the case against evolution

[archaeologist]

i am well aware that other threads have posted similar points but i would like to put them in one spot to demonstrate why evolution (whether secular or theistic) is impossible.

1. to state the obvious, the Bible does not use or refer to the evolutionary process. all references are point to God as creator and a six day creation.

2. there are no ancient records, myths, stories or scientific studies which refer or mention the process we now know as evolution. all records talk of creation, nothing else. thus evolution has no historical foundation.

3. the fossil record can only reveal that a species lived at a certain point in time. it cannot reveal or prove the process of evolution nor can it show which is or isn't the mother/daughter species. conjecture is needed to fill in the blanks to make the process seem real.

there is no way of knowing if the one fossil was a mutation, injured in a fight, or accident , fossilized in a position which does not reveal everything about it and so on. what the fossil record does prove is that there was an event which destroyed the majority of the animals.

there is no way to prove the 5-6 mass extinctions scientists claim took place. these are nothing more than an excuse to avoid dealing with the reality of the flood.

3. the dating systems are not reliable. in my work and studies i have found that these systems are very subjective, prone to corruption {way to easily}, manipulable{sp} and unverifiable. the half-life for almost all of them are too long to prove true or even accurate. at best, c-14 if limited to 11,000 +/- has a chance but its assumptions leave it too vulnerable.

4. the time frame for evolution to work is a very exaggerated figure and unprovable. it is too convenient and allows ecolutionists an ecuse for violating the very scientific principles they love to force creationists to adhere.

we cannot say that a modern day mutation is evolution at work because no one knows how the process really works or if it would even proceed as stated by darwin and subsequent supporters. at best they are guessing.

we have no scientific research from anytime in the past, who would have opportunity to observe the process in action thus there is nothing to indicate what is truly the process at work. we know there were scientists alive long before the greeks as the babylonians had the pythagorum theory long before the greek 'discovered' it.

they would most certainly observe life and make note of anything that was different than what creation stated and investigate.

5. as stated in the last point, evolution and the theory violate the the two main principles of science. there has been no real observation of species changing or for it is impossible due to the manner in which this theory is structured.

also the theory cannot be testable. again, one limitation is the time factor declared needed to see evolution at work. one scientist claimed in a lecture that dna is testable and proves evolution. sorry but it doesn't. all dna can prove is the similarity in number of dna molecules. at no time can testing dna prove the process at work or demonstrate how different species ended up with different counts.

the process and how it did its work is still a mystery. similar dna counts do not prove evolution at work.

another limitation is that all species follow the creation edict, which we can observe and test. the hybrid experiments have shown that animals cannot mate outside of their kind, if they want offspring. even if the females are fertile, it does not do any good if the males are sterile.

6. elements of life today, why would evolution need death, since there is nothing waiting for anyone when they die, death is a useless function. why would evolution conceive of such an act? also, with its ability to evolve speices, why would evolution need a reproduction system which sets its species free from its control? there is no need for any species to be able to reproduce for the process should continue replicating them at will. there is no reason nor logic as to why evolution would change its process mid-stream?

7. evolution is described as a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-everything process thus how could it conceive of what is the right combination of organs, blood and so on that would be needed for the species to survive? how would it know to evolve variety? or know that species would need feelings? morality? none of these are evident in the process thus it is impossible for the process to evolve what it has no conception.

case in point: man would not dream of flying and seek to do it if there were no birds or insects to give him the idea.

evolution is void of all that we contain thus how could it evolve what it does not know? adherents ascribe God-like characteristics to what they say it does not possess, sorry but you can't have it both ways. either it is a process lacking in all we possess or it is a living being which created in its own image. one of the two.

**i could go on but my time is running out here. i am sure i am going ot here the words; 'you do not understand evoultion'. sorry but i understand it quite well or i wouldn't be able to point out its fatal errors. this theory is what people want it to be, nothing else and it changes as adherents get stumped by creationists. our knowledge is growing concerning evolution it is just that the ie needs to be perpetuated so people will keep believing in it.

i haven't even dealt with the miniscule amount of evidence scientists use to build their theories and that alone shows that evolution is untrue becuase too much conjecture is needed to fill in the blanks.

the last item in the case against evolution: we wouldn't be having this debate if the Bible wasn't true. no one pits evolution vs. the mormon scriptures, the popol val, the hindu scriptures, all debates focus on the Bible and there are many attempts to discredit it. if the Bible was false, it would have the same amount of attention given to those ancient works and people woul dbe researching something else.

[Enigma7457]

Let me start by saying i am NOT an evolutionist. I am, however, going to play devil's advocate a little. Not because i believe in evolution or because i like to argue, but because i believe challenging an argument is the best way to test its strength. I am not an expert, so if anyone wants to jump in and straighten my butt out, go right ahead.

1. to state the obvious, the Bible does not use or refer to the evolutionary process. all references are point to God as creator and a six day creation.

This is not necessarily true. The Bible says "The earth brought forth" when referring to the first sighting of its animals. The "days" in creation could possibly stand for longer periods of time (There are plenty of articles on this site which explain better than i could, and i suggest everybody who hasn't already to go ahead and read them)

2. there are no ancient records, myths, stories or scientific studies which refer or mention the process we now know as evolution. all records talk of creation, nothing else. thus evolution has no historical foundation.

This doesn't actually mean anything. If we force ourselves to base our current studies on "Ancient records, myths" then we will still see the planets as wondering gods or think a cell is nothing more than a pile of goop. Science progresses, and so must our thinking.

3. the fossil record can only reveal that a species lived at a certain point in time. it cannot reveal or prove the process of evolution nor can it show which is or isn't the mother/daughter species. conjecture is needed to fill in the blanks to make the process seem real.

there is no way of knowing if the one fossil was a mutation, injured in a fight, or accident , fossilized in a position which does not reveal everything about it and so on. what the fossil record does prove is that there was an event which destroyed the majority of the animals.

there is no way to prove the 5-6 mass extinctions scientists claim took place. these are nothing more than an excuse to avoid dealing with the reality of the flood.

3. the dating systems are not reliable. in my work and studies i have found that these systems are very subjective, prone to corruption {way to easily}, manipulable{sp} and unverifiable. the half-life for almost all of them are too long to prove true or even accurate. at best, c-14 if limited to 11,000 +/- has a chance but its assumptions leave it too vulnerable.

Don't know much about the fossil record or how we do dating, but this seems valid. To the best of my knowledge, Evolution cannot explain the fossils.

there has been no real observation of species changing

Not valid. There have also been no observations about species being created (no direct observations. We look at the fossil record and it seems they were suddenly created, which i believe is the case).




Not necessarily a valid

6. elements of life today, why would evolution need death, since there is nothing waiting for anyone when they die, death is a useless function. why would evolution conceive of such an act? also, with its ability to evolve speices, why would evolution need a reproduction system which sets its species free from its control? there is no need for any species to be able to reproduce for the process should continue replicating them at will. there is no reason nor logic as to why evolution would change its process mid-stream?

What? Not sure i follow this one. Death is an inevitable part of life. Animals cannot live forever. I know you're going to say (as i am thinking) they cannot live forever apart from Christ. But, Evolution is apart from Christ.

7. evolution is described as a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-everything process thus how could it conceive of what is the right combination of organs, blood and so on that would be needed for the species to survive? how would it know to evolve variety?

Not sure, but i do believe that they have an explanatino for it. Now i invite anybody with more knowledge to tackle that one...

the last item in the case against evolution: we wouldn't be having this debate if the Bible wasn't true. no one pits evolution vs. the mormon scriptures, the popol val, the hindu scriptures, all debates focus on the Bible and there are many attempts to discredit it. if the Bible was false, it would have the same amount of attention given to those ancient works and people woul dbe researching something else.

Well stated. Exactly why i'm a Christian. Christianity can stand up to whatever anybodies tosses at it.

[bizzt]

This is a great site for Design VS Evolution... http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.php

However everyone has to agree there is a form of Change in Species or what Scientists call Evolution.
eg. would be Elephants being born without tusks due to stress on their environment

[zoegirl]

evolution is described as a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-everything process thus how could it conceive of what is the right combination of organs, blood and so on that would be needed for the species to survive? how would it know to evolve variety?

Don't agree with this. But just to add to the definition. The key to large scale evolution rests on mutations or other major chromosomal and genome based changes....and lots of them. Yes, mutations have no direction, and it doesn't know to evolve variety, variety comes with mutations.

[archaeologist]

This is not necessarily true. The Bible says "The earth brought forth"

how would that be referred to as evolution in process? first off it is the only time it doesn't say, God made but it does say all plants were to reproduce after their kind, which eliminates evolution from the process.

This doesn't actually mean anything. If we force ourselves to base our current studies on "Ancient records, myths" then we will still see the planets as wondering gods

not at all. what such ancient records tells us is that the ancients were star gazing and well aware of what was in the universe. their applied meaning is of minor consequence because we know how they used their knowledge of the universe, to accomplish many things.

the thinking that the pyramids of egypt and the mayas were aligned according to sirius' belt lends credence to this idea.

There have also been no observations about species being created

we can study the results of creation, we cannot study the results of evolution. we see creation in action everyday we can never see evolution in action without hypothesis, because the time span is too long to verify if it really is evolution in action or the results from "The Fall".

Death is an inevitable part of life

right but evolution has no need for death, there is no reason for it to exist in the theory.

death exists because of creation and one reason for its existence is so that believers can go be with God. there are other reasons but this one underscores the importance why death exists.

Don't agree with this

you should for that is exactly how evolutionists describe the process. i could give you many modern day examples of how a process works and none of them are allowed to deviate from the system which disallows creativity, variations, , feelings and so on.

if you ascribe God like qualities to a inert (i believe that is the word i want), process then you are just creating another god which contradicts the theory of evolution which calls for a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-cognitive, non-moral process.

the process has no ability to know what is the right combination of anything to sustain life and that is its downfall right there. it canot determine the right mixture of breathable air, nor could it evolve species to survive while it was finding the right combination.

also, how would any of the species survive if the right combinations of organs were not in place to breathe the air? how would the process know it got it wrong and needed to make changes?

it can't beause it has no cognitive reasoning equipped with foresight, to make such judgments or decisions.

evolution fails at every level.

[zoegirl]

Just so you know if you are debating an evolutionists...they will have an answer for death

During an animal's lifespan, at its highest reproductive potential is when is it going to pass on most of its genes. (ie when it is young and having the most babies)

During its highest reproductive times those phenotyes that are being expressed at the time will be the ones that will affect an animals survival and reproduction. Thus, if a gene is not being expressed at the time an animal is reproducing the most, it will not be under selective pressure. Thus the genes that cause most aging (affecting rates of cell division, repair, restoration) are never selected against, because by the time they are being expressed the animal is not reproducing. Thus the genes never decrease the number of young at the time of the highest potential.

Now, I'm saying this just so anybody is prepared because they do have a model for this.

Still doesn't explain the presence of the genes responsible for aging.

[archaeologist]

Just so you know if you are debating an evolutionists...they will have an answer for death

you certainly do a lot of assuming and make blanket generalizations without investigation.

how would you know if i had or hadn't debated evolutionists already? how would you know that all of them have an answer for death?

so far, all the evolutionists i have debated have not been able to respond to that issue. in fact they remain mute and avoid dealing with it along with many other questions i raise about their theory.

another point, whenerver i pose questions that makes them look closely at their theory, they avoid answering the questions. it becomes quite annoying after awhile.

they usually hide behind such phrases as: 'you don't understand evolution..' or 'evolution is always changing..' and so on.

i have also debated militant athiests who do the same thing.

During an animal's lifespan, at its highest reproductive potential is when is it going to pass on most of its genes. (ie when it is young and having the most babies

what does this have to do with anything i posted?

[zoegirl]

Just so you know if you are debating an evolutionists...they will have an answer for death

you certainly do a lot of assuming and make blanket generalizations without investigation.

how would you know if i had or hadn't debated evolutionists already? how would you know that all of them have an answer for death?

I havenot made any assumptions. I was posting for ANYBODY reading this...you made a statement about death. Each class I took about evolution presented this arguement. BAsic undergrad and graduate evolution class or even a population study class presents this arguement. I simply wanted anybody to know that there will be something presented (if they actually converse with them)

so far, all the evolutionists i have debated have not been able to respond to that issue. in fact they remain mute and avoid dealing with it along with many other questions i raise about their theory.

another point, whenerver i pose questions that makes them look closely at their theory, they avoid answering the questions. it becomes quite annoying after awhile.

Probably because they are a lot less patient than I am . You have not addressed the issues I raised ove on the other thread still. Calling the kettle black

they usually hide behind such phrases as: 'you don't understand evolution..' or 'evolution is always changing..' and so on.

From what I have seen, you don't understand. You are not willing to address the basics and actually refute the points. To them you are simply another militant CHristian who doesn't bother actually dialoguing with them. Why should they even have a conversation with you? YOu don't listen, you don't explain, and then you resort to silly insults.

During an animal's lifespan, at its highest reproductive potential is when is it going to pass on most of its genes. (ie when it is young and having the most babies

what does this have to do with anything i posted?

<SIGH> You claimed that they do not have an answer for death. I simply wanted everyone to know they did. (doesn't make them right, just an observation) We should ALWAYs be willing to learn what they will debate.

Still waiting for you to even address one point over there

[Forum Monk]

In order to properly frame this discussion, it becomes necessary to define the world views which fall under this scope. On the one hand there are the several acts of creation by God, as ordered in Genesis and on the other there are the naturalistic processes of stellar forces and spontaneous mutation directed only by selection pressure.

These two world views are diametrically opposed and there can be no middle ground. One is wholly theistic and other wholly atheistic. Therefore the principle of theistic evolution creates an impossible dualism which is theistic-atheistic, an obvious oxymoron.

Additionally it must be acknowledged that the naturalistic world view can not allow for spiritual beings since no naturalistic model can describe how spiritual life would evolve. So again, this becomes very problematic for the theistic evolutionists point of view. So in my opinion there are only two positions in this debate: creationsim or evolution.

[zoegirl]

Forum Monk,

I will gladly discuss this with you. I agree that God must be in control, He decreed how things happened. Genesis CLEARLY states this. He started, strategized, deliberated made everything. HE made it and it was good.

And you are right that the basis of the evolutionary theory rests on random occurences.

However, I would be interested in your thoughts. Because I worry that we lump too many things under the umbrella of evolution simply because the evolutionists use it. Microevolution (an unfortunate word choice because it does not lead to macroevolution) simply shows that populations can vacillate between forms that have already been established. In my mind God would not have created species without the ability to adjust to minor environmental changes.


What are your thoughts?

[archaeologist]

From what I have seen, you don't understand.

like i said, if i had a dime...

Probably because they are a lot less patient than I am . You have not addressed the issues I raised ove on the other thread still

you blew it with me.

I havenot made any assumptions

you did and you did not write in a manner that would lead anyone to think you were making a general address.

You are not willing to address the basics and actually refute the points

i have dealt with the basics and have refuted their points, please read what i wrote again.

To them you are simply another militant CHristian who doesn't bother actually dialoguing with them.

amazing now you know what went on in my conversations...how did you get to be so omniscient? they failed to come to the plate, they do not have an answer.

[zoegirl]

I can predict what your conversations are like because of how you debate. You don't address issues. Mine were basic points. YOu were the one that likes to claim that they are easy to refute, but you don't refute them.

My apologies if my previous post was not obvious. I did not mean it to be a statement that you haven't debated evolutionists. It was simply meant to be a general statement for everyone. Sorry for the misunstanding. Again, I simply wanted to add that they do have an answer.

(By the way..I didn't say if you ever will debate....I simply said "If you (meaning everybody) are going to debate....

[archaeologist]

so your are a clairvoyant as well. i do address the issues, they seem to be the ones you do not know anything about.

the points i address have come from years of research, discussions with secular people and being led by God to new ground...who are you to say i do not address the points?

[zoegirl]

YOu haven't with me. You can repeat that you have done so with other people and you may have but you still haven't with me. These seven points are what an evolutionist would say (but I have put limits on them). Treat me now as if am an evolutionist and debunk these points. Those 7 points are still waiting.

[Enigma7457]

Gosh this is getting fun. Zoe v. Arch, an epic unending battle. I'm rather enjoying this...

Anyway...

not at all. what such ancient records tells us is that the ancients were star gazing and well aware of what was in the universe. their applied meaning is of minor consequence because we know how they used their knowledge of the universe, to accomplish many things.

the thinking that the pyramids of egypt and the mayas were aligned according to sirius' belt lends credence to this idea.

The same goes for how the ancients viewed biology (and other sciences as well). You said they never talked about evolution so we shouldn't, doesn't make sense. The ancients thought the planets were gods running around through the sky. They thought that the stars were images of people, etc.

Quote:
There have also been no observations about species being created


we can study the results of creation, we cannot study the results of evolution. we see creation in action everyday we can never see evolution in action without hypothesis, because the time span is too long to verify if it really is evolution in action or the results from "The Fall".

This depends on whether or not you are an evolutionist or not. (Again, i am not). Us studying the results of creation are the same as evolutionists studying the results of evolution. You have to be able to explain why it is a creation and not an evolutionary process (Again, i believe it was a creation)

Quote:
Just so you know if you are debating an evolutionists...they will have an answer for death


you certainly do a lot of assuming and make blanket generalizations without investigation.

how would you know if i had or hadn't debated evolutionists already? how would you know that all of them have an answer for death?

Arch, you need to calm down and stop assuming someone is attacking you personally. This is an open thread and many people will read it. I thought it was clear in her post that she was addressing anyone (and she never claimed you haven't debated evolutionist).

You should stop worrying about what someone thinks of you and start making your points. This thread started off on the right path (you listing points, other refuting them, you rebutting the refuting, etc.) But then you take a statement to heart and basically say, "I'm taking my ball and i ain't playing with you no more." (okay, not those words). But you are too easily pushed off topic. Just respond to her (and other's) points and don't worry if they are or aren't insulting you. just move forward.