25 REASONS TO DOUBT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. (With acknowledgement to Dr. Walt
Brown, Center for Scientific Creation)
**************************
* 1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot
originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

*2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur.The Miller- Urey experiment, still shown in many
current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

*3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of
genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

*4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching.their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight- lifting program pass his well- developed muscles on to his child. No
mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its
environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.

* 5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. "A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly
integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just
as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

*6. Natural selection (or
"survival of the fittest" actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability) , the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

*7.Mutations cannot produce complex organs such
as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological
organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially
developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be
simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they
would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex
organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously
existent.

*8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed
physical equipment and capabilities that cannot
even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies.
Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and
whales; the frequency-modulated radar and
discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird;
the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of
the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of
practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

*9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of
development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

*10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types.
There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm.There is no direct evidence that any major group
of animals or plants arose from any other major
group.

*11. Created kind are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence. 12.
The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to
conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

*13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest
part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian
sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

*14.Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.

*15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic
relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and
drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these
groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible
answer for their existence is "intelligent design".

*16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual
reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and
place. The millions of mechanical and chemical
processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they
cannot explain this.

*17. Human speech and
languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is
uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without
human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently,
humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a
speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.

*18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are
produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a
program.

*19.The existence of similarities
between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would
not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in
turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers,
internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a
common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).

*20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no
known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells,
and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-
celled organisms.

*21.As an embryo develops, it
does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel,
who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified
his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.

*22. No verified form of
extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would
expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the
elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

*23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax;
the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out
to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty
years after he discovered "Java man" that it was
just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are
now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is
considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

* 24. The earth's
sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not
slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence
of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid
burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of
years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded
assumptions.

* 25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions
that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of
radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually
indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".

www.creationmoments.com/content/25-reasons-
doubt-theory-evolution

I'm an evolutionist

Niyeal:
I'm an evolutionist

This article has just exposed Evolution.

Evolution is a lot like larmacks theory, it belongs in the dustbin.

The reigns of atheism is evolution

It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than in God.

I tried and tried to believe evolution but I couldn't find myself believing in it. That's was the beginning of my faith in a creator.

Horlufemi:
Evolution is a lot like larmacks theory, it belongs in the dustbin.

The reigns of atheism is evolution

It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than in God.

I tried and tried to believe evolution but I couldn't find myself believing in it. That's was the beginning of my faith in a creator.

I concur 100%.

The theory of irreducible complexity has been debunked severally with intermediate organ forms in other organisms eg the presence of photosensitive cells or light spots as a precursor to the eye.

The increasing complexity of circulatory systems from tissue level organisms to insects to mammals show how it has evolved in different organisms. Note also the increase in heart chambers from lower to higher animals.

The increasing complexity of nervous systems from lower organisms to mammals

Sophistication is not proof of design by creation if evidence of evolution exists.

denying the presence of fossils because they don't fit into your creation narrative is just silly. there are lots of fossils showing intermediary forms of today's homo sapiens. That these fossils survived is just pure luck as bone and other matter from living organisms is biodegradable.

I see you 've also debunked carbon dating because it doesn't fit your narrative. This is just off my head, so I haven't given sufficient answers.
There are lots of answers to your wrong assertions, but if you are serious about learning, google the counter narrative to each point you've made. Evolution/ science doesn't have all the answers yet, but it keeps trying to find them. Can't say the same for creationism which is based on pseudoscience.

gabe:
The theory of irreducible complexity has been debunked severally with intermediate organ forms in other organisms eg the presence of photosensitive cells or light spots as a precursor to the eye.

The increasing complexity of circulatory systems from tissue level organisms to insects to mammals show how it has evolved in different organisms. Note also the increase in heart chambers from lower to higher animals.

The increasing complexity of nervous systems from lower organisms to mammals

Sophistication is not proof of design by creation if evidence of evolution exists.

denying the presence of fossils because they don't fit into your creation narrative is just silly. there are lots of fossils showing intermediary forms of today's homo sapiens. That these fossils survived is just pure luck as bone and other matter from living organisms is biodegradable.

I see you 've also debunked carbon dating because it doesn't fit your narrative. This is just off my head, so I haven't given sufficient answers.
There are lots of answers to your wrong assertions, but if you are serious about learning, google the counter narrative to each point you've made. Evolution/ science doesn't have all the answers yet, but it keeps trying to find them. Can't say the same for creationism which is based on pseudoscience.

Can you explain to us How a fish survived without gills while living on land till its Evolution to bird was complete?

blueAgent:




Can you explain to us How a fish survived without gills while living on land till its Evolution to bird was complete?

Stop looking at evolution as one group of animals evolving from others. Imagine a tree. The proto ancestor is the main trunk, while birds, fish, mammals etc evolved separately as different branches with evolution resulting in still more sub-branches over millions of years. You may ask why some organisms have been stable for so long. Evolution doesn't happen for its sake. Living organisms develop features that give them a better chance of surviving and prospering in their environment. Thus, natural selection drives evolution. Remember, evolution is a series of tiny steps over millions of years resulting in the very many big differences we see now.

Here my own take,
I don't presume to know if evolution actually happened or not, I wasn't there after all. At the same time I believe we need to be careful not to look at things from a 1-sided point of view
Personally I believe some of the points are looking at things from only one perspective. Perhaps under the current condition of the earth these facts hold true, but what if there was a time in the past when conditions were different and one or even all of those conditions could actually happen?

blueAgent:

* 25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions
that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of
radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown.

I like and support this particular point and believe that scientists might POSSIBLY be wrong about their radioactive dating methods, however I also believe we have to be careful not to make the same mistake we're accusing them of making: if in the past there was different kind of radioactive, solar, volcanic activity etc, isn't it possible that sometime in the past conditions could occur that no longer occur naturally on earth that could make those points listed by the OP possible?
For instance, mutation; isn't it a potential form of adaptation?
Say for instance, a particular mutation that might be seen as harmful under earth's present weather/atmospheric state might actually give an animal a biological edge under a different atmospheric/weather state, and if that state continues long enough, those with that mutation turn out to be the fittest.
What's to say that humans as we are now were not a mutation some hundreds of thousands of years ago (assuming the world has been around that long)?

*22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

Well unless you don't believe in the existence of other planets, I think this argument should not even have been used at all. The moon hasn't been thoroughly been investigated, not to talk about Mars. You're even assuming that life on Mars has to be somewhat similar to life on earth. For all we know, "life forms" on Mars might be so different from earth that we might not recognise it at first, and even if there's no life on Mars, there are 6 more planets in our solar system and millions more in our galaxy alone.
So to say that because you haven't detected life on Mars, there's no extraterrestial life is like saying that because you can't see any insect on a particular rock, there's no insect on any rock. It just doesn't follow.

I have made a number of points, and I don't claim to be right, I'm just saying that we have to be careful not to make the same mistake we're accusing the evolutionists of making i.e. assumptions based on the current state of things. The truth is that we don't know enough to be sure and we may never know enough as long as we live.

But you know something? Even if evolution did take place, it doesn't disprove the existence of God; for all we know, evolution is God's process of making things happen so at the end, whether or not evolution occurred doesn't really matter.

gabe:
Stop looking at evolution as one group of animals evolving from others. Imagine a tree. The proto ancestor is the main trunk, while birds, fish, mammals etc evolved separately as different branches with evolution resulting in still more sub-branches over millions of years. You may ask why some organisms have been stable for so long. Evolution doesn't happen for its sake. Living organisms develop features that give them a better chance of surviving and prospering in their environment. Thus, natural selection drives evolution. Remember, evolution is a series of tiny steps over millions of years resulting in the very many big differences we see now.

No Theory of Evolution can account for Irreducible complexity in organisms.

blackweaver:
Here my own take,
I don't presume to know if evolution actually happened or not, I wasn't there after all. At the same time I believe we need to be careful not to look at things from a 1-sided point of view
Personally I believe some of the points are looking at things from only one perspective. Perhaps under the current condition of the earth these facts hold true, but what if there was a time in the past when conditions were different and one or even all of those conditions could actually happen?



I like and support this particular point and believe that scientists might POSSIBLY be wrong about their radioactive dating methods, however I also believe we have to be careful not to make the same mistake we're accusing them of making: if in the past there was different kind of radioactive, solar, volcanic activity etc, isn't it possible that sometime in the past conditions could occur that no longer occur naturally on earth that could make those points listed by the OP possible?
For instance, mutation; isn't it a potential form of adaptation?
Say for instance, a particular mutation that might be seen as harmful under earth's present weather/atmospheric state might actually give an animal a biological edge under a different atmospheric/weather state, and if that state continues long enough, those with that mutation turn out to be the fittest.
What's to say that humans as we are now were not a mutation some hundreds of thousands of years ago (assuming the world has been around that long)?



Well unless you don't believe in the existence of other planets, I think this argument should not even have been used at all. The moon hasn't been thoroughly been investigated, not to talk about Mars. You're even assuming that life on Mars has to be somewhat similar to life on earth. For all we know, "life forms" on Mars might be so different from earth that we might not recognise it at first, and even if there's no life on Mars, there are 6 more planets in our solar system and millions more in our galaxy alone.
So to say that because you haven't detected life on Mars, there's no extraterrestial life is like saying that because you can't see any insect on a particular rock, there's no insect on any rock. It just doesn't follow.

I have made a number of points, and I don't claim to be right, I'm just saying that we have to be careful not to make the same mistake we're accusing the evolutionists of making i.e. assumptions based on the current state of things. The truth is that we don't know enough to be sure and we may never know enough as long as we live.

But you know something? Even if evolution did take place, it doesn't disprove the existence of God; for all we know, evolution is God's process of making things happen so at the end, whether or not evolution occurred doesn't really matter.

So evolution is based on assumption and not facts?

blueAgent:





So evolution is based on assumption and not facts?

The theory of evolution IS an assumption, the assumption that all the factors that support the theory have always been the way they are

blackweaver:


The theory of evolution IS an assumption, the assumption that all the factors that support the theory have always been the way they are

But we know that all the factors can never remain the same.

blueAgent:




But we know that all the factors can never remain the same.

Well we just believe. To say that we know is to be as arrogant as those who say otherwise - unless you have a verified source that is acceptable by all that we're not aware of

blackweaver:
Here my own take,
I don't presume to know if evolution actually happened or not, I wasn't there after all. At the same time I believe we need to be careful not to look at things from a 1-sided point of view
Personally I believe some of the points are looking at things from only one perspective. Perhaps under the current condition of the earth these facts hold true, but what if there was a time in the past when conditions were different and one or even all of those conditions could actually happen?



I like and support this particular point and believe that scientists might POSSIBLY be wrong about their radioactive dating methods, however I also believe we have to be careful not to make the same mistake we're accusing them of making: if in the past there was different kind of radioactive, solar, volcanic activity etc, isn't it possible that sometime in the past conditions could occur that no longer occur naturally on earth that could make those points listed by the OP possible?
For instance, mutation; isn't it a potential form of adaptation?
Say for instance, a particular mutation that might be seen as harmful under earth's present weather/atmospheric state might actually give an animal a biological edge under a different atmospheric/weather state, and if that state continues long enough, those with that mutation turn out to be the fittest.
What's to say that humans as we are now were not a mutation some hundreds of thousands of years ago (assuming the world has been around that long)?



Well unless you don't believe in the existence of other planets, I think this argument should not even have been used at all. The moon hasn't been thoroughly been investigated, not to talk about Mars. You're even assuming that life on Mars has to be somewhat similar to life on earth. For all we know, "life forms" on Mars might be so different from earth that we might not recognise it at first, and even if there's no life on Mars, there are 6 more planets in our solar system and millions more in our galaxy alone.
So to say that because you haven't detected life on Mars, there's no extraterrestial life is like saying that because you can't see any insect on a particular rock, there's no insect on any rock. It just doesn't follow.

I have made a number of points, and I don't claim to be right, I'm just saying that we have to be careful not to make the same mistake we're accusing the evolutionists of making i.e. assumptions based on the current state of things. The truth is that we don't know enough to be sure and we may never know enough as long as we live.

But you know something? Even if evolution did take place, it doesn't disprove the existence of God; for all we know, evolution is God's process of making things happen so at the end, whether or not evolution occurred doesn't really matter.

I'm waiting for the day evolution will be called what it is an HYPOTHESIS. How can you call evolution fact when it is not what it was 50 years ago.

blackweaver:


Well we just believe. To say that we know is to be as arrogant as those who say otherwise - unless you have a verified source that is acceptable by all that we're not aware of

You are as guility as the theists who depend on faith.

Thats just what you mean by saying "we believe"

blueAgent:



You are as guility as the theists who depend on faith.

Thats just what you mean by saying "we believe"

Ok maybe i should say "choose to believe", but tell me, all those people who depend on "facts" what facts do they actually have to support evolution? They also believe. The difference is that i actually admit that it's a belief rather than an actual fact

blackweaver:


Ok maybe i should say "choose to believe", but tell me, all those people who depend on "facts" what facts do they actually have to support evolution? They also believe. The difference is that i actually admit that it's a belief rather than an actual fact

Am confused are you an Atheists or not?

blueAgent:



Am confused are you an Atheists or not?

No I'm not an atheist, but at the same time, I believe in using my head instead of swallowing things without analysing for myself

blackweaver:


No I'm not an atheist, but at the same time, I believe in using my head instead of swallowing things without analysing for myself

Of course we are supposed to use logic even the Bible asks us to test all spirit. inorder words it means we Should verify things.

blackweaver:


No I'm not an atheist, but at the same time, I believe in using my head instead of swallowing things without analysing for myself

I hope you know that only Christainity and Bible creation account is consistent in its facts compared to Bigbang,Evolution,Alien.