite comfortably with the creation model.

As Dr. Jerry Bergman said, “...the requirements of life are similar for similar living things, and some designs are preferred in constructing animals because these designs are superior to competing designs. All automobile, bicycle and pushcart tires are round because this design is superior for the function of most tires. A tire homology does not prove common descent, but common design by engineers throughout history because of the superiority of the round structure for rolling.”

It has been asked, “Do evolutionists conclude that bicycles, cars, and airplanes all have wheels because they all started out as tricycles?”

As Dr. Carl Weiland said, “By its very nature, creation involves the intelligent application of design information, which it would seem logical to conserve. For example, if the pattern of the forelimb bones in a frog works well, following good bioengineering principles, then it would seem reasonable for the same principles to be used in the other creatures, modified to fit their particular needs.”

Answer 7

If you count every living organism on the planet, the number is so great that saying all originated from a single celled organism is, well it's just ridiculous.

Answer 8

Ignorance!

It is a very powerful force.

It permiates the planet and is used by most people to arrive at, (jump to), conclusions.

Answer 9

I believe in evolution, just not the evolution of humans from apes. There is evidence all around us in the form of fossils and even living creatures that evolution happened, there's no doubt of that - I personally believe that Genesis is man's way of describing The Big Bang, started off by God himself. But I don't believe that humans evolved from apes, and there is NO conclusive evidence to prove that.

Answer 10

The so called missing links that have been "found" so far have often been fraud or lies. When some one or group takes to fraud to prove their theory it shows me that they themselves know they don't truly have a case.