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

Views: 1504

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. 

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.


Genome size has nothing to do with organism complexity....and there is no reason for the genome to need to increase in complexity....it is not the mechanism of DNA itself that becomes more complex, it is how the DNA is organized and arranged.  If you want to completely change one organism to another, you don't need to change anything about the mechanism of DNA, or it's complexity, you simply rearrange the order of the base-pairs.


Genomes provide some of the most important clues for discovering each species evolutionary history.


"Anyone who states or implies that there is a significant correlation between total haploid genome size and species complexity is either ignorant or lying."

"The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?"


My fundie cousin gave me a huge book called "The Evolution Cruncher" many years back for Christmas. It's a real gold mine of creationist silliness. I should post some of it on here.

Go for it!  Let's have a good old clay-pigeon shoot. 

As always, the only arguments favouring creation over evolution are based either on ignorance or dishonesty.

Unfortunately for Creationists, that's very true.  They are so easy to knock down.  It would be interesting to hear an objection to evolution that was a little bit challenging. 

I think the strongest objection to evolution is actually an objection to abiogenesis - but such an objection is really just based on wider spread ignorance.  The strongest evidence that I can point to in favour of abiogenesis are non-biologic, self-organizing systems.  The existence of such systems, for me, makes abiogenesis seem a lot more feasible.

And if we don't know how abiogenesis might have happened - so what?  Us not knowing, in itself, doesn't prove or disprove anything at all about real life.  It just proves that we humans don't know very much about abiogenesis. 

As I said, it's just an argument from wider spread ignorance.  I frequently argue that "we don't know" does not validate any fairy tale.

I agree, Nelson, but the knowledge base for understanding abiogenesis is just much broader and deeper than than most people, including myself, are willing to delve into - which is why I stated that it is just an argument from wider spread ignorance.  I did point out self-organizing non-biologic systems a couple comments back, and for me that is enough to understand in order to perceive abiogenesis as feasible.

Even better. 

Andrew:  Okay, here’s your chance for a good laugh; I certainly had one reading your creationist drivel.  My guess, though?  You won’t read it, because you can’t understand it.  

Point 1:  Those Paluxy footprints were long ago proven to be fraudulent.  The hoaxers themelves showed how they did it - how they had a lot of fun carving fake footprints and watching ignorant “Jesus Freaks” like you get all worked up.  What amazes me is that you actually had the nerve to mention them, since nearly all creationists now avoid mentioning it because it is so embarassing.

Point 2: Evolutionary biologist don’t, nor have they ever, claimed that one species changes into another.  An individual organism reproduces and creates offspring.  That offspring’s chances of survival depend largely on the traits inherited from its parent.  Over many generations, traits that inhibit survival will not be passed on to further generations.  Traits that DO convey survival advantages will most often be passed on.  Over thousands or millions of generations, the many branches of descendants will have developed various survival strategies, or they would have disappeared.  Eventually, many different kinds of organisms will exist that are markedly different but all related to the same parent stock, which itself may have also survived (or maybe not.)  Over the course of eons, some of these lines will be so different, genetically, as well as phenotypically, that they will be unable to procreate with either the parent stock or with many of their cousins; this defines them as a distinct species.  Following your logic, evolutionary theory predicts that every living thing on earth would be identical to every other.  That shows complete ignorance of the evolutionary paradigm.

Point 3:  The evolution of long necks of giraffes may have been driven by forces you describe, or they may have resulted from some other dynamic.  But it doesn't matter, because evolutionary theory DOESN'T claim that one species changes into another.  A species can and usually does give rise to various descendant species based on the different environmental pressures faced by members of the parent species when they become genetically isolated from their kin, usually by geographical constraints.  For example, genetics PROVES that okapis descended from the same parent species as giraffes ( I am assuming, foolishly perhaps, that you believe in genes).  The Okapis survived, not by developing long necks, but by becoming swifter and more agile.  And this happened, in all likelihood, because a significant number of the parent species found itself geographically separated from their brothers and sisters, and in an environment where swiftness and agility were more expedient a survival technique than longer necks.  The point is, that BOTH okapis and giraffes DO exist, believe it or not; both descended from the same common ancestor, and genetics PROVES it (unless you believe O.J. was innocent).    

Point 4: You cannot assume that just because the current population growth rate is 2% per year, thanks to our recently developed medical and nutritional technologies, that it has always been 2%, even when people died like flies because nearly all diseases (before 1935) were incurable.     It most certainly hasn’t.  Millions died in the U.S. alone of influenza in 1918; I suspect that put a crimp in the 2% figure.  As many as half (by some estimates) of the people in the known world died during the dark ages of the plague and “black death.”  Futhermore, every evidence available from skeletal hominid fossils indicate that, for most of human history, Homo sapiens’ average life span was 25-30 years.  It is therefore logical to assume that the population growth rates were nowhere near what they are today.  And Malthusian theory predicts that populations will always crash once they reach a critical mass of population saturation.  War and disease have thus far constrained rampant population explosions.  Whether they will continue to do so is a matter of conjecture.  But today’s population, which is probably MORE than 2%, I would guess, casts no light on what population growth rates were like in the past.  The very notion that growth rates in ANY population of living things always remains steady is preposterous.  And by the way, genius, it’s Homo sapiens, not homo sapiens. 

Point 5: Though you didn’t mention it, Pildown man was a hoax.  But guess who exposed it?  It wasn’t people like you. It was scientists.  Most scientists, from the bginning, suspected that the Piltdown fossil was a hoax, but it wasn’t until decades later that they possessed the technology (radioactive decay, which you probably don’t believe in, either) to prove it.  Heidelberg Man is no longer thought to be of the species sapiens; it is however considered to be a member of the genus Homo. As such, it still is found along the evolutionary lines of humans.  Nebraska Man was never thought by scientists to be either sapiens or Homo.  It was the popular press that chose to give this ape species its popular moniker.  In any case, that only pushes it further back along the evolutionary chain of primate evolution.

Point 6:  There was once a controversy concerning neandertals.  It concerned that particular fossil and whether or not it was neandertal or modern human.  But it DID NOT cast doubt on the existence of neandertals.  They DID exist.  Whether they could or could not have procreated with other hominids extant at the time is still a matter of debate.  However, there is NO debate whatsovever that neandertals and modern humans are related; they most certainly are.  Whether or not they were of a different species that could be considered a “missing link” is moot, since thousands of “missing links” have been discovered and authenticated. 

Point 7:  So what if Cro-Magnon skulls are in the same size range as ours?  Skull size is NOT a predestined direction of evolution, since evolution itself is not a process that is predetermined or predirected.  An elephant has a larger skull than ours; that does not make it smarter; nor does it suggrest that elephants evolved from humans, which would seem to be the logical assumption from your example.  Cro Magnons may have had large brains, either because they were just as intelligent as we; or they may have been larger in order to house the neural complexes needed to support extraordinary strength, agility, and speed; nobody knows for sure.  In any case, it is totally irrelevant.

Point 8:  Almost ANY fossil that was preserved was serendipitous in the extreme.  There will likely never be a huge number of fossils of any particular organisms found in large numbers in ancient sediments; fossilization is an adventitious process that happens only rarely.  The point is that fossils, such as “Lucy,” HAVE been found, and continue to be found; and many could legitimately be considered “proto-human,”  in that many of their physical characteristics are clearly human-like, and many are clearly ape-like.  Evolution is the best explanation of that.  I have discovered no such explanation in the Bible, which I have read, cover-to-cover.  Talk about a good laugh!  Genesis is a scream!

Point 9: Aside from “agraptolyte” species, thought to have been extinct, so were Coelocanths thought to be extinct for many years, until one, then others, were found to still exist.  So what?  There are quite a few species currently believed to be extinct; but occasionally one of them shows up and surprises us that it survived for so long.  That is totally unrelated to the efficacy of evolutionary theory. 

Point 10:  Transitional fossils!  No matter how many scientists discover (and there are many being discovered all the time), you non-scientists will always say, “So what about THAT gap right there?”  There can NEVER be a fossil record with no gaps unless you had a fossil of every organism that ever existed.  But you don’t need every single piece of a jigsaw puzzle in order to gradually build a pretty clear picture of what the final image will be.  Aside from that, transitional forms tend to be temporally short in duration because many of the intermediate characteristics were non-adaptive.  Therefore, fossils that exhibit these transitional forms would tend to come and go briefly, and therefore very rarely be discovered.  As you indicate, evolution occurs in tiny, incremental steps; so those steps would be very difficult to recognize in any fossil.  We can only infer, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly, what the specific transitions would have looked like.  But when we look at the obvious, morphological characteristics of those fossils we DO have, it’s pretty clear that one led to the other, however incremental those steps may have been.  Try this analogy.  I look very different from my grandfather.  The only incremental steps between the two of us would be found in one of my parents.  If that parent could not be determined (found or fossilized) does that mean that I couldn’t have been descended from him, despite our many similarities?  According to your logic, I couldn’t have.

Point 11:  This is the classic one - one that shows just how ignorant and devoid of scientific knowledge people like you are.  One species DOES NOT, as you imply evolutionary theory claims, turn into another species.  All species descend from common ancestors.  Humans are descended from primate ancestors and we evolved in our special direction because our unique characteristics were advantageous in the environments in which we found ourselves.  Chimpanzees had the same ancestors as we did, except that, in their particular environments, they found their own modes of survival.  Same with monkeys, same with gorillas, etc.  Species DON’T change; they spawn offspring through countles generations that find themselves in varying environments.  The individuals with traits that are best suited for those environments will continue to spawn offspring.  Over thousands (with many species - millions) of generations, populations will appear that are sufficiently different from their ancestors that they can no longer procreate with them.  This is when they become defined as a different species.  But nothing in this process implies that the other progeny of the original ancestors would disappear.

Point 12:  Why in the world should I take seriously the unscientific speculations of a mathematician (William Dembski) and  a lawyer (Philip Johnson)?  The closest thing to an actual biologist in the creationist firmament is Michael Behe, who got laughed out of the Dover court and angrily chastised by the CHRISTIAN judge for presenting nonsense and manufactured lies that were destroyed in court by REAL scientists.  Know-nothings like Dembski, Johnson, and Behe try to distingish microevolution from macroevolution.  There is no difference between the two.  Macroevolution is simply a term applied to the accumulated differences that inevitably appear over millions of years of microevolution.  It should be noted that these three once disputed the existence of even microevolution.  But modern genetics exposed their macroignorance, so hey changed their tunes.

Point 13: There is no concensus theory about how life got started.  The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with that, however.  This argument should be used only to attack whatever generation theories are out there.  Understandably, you don’t mention any of them, so I can harldy choose which to defend.  Some of them make more sense to me than others.  But the proof provided in 1836 that spontaneous generation does not occur was based on knowledge far short of what is available today.  They were proving only that organisms, as we know them, couldn’t just suddenly generate.  No scientist today believes that, either.  That being said, there are a number of promising directions that the investigations into how life began have taken.  At this point, scientists have been able to create in the laboratory non-living entities, such as crystalline structures in clay, that do replicate on their own.  That is a far cry, of course, from creating “life” as we know it.  But they keep getting closer.  My own opinion: they never will create life in this sense.  But that does not mean that there were never dynamics that brought about self-replicating entities that were amenable to the evolutionary process.  No mathematical or scientific law prohibits it; and so far, no better scientific explanations have come forth (“God did it” does not qualify as scientific). 

point 14:  Finally we come to the old standby: “The Second Law of Thermodynamics.”  Throughout the universe, entropy seems to be the law of the land.  All systems become disordered.  But that is ONLY within a closed system;  Life on earth is NOT a closed system.  Most significantly, the Sun constantly feeds energy into our system, thus forestalling entropy.  Granted, at some point billions of years in the future, the entropy throughout the universe will affect our closed system on earth.  When the Sun disintegrates, so will everything on earth.   We are all going to be eventual victims of the 2nd law, but, until the sun goes out, it will not destroy the earth, the life within it, of the evolutionary processes that sustain it. 

I am amazed that you use all this stuff that goes back as far as the Dayton Monkey Trial to try to attack evolution.  Evolution HAPPENED;  it IS happening; it will ALWAYS happen; it MUST happen; it cannot NOT happen.  It is an inegral fact of all life.                   






© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service