"The Fourteen Points Against Evolution" Really...?
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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Lark on -
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?"
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-v...
-
Permalink Reply by Stutz on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on
-
Go for it! Let's have a good old clay-pigeon shoot.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
As always, the only arguments favouring creation over evolution are based either on ignorance or dishonesty.
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
Honestly that's more about the need to read up more about it than that we don't know much about it. We know a great deal about how each step in the process of life from non-life must have happened, and many of the steps have been recreated in the lab. The best evidence for abiogenesis is not non-biologic self-organizing systems. Though those systems tell us that self-organizing complexity is possible without a designer, it doesn't tell us that abiogenesis is one of those systems. What does is chemistry, biochemistry, and physics.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
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.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
What's new today
Forum
insane comment following tornadoes in Oklahoma
Started by Ron Humphrey in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by Graham 14 minutes ago. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Seen a FB about Tornados today in KS and OK.
Posted by Matthew on May 20, 2013 at 8:14pm 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
