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: 1082

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

/facepalm

lol xD

Why is it every attempt at refuting evolution turns out to be nothing more than another example of the presenter's misunderstanding, whether deliberate or genuine? Could it be that the theory of evolution is actually right? What a shocker. ^_^

every single one of those points has been so thoroughly debunked it's embarrassing that some morons STILL use them ...... there's a gullible theist born every minute I suppose ...*sigh* .....

I'm actually kind of impressed and somewhat pleased that this person is actually at least trying to look at the question with logic and intelligence, rather than just spouting off verses in Genesis for their argument.  I mean, this is at least a dialogue.  I think it's a great try.

OK, with an EXTREME benefit of a doubt, I may give this person an "E for effort". But let's be honest - this is a weak list of weak apologetics that have been debunked so many times, for so many years, that it is sad this person didn't at least do the homework to see if any of these items are plausible. This seems more likely to be someone who feels threatened by the facts of evolution, are feeling doubts in their rational mind, and needed to find this list to help sustain the Suspension of Disbelief. While I understand your eagerness to give them credit, I find I can't be as forgiving and kind, mainly because I've been bludgeoned with this list too many times to count.

It really ought to be titled '14 Reasons I Don't Understand Evolution'

Epic Fail.

I'm not surprised, though; if you can believe that a crucified dead man can come to life after three days in a hot tomb, well...

Point 7: Yeah, that might be because Cro Magnons are homo sapiens

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.
This one is just plain false.
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.
This sounds like a misunderstanding of evolution, and is also plain false. We've witnessed speciation of salamanders in California to name just one example.
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.
First, there are many factors that can drive evolution. As Nelson said, sexual selection can be one. But species evolve withing their specific environments. A long neck is good for a Giraffe, but this would not be beneficial to an animal that has to either be quick/small to get away from predators or needs to lie in wait unnoticed. Just as a prehensile tail is beneficial to monkeys in a tree, but would not be so helpful on the savanna.
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.
So let me get this straight... If some fossils are found to not be direct ancestors to us, then that also invalidates the fossils that we have that are known to be direct ancestors of us? Okay, I guess that means that if through the course of the season, if a low ranked baseball team beats the team that eventually wins the championship, that the team that beat them once must be the better team? Yeah, right... The truth is in the evidence, if we find that something should be moved to a different branch of the tree of life, that isn't a failing of evolution. It is still a snapshot of an evolutionary lineage. Our lineage, or another, it's still evolution.
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.
Again, how would the invalidation of one example require the binning of everything else that has been confirmed. We've been able to sequence the DNA of people living today to find that they actually contain segments of Neanderthal DNA.
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.
How exactly would similar brain capacity between two groups invalidate evolution? And larger brain size in Cro-Magnon in no way says that we aren't related. Evolution does not have a rule of 'bigger is always better'. Actually, to this date human brain mass seems to be decreasing.
Point 8: If homo-sapiens evolved from extinct proto-humans, then why is it so difficult to find skeletons of these species?
Actually, we've been lucky enough to find an astonishing number of fossils. Conditions have to be just right for fossils to form. we're actually very lucky that we have any fossils. But even if we had no fossils, evolution still remains just as true, based on the DNA evidence alone.
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!
So? 'Living Fossils' are nothing new. It's merely an example of a species that hasn't changed much (if at all) over the expanses of time. There are fossils of Ginkgo tree leaves and Horseshoe Crabs. Yet they exist today in near identical form! Evolution doesn't say that things have to evolve. If they were already specialized to their environment, or environmental pressures weren't hoisted upon them, there wouldn't be a need or advantage to drive evolution. So they aren't a problem for evolution, but an example of how varied it can be.
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.
We already covered this in point 8.
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.
Misunderstanding of evolution, this one. Evolution states that humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor. Also, modern apes are our closest current cousins.
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.
*facepalm* First of all, when we look at the 'simpler' animals that are around today that we are related to, you will find the same number of genes. Yet we actually have a missing pair compared to, say... Chimps. But a quick study of our genome finds that we have a fused pair which shows where that difference arose. I'm actually surprised to see people spouting that micro vs macro rubbish. Micro + micro + micro (repeat ad nauseum) gets you to macro evolution. The fossil record of wales shows small changes, followed by small changes , that eventually result in something very different than what was started with.
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.
How does the findings of scientists from 1836 decree the final word on the subject. Before Galileo, everyone thought that the geocentric model was unquestionably correct.
Of course, we now no better. Also, Abiogenises has now been replicated in the lab.
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.
They left out the critical bit. The second law is true for a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as energy is constantly being dumped upon us by the sun.

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.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates

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.

 

So what? 

RSS

  

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service