Evolution Is Wrong - For & Against

» Home » Science

Evolution Is Wrong

Do you believe evolution? There is no scientist can give strong evidence to support evolution. I would like to hear your opinion.

hitomi

04 Dec 2007 14:37

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

To find out if evolution is true or not read the first verse of the bible. Gen 1:1

Krahner

18 Aug 2008 04:50

1 Comment

FROM THE BIBLE'S POINT OF VIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lawyer

18 Aug 2008 06:08

Comment

Ugh.. I wanna neutral column.
Guess what time it is? ANALOGY TIME!!! Yay!!!

OK, here we go. I have a theory that a watermelon is blue inside, but when you cut it it bleeds and turns red. Now, my hypothesis may or may not be true... Does anyone have any way of proving or disproving me?

Now, apply the same to the evolutionary hypothesis... No one can prove nor disprove it, but I tend to lean towards creationism, because there is one Book (The Bible) that says it isn't true... But I think most people wouldn't accept that.

XieXie

06 Aug 2008 03:45

3 Comments

re: your watermelon hypothesis. it is perfectly reasonable to state this hypothesis, that a watermelon only turns red when cut open. however, i think that a scientist, if trying to examine this hypothesis would try to find some kind of mechanism, for example a chemical reaction perhaps as a result of exposure to the atmosphere. i think your comparison, therefore, to the theory of evolution is invalid. a scientific approach toward evolution, and the mechanisms for its operation yield a significant number of potential mechanisms by which it could work. i feel your use of the watermelon analogy as some type of reductio ad absurdum argument is particularly weak in this case.

jimvach

15 Aug 2008 08:26

Comment

XieXie i think at the end you really tried to say that you don't believe in evolution because there is one Book( the bible) that says it isn't true....

first of all, that is not true, the bible does not say that evolution is not true. It just says that god created the heavens and the earth.

second of all, if you believe something because only one book says it, then i have news for you, you better start believing that the earth is flat. because at some point there was a book that said it.

third of all, you also better start believing in evolution, because there are many books that say it is true.

So please, use your logic and some information to deduce what you think is or is not probable or possible around you.Question the rules and regulations of the bible, and if you do, you will get the real message, you will move beyond the superficial, and really understand the spiritual meaning of that One Book. ( a very important one) form an spiritual point of view. not a scientific point of view.

Comment

If humans evolved from apes, but to get there we had the Neanderthal to bridge the gap and if survival of the fittest is really a true and solid thing to believe in, then why have Neanderthals become extinct? Surely apes should've died out first considering they are the weaker species?

dan

24 Jul 2008 21:33

2 Comments

wow, you obviously don't understand the evolutionary timeline AT ALL.

First of all: We did NOT evolve from apes! We evolved alongside them from a similar being that living thousands of years ago. They did not die out because they didn't exist then (as they are today).

And we NEVER evolved from Neanderthals! They were a whole other species that evolved alongside us, that we wiped out!

FoxFire

10 Aug 2008 03:25

Comment

Even Darwin changed his mind on this subject in the end. I wonder if eventually saw the Great Creator's hand in everything?

joe9

10 Jul 2008 18:42

4 Comments

I have a feeling that might be creationist propaganda.

amedic

16 Aug 2008 22:26

Comment

If evolution were true, why did it stop?

BroWinter

03 Jun 2008 04:16

5 Comments

Evolution hasn't stopped. What gives you the impression that it has? By definition, evolution occurs over a long period of time.

JeremyApp

03 Jun 2008 18:47

Comment

Evolution takes place via natural selection- that is animals that are less able to surviv in their environment have less chance of surviving and therefore less chance of reproducing. Today, as living conditions improve, weaker people, with birthdefects or dissabilities have a great chance of survival due to better medical and social care etc.   If anything the human race will start declining as the healthy now provide for the weak etc (as they should!!!!)

But as for many other animals, evolution IS taking place but as many people have previously stated you cannot watch it over a lifetime. But look at pedigree dogs for example-since Victorian times when "pedigree" dogs were established many dog forms have altered, this is further sped up by the fact the animals are often inbred and so more mutations occur, plus undesirable pupps are culled, this is an excelled form of natural selection, 100 years ago bulldongs could breed and give birth naturally, but since Victorians decided their heads should be huge, they have "evolved" to need human assistance in both.

There are also many transitional fossils found of bird-like dinosaurs, primitive horses etc. Many of which are carbon-dated which proves when they were created millions of years ago.

There are many scientists that give strong points for evolution. Well there there's not enough proof out there that we just poped outta the sky . And plus look at wisdom teeth in the next 4-10 yeas people wont have them because we don't need them evolution is growing to this day. We will evolve into greater species one day. (oh shoot i meant theis to be against. And if your asking why I'm complaining about this will I'm finishing typing its because its already posed and I'm editing it :) )

Pure

16 May 2008 06:17

1 Comment

Sources for your claim about wisdom teeth? Sounds farfetched considering evolution occurs constantly, over millions of years.

evan

05 Jun 2008 05:02

Comment

Any one here who is a sports fan knows that all records will continue to be broken. This is due to the constant and changing evolution of athletes conditioning and the equipment they use. That is a very simple way of explaining continual evolution. But as a christian i must ask why when the story of adam and eve and the snake in the garden, is brought up,,,the beginning of man....why is the theory of the pre-adamite world not discussed? God said to adam and eve to go forth and replenish the earth. How can one refill something unless it has been emptied. I cannot replenish the water in a glass unless there was water to begin with but is now gone or has been emptied. The minerals in the soil that a farmer cultivates cannot be replenished until the minerals there are first used up. Maybe that is a discussion for another debate.

jjp6309

10 May 2008 10:03

Add a Comment

We learn we don't evolve we are just are affect by the evils in the world as soon as Adam and eve were thrown out of the garden of Eden

msprngr03

10 May 2008 04:05

1 Comment

what is your point?

rbetan

18 Aug 2008 05:49

Comment

There is a space missing in the chart of evolution so it is possible that evolution is wrong

markrjg

09 May 2008 21:18

2 Comments

not one space, but countless spaces.

Stranger

13 May 2008 19:09

Comment

The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint." In respect to the creation versus evolution controversy, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in theory of evolution.Currently, there are over one hundred million identified and cataloged fossils in the world's museums.[63] If the theory of evolution was valid, then there should be "transitional forms" in the fossil record reflecting the intermediate life forms. Another term for these "transitional forms" is "missing links".Darwin himself admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." Darwin wrote: "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth.""[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from one ancestral form to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organism to a different type. This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee.Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth And the definition of theory is a guess or conjecture that has not been tested.
Seems like you need to do more research for you try to make ppl believe something that hasn't even been proven.

cassie9851

25 Apr 2008 09:17

10 Comments

do yourself a favour and read about evolution on something other than creationist websites and then maybe you'll see why your arguments against evolution are lies or speculation.

sensai80

26 Apr 2008 02:02

Comment

Something else I found! Evolution and the Fossil Record

And one last thought on evolution and the fossil record:

In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.1 
So, what would Darwin say today?

Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species.
The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us?… The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record

Comment

Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"

Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1

There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.

After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration...

"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."

He stared at me with that look...

"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."

I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"

He thought for only a second...

"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.

"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."

In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!

Comment