Why do you *not* accept evolution?

[skadistic]

Fill that jar with Water, Hydrogen, Methane and Ammonia, along with a couple of sparking electrodes, and it's quite possible you'll get some amino acids, along with sugars, and some other solid organic compounds. If that's not impressive, I don't know what is.

But then it wouldn't be a jar of peanut butter!

 

[Gecko1]

But then it wouldn't be a jar of peanut butter!

Just, tastier peanut butter.

 

[woody60707]

we havnt seen macroevolution happen so it doesn't happen!!1111

I can't see air,..THERE IS NO AIR!!! AHHH!!!!

 

[History_Buff]

I can't see air,..THERE IS NO AIR!!! AHHH!!!!

Are you feeling tired and week?
Do you feel lightheaded?
Are you getting dizzy spells?
Are you slipping in and out of consciousness.

If you are experiencing one or all of these systems, it may be because you are not . . . breathing.

Breathing is a safe and effective way of fighting death, and deathlike symptoms.

In fact, most doctors agree that breathing is an excellent way to . . . stay alive.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMc3f588yc

Note: if you have been stabbed, shot, or diagnosed with a terminal illness, breathing may not help to prolong your life.

 

[classical_hero]

Can it be proven that God did not, as a test of faith when creating the Earth 6K years ago, place fossils, cleverly place layers of sediment, create creatures with similiar DNA, and so forth? There is and will never be any way to prove that all of this "evidence" is nothing more than God setting up the world to look as though everything came about naturally.

If someone truly believes all that, then are deluding themselves. God is not deceptive. Every time he has acted in the Bible he has been very clear about what he is going to do. He always does something for a purpose. ALso why does God need to have to keep recreating news things? God could simply just use similar parts of the DNA for the blueprint for most creatures and vary it so that the diffferent parts are enough to create variety. With humans it is possible to have billions of different Genetic combination and yet the genetic various between each human is less than 0.01% or something small and yet that cause massive variety.

For anti-evolution stuff, this place has it all:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

A lot of it is very simply written and poorly argued, and nothing has come close to convincing me...but it's what's out there.

I would go to a link in my sig and also to others Like Institute for Creation Research

Check the jar again in a billion years

How can you observe that? No one has been around for that long so how can you be certain that it is correct.

Fill that jar with Water, Hydrogen, Methane and Ammonia, along with a couple of sparking electrodes, and it's quite possible you'll get some amino acids, along with sugars, and some other solid organic compounds. If that's not impressive, I don't know what is.

The problem with that is that it did not get anywhere being close to forming life. All you got was forming some useless amino acids that would havve been desroyed in just an environment, which is why they had to create a trapp

On a serious note, I reject macroevolution because of the Bible! Of course species change over time, nobody's denying that.

You will notice that the Bible does not use the term 'species' but the word 'kind' which denotes a far greater genus of animals than what we see now. There is a study called Bariaminology, to find out what the exact kinds could have been.

The reason I reject Evolution is that the evidence points against it and that it is in direct conflict with the Bible and how the Bible describes God. The God of the Bible is the one I want to follow. The God that used evolution is certianly no God I would want to follw.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i reject evolution because the little invisible pink unicorn on the other side of the moon will destroy me in hellfire if i accept it.

 

[bhsup]

If someone truly believes all that, then are deluding themselves. God is not deceptive. Every time he has acted in the Bible he has been very clear about what he is going to do. He always does something for a purpose. ALso why does God need to have to keep recreating news things? God could simply just use similar parts of the DNA for the blueprint for most creatures and vary it so that the diffferent parts are enough to create variety. With humans it is possible to have billions of different Genetic combination and yet the genetic various between each human is less than 0.01% or something small and yet that cause massive variety.

Oh, I agree with you, but I am not fond of calling my mom delusional.

 

[Truronian]

The reason some people do not accept evolution is because it contradicts their religion. These people rarely know anything about Biology.

 

[IamJohn]

I'm no expert, but where did the universe come from if there is no God? It can't just spontiously happen, could it?

--

I'd be a lot more sympethetic to evolution if it wasn't for the insane amount of arrogance that evolutionists have. For a group of people based on the idea that all ideas need to be proven/disproven to be discared or adopted, they have seemed to have decided not to use actual science and instead resort to just jeering and feeble insults, just look at the thread to see what I mean.

 

[brennan]

I'm no expert, but where did the universe come from if there is no God? It can't just spontiously happen, could it?

If God can do it, so can the universe.

 

[Kozmos]

Can it be proven that God did not, as a test of faith when creating the Earth 6K years ago, place fossils, cleverly place layers of sediment, create creatures with similiar DNA, and so forth? There is and will never be any way to prove that all of this "evidence" is nothing more than God setting up the world to look as though everything came about naturally.

Then God is obviously an . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I dont want to believe in an . .. .. .. .. .. .. . like that.

 

[pau17]

I'm no expert, but where did the universe come from if there is no God? It can't just spontiously happen, could it?

Just because god is an answer doesn't mean it's the right one. It could have been any one of infinite possible gods. And then, where did god come from? Answering the first question leaves that one unanswered. So it's a moot point, really.

I'd be a lot more sympethetic to evolution if it wasn't for the insane amount of arrogance that evolutionists have. For a group of people based on the idea that all ideas need to be proven/disproven to be discared or adopted, they have seemed to have decided not to use actual science and instead resort to just jeering and feeble insults, just look at the thread to see what I mean.

Yet here you are judging a viewpoint not on its content but on its "arrogance". If you want the pure content, check out the scientific literature. People might be snippy, but it's foolish to judge evolution based on what people on an internet forum say, where it is normal to jab. It's also understandable that when someone spends their life studying science, they might forget how little other people know and they might become impatient or rude. Scientists and academics can often come off as arrogant. But to use just that to discredit their thinking is a mistake.

 

[RedRalph]

I'd be a lot more sympethetic to evolution if it wasn't for the insane amount of arrogance that evolutionists have. For a group of people based on the idea that all ideas need to be proven/disproven to be discared or adopted, they have seemed to have decided not to use actual science and instead resort to just jeering and feeble insults, just look at the thread to see what I mean.

The manner of the proponents of an idea has nothing to do with its validity. If I extremely arrogantly tell you 1+1=2, it dosent make it any less valid. If you find these people arrogant, ignore it, dont let it cloud the truth in what they are saying.

 

[Truronian]

I'm no expert, but where did the universe come from if there is no God? It can't just spontiously happen, could it?

Where would God come from?

I'd be a lot more sympethetic to evolution if it wasn't for the insane amount of arrogance that evolutionists have. For a group of people based on the idea that all ideas need to be proven/disproven to be discared or adopted, they have seemed to have decided not to use actual science and instead resort to just jeering and feeble insults, just look at the thread to see what I mean.

There is no scientific debate about evolution. It's been accepted fact for a long while, and modern biology relies on it.

 

[Phlegmak]

Conservapedia tells me that evolution is bullcrap pushed by "big science" and maintained by "godless liberals"; therefore, evolution is bullcrap.

 

[History_Buff]

The problem with that is that it did not get anywhere being close to forming life. All you got was forming some useless amino acids that would havve been desroyed in just an environment, which is why they had to create a trapp

But similar experiments have created the various building blocks of life, which demonstrates that it is possible to acheive life from non-life. The majority of these experiments also lasted only weeks, whereas the first living orgranism probably took millions of years to form.

 

[zxcvbnm]

The reason I reject Evolution is that the evidence points against it and that it is in direct conflict with the Bible and how the Bible describes God.

Evidence points against it? That is just crazy. How much do you know about the theory of evolution?

The God of the Bible is the one I want to follow. The God that used evolution is certianly no God I would want to follw.

Why?

 

[Defiant47]

As you can see, the method of acquiring truth and knowledge on the right is better.

 

[Phlegmak]

quote=classical_hero;6723109]The reason I reject Evolution is that the evidence points against it and that it is in direct conflict with the Bible and how the Bible describes God. The God of the Bible is the one I want to follow. The God that used evolution is certianly no God I would want to follw.[/quote]

I don't understand this attitude. Evolution makes perfect sense and it has been proved and reproduced (with bacteria). It's perfectly easy to believe in god and believe that god made the universe and invented evolution. When I was a Christian, that's exactly what I believed. My classmates and teachers believed the same thing (I went to Catholic schools from grades K - 12).

 

[IamJohn]

Where would God come from?

And if God always existed? I believe he's infinite, it's part of what makes him God. If that's true, then there's no need for a beginning, while there is a need for one for the physical universe that you and I are a part of.

There is no scientific debate about evolution. It's been accepted fact for a long while, and modern biology relies on it.

That doesn't mean much. People believed that the earth was flat for ages and used that as a basis for scientific research. History doesn't mean much other then the fact that it hasn't totally been disproven yet.

But similar experiments have created the various building blocks of life, which demonstrates that it is possible to acheive life from non-life. The majority of these experiments also lasted only weeks, whereas the first living orgranism probably took millions of years to form.

Sorry, but that isn't true. Forming amino acids in a controlled environment is nice, but it doesn't do any good when nothing happens. The experiment ended there. There was no life, just amino acids. that isn't forming life, nor does it demonstrate the possiblity of forming life.

The reason I reject Evolution is that the evidence points against it and that it is in direct conflict with the Bible and how the Bible describes God.

Evidence points against it? That is just crazy. How much do you know about the theory of evolution?

No, it really isn't all that crazy. Where are your links between creatures? Sure you have fossils that are slightly different then what we see today, but there are no exactly (or even mostly) in the middle creature that demonstrates evolution. Remember microevolution is true, no one should debate that it all, it's a scientific fact. What I contest is macroevolution.


Another thing that I've seen raised against evolution is the idea of irreducible complexity. How do you evolve something that needs many complex parts to survive or work even partially? The idea of evolution is that only the best at every stage succeed, correct? What happens if you have something that doesn't work, but in a few million years, will work better then anything else?