Point 1: Human footprints have been found beside dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This indicates that humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time. But the theory of evolution shows that the first man evolved tens of millions of years after the last dinosaur died.
Point 2: Scientists have never observed the evolution of one species into another species. Every species on earth produces only copies of itself, never a new species.
Point 3: Evolution claims that early species of giraffes had short necks - some longer than others. Individuals with longer necks were able to better reach the leaves on the trees for food. Neck length had survival value, and so all giraffes eventually ended up with long necks. Using this belief, evolution would predict that all species of land animals would end up with long necks. So, evolution is wrong.
Point 4: The current growth rate among human beings is 2% per year. Assume that the yearly growth rate was only 0.2% in the past. [To use a lower value would benefit the Evolution theory, because it would indicate that humans have been on earth for a longer period.] Assuming 5 billion humans today, a 0.2% annual growth rate would mean that there were 112 million on earth when Jesus was born, 2 million in 2000 BCE, 38,000 in 4000 BCE, 700 in 6000 BCE but only 13 humans in 8000 BCE. That checks out with a Genesis view of the earth's history, but not with the theory of evolution which says that homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
Point 5: S.H. Huse's book "The Collapse of Evolution" talks about many fossils that were believed to be pre-humans, but did not pan out. Heidelberg man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man all were eventually shown to be other than predecessors of homo sapiens.
Point 6: Dr. A.J.E. Cave gave a paper at the International Congress of Zoology in 1958 in which he concluded that a skeleton found in France was not an Neanderthal but was of an elderly human who suffered from arthritis. The implication is that Neanderthals never existed.
Point 7: The Cro-Magnon's brain capacity is at least equal to Homo Sapiens. The implication is that homo-sapiens has not evolved from the Cro-Magnon.
Point 8: If homo-sapiens evolved from extinct proto-humans, then why is it so difficult to find skeletons of these species?
Point 9: Agraptalyte fossils are supposed to be millions of year old index fossils, except that a number of them were found, still alive, in the South Pacific three years ago!
Point 10: If one species were to evolve into another, one would expect that it would do so in many small, incremental steps. Thus, many transition fossils would have been found by now. But, in fact, very few have been discovered.
Point 11: If humans evolved from apes, then one would expect that there would be no apes left on earth; all would have evolved into humans.
Point 12: If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another.
Point 13: A group of scientists proved in 1836 that spontaneous generation does not occur. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis is an "ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduced by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances." 8 i.e. that living matter came from non-living matter. Since this cannot happen, it is impossible for an elementary life form to appear on a lifeless earth. Thus, evolution of the species cannot even get started.
Point 14: Second law of thermodynamics: Henry Morris wrote: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics." 11 Evolution teaches the opposite: that entropy decreases and complexity and order increases. Evolution is impossible because it violates the universally accepted second law of thermodynamics.

Now, on the xtains forum I found this on, it has long since been locked. I could not read this, without laughing so hard...

Now, if you guys want to make points against this, go right on a head. I just had a good laugh and decided to post it :D

Tags: Really...?, The Fourteen Points Against Evolution

Views: 1059

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Point 6: Dr. A.J.E. Cave gave a paper at the International Congress of Zoology in 1958 in which he concluded that a skeleton found in France was not an Neanderthal but was of an elderly human who suffered from arthritis. The implication is that Neanderthals never existed.

 

It proves a single case only.  These are all so poor! 

Point 11: If humans evolved from apes, then one would expect that there would be no apes left on earth; all would have evolved into humans.

 

As I understand it, from reading The Selfish Gene, new species form when:  species 1 is spread out over a large geographical area.  Then in one corner of that area, the environment changes, and species 1 has to adapt and change to be able to survive in that new environment.  When that local population is no longer able to mate with the original species 1 individuals and produce offspring, it has become a new species: Species 2. 

 

So, much of the time, a new species will form in only part of the territory occupied by its parent species. 

Also, technically humans are apes. According to biological taxonomy we belong to the same family

True, we are all descended from wild apes.  Hi, grandad!  What did you do?  Oh, I see... no, we don't do that any more...

Point 12: If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another.

And again: 

Archean expansion

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/12/21/Scientists-track-ancient...

 

What will we do without David Attenborough? 

"Point 11: If humans evolved from apes, then one would expect that there would be no apes left on earth; all would have evolved into humans."

Oh Christians... your always good for a laugh!

lol, yea. That 'argument' is just like saying, "If America was founded by the English, Why do we still have England?"

Not at all, it sounds like you know quite a bit about genetics and evolution.  It would be useful, for most of us, to know more about these.  For example, what are gene flow and genetic drift? 

I like pictures, so i thought I'd post this to help anyone who's not familiar with population genetcis understand... this is bottlenecking, a type of genetic drift where an event, like a natural disaster causes a random selection of survivors, and because it is random, the various allele concentrations may completely change.  In this example, the new population goes from equal blue-white to mosly blue, and all yellow alleles are lost.

Thanks!  That makes sense.  Only a large sample can be trusted to accurately represent a large randomly-mixed population.  A small sample is likely to be very skewed and different in make-up to the large parent population.  As we learn in statistics. 

So genetic drift is more pronounced in a small population?  Because in a small population, when there is a genetic "error", the size of that error relative to the total gene pool is larger, because the total gene pool is quite small.  In a larger population, the relative error is smaller and more easily swallowed up among the larger number of normal genes.  That would make sense.  Where you have an isolated population of humans, they tend to go all weird. 

Thanks!  And within a small population, once a new species starts to form, gene flow is responsible for making all the individuals look roughly the same?  I always wondered how that worked. 

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Jimmy 3 minutes ago. 169 Replies

Blog Posts

Seeing the man in the child.

Posted by Diane on April 19, 2014 at 9:52am 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service