It is Charles Darwin’s birthday (don’t ask me how I know this…its just one of those random pieces of information I remember) so what better way to celebrate it than to show how the theory of evolution is not true.
My fascination with evolution really started in high school when my biology teacher was teaching evolution as if it were fact, probably because the textbooks taught it that way. In our graded roundtable discussion on the topic I was docked a full grade because I argued against the theory. It seems no one could refute my arguments, to include the teacher. Well, I took my B with pride and have continued on not discussing it too much since then, but I figured now would be a good time to bring it back up.
You will find that a lot of evolutionists are atheists and all atheists are evolutionist, the latter in an attempt to explain something that is already explained in the first chapter of Genesis. But there is no God, so there must be another explanation. Even though their argument can be countered with simple logic such as “If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys”, that probably will not fly with them. So here is one argument among many that you can use.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum or basically that things tend to go from order to disorder, not the other way around. Using this argument, the creation of life on earth could not be a random occurrence; a simple organism could not be created spontaneously and that organism could not become more orderly or complex randomly over time.
Here is where you find out how smart the person you are talking to you is. I promise they will try to shoot you down with the argument that the earth is not a closed system because it is a common misconception that the second law only applies to closed systems and we have the sun of course.
First of all, as I alluded to, the 2nd law does apply to open systems but even without this knowledge, they are now making the argument that the Sun’s energy is responsible for creating all life on earth. Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it.
Now there are specialized cases where localized order can be temporarily increased, but that is due to energy converting machinery. Living organisms have these within them as do refrigerators. Random energy from the sun itself does not create order. In the same way that water does not turn into ice just from the sun’s energy, organisms do not evolve from it. If you just stand in the sun all the time, you are not going to grow; you will probably just get skin cancer. The energy converting mechanisms inside you allow you to grow, but even this will not last. I hate to break this to you, but you are still going to die.
I hope this information helps some in their arguments against evolution. Logic will never replace faith, but maybe it will bring about change in someone’s mind.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
How do you feel about theological evolution?
Could it be possible that God took his time and enjoyed his process instead of literally cramming it into a week?
Then again, how long is a week to God?
Maybe thousands and thoudands of years?
I think the bible is pretty specific on the fact that God created man and woman and different species of animals so that I know…
I know a lot of people have had discussions on the definition of the day. It does say the sun rose and set, but then i guess you could argue that this timeframe of the sun. But if you look at the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun, the rotation of the earth to give the sun’s energy to all areas, and the perfect distance the earth is from the sun to allow life, I lean towards the traditional day. It is not something that I would really argue about though.
There is, of course, natural selection where species have certain characteristics that survive and become dominant, but I definitely do not believe life increased in complexity. I have some good stuff on that which I will write about at some point.
Dinosaurs?
I always think that scientists are really just trying to explain everything that God created. When we learned about natural science in school I just kept trying to tie it back to Genesis. Isn’t the Big Bang theory a way scientists try to explain how God started it all, in scientific terms? When we learned about evolution I thought the monkey thing was a joke. I really thought my teacher had been making a joke for a really long time. The kids in my class were acting like they were monkeys. Later I found out it was someone’s theory. Oh. God’s probably up there smiling, shaking his head thinking there’s a book with all of this explained, y’all can stop trying so hard.
I think that they were created with the other animals. They obviously existed and now they are extinct. The reasons they are now extinct can be argued but species become extinct every year.
I found an interesting bible passage earlier today (Job 40:15–24), which describes what many believe is a dinosaur. This, of course, is after the ark.
The NIV says that might be an elephant. But “the tail sways like a cedar” sort of ruins that I think.
“He ranks first among the works of God..” That sounds promising.
Here’s what gets me. God talks about the “behemoth” being hidden by the lotus plant. Here is the description that I found
–Profile of the lotus, a water plant growing in the mud of shallow ponds, lagoons, marshes and flooded fields.
Mud of shallow ponds. Shallow ponds. Shallow, hidden, behemoth…
I wonder what the theologians say about this.
I would love for there to be a reference in the Bible.
The bible isn’t a science book, and science books are or should be silent on issue of why we’re here.
I accept that the earth is 4 billion years old, but I do believe in a God guided process. Whether that falls under what’s called “intelligent design” or not I don’t know. I don’t buy into Darwinian evolution.
In the Biology textbook we used in my class last semester the chapter begins with the theory of spontaneous combustion of life. Later in the same chapter we’re introduced to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I never could understand how we were told in the first half of class that order ensued from chaos and then in the second half of class were told that the universe is continually becoming more chaotic. This was taught in the same lecture period! Do you have to give up all logic to understand science? Maybe that’s my problem!
One problem is that they teach theory as if it is fact. The textbooks usually do not show the scientific evidence that support each side.
I am starting to see a lot of this on the history channel too as they do shows over the history of the earth. There is a lot of scientific evidence that shows the earth is not as old as they say, but it is rarely if ever covered.
J- I will have to look up the guy that did a 3 day course on dinosaurs and the bible at my parents church. If I can find it I will send it your way.
Dude.. Superman gets his power from the sun. That’s all the science I need to know.
I am not sure about this but I am fairly certain that Chuck Norris also gets his power from the sun.
How else can you explain the awesomeness of the roundhouse kick.
Time to clear up some misconceptions and misrepresentations of science.
Scientific theory =/= conjecture
A scientific theory is the highest level any explanation can obtain in science outside of mathematics. Since it is outside of mathematics it can not be proven only falsified. A scientific theory will never become a law or a fact because scientific theories explain laws and facts. However, it should be understood that evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Facts = What happens.
Scientific theories = Why it happens.
Just as it is a “fact” that gravity exists there is also a theory of gravity as to why, which ironically is less understood then evolution.
As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics the argument being made here is a huge misunderstanding of what the law actually states. It is describing the universe’s tendency towards entropy. This means that matter/energy over time is slowly becoming useless radiation. It does not state that things can not increase in order or complexity. That would be absurd because it would contradict the most basic principles of chemistry and physics. Plus, we observe things like star births producing heavy elements and other chemical reactions producing higher orders.
In fact life itself increases the rate of entropy because when we eat we are transforming mass into heat. We are a mechanism for entropy.
First of all, in my experience evolution is not taught as theory. In school or any of the television shows I have seen recently it is taught as fact. Counter theories are not presented nor is the countless scientific evidence that refutes evolution.
Evolution is not fact as you stated. The only “fact” humans have seen and recorded is micro evolution, which is not an increase in complexity. 2nd law describes order to disorder. Macro evolution describes the opposite.
All reasoning is based upon presupposition. The only way you can justify evolution with science is with the presupposition that the bible is not true.
Considering you still don’t understand the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of “theory” I wouldn’t expect you to know what is being taught. Creationist hypotheses are not presented because they have not been through the same level of scrutiny that evolution has. What you want is to inject creationism into science via legislation because it can’t withstand peer review. That is not how science works.
It is a fact that things evolve. Micro evolution is still evolution and macro evolution is the result of lots of micro evolution over time. A species is defined as any group of organisms that interbreeds and produces viable offspring. What determines if organisms can interbreed and will have viable offspring is DNA.
Micro evolution = adaptation = change in DNA
If you take two groups of the same species and separate them for tens of thousands of years in different geographical locations each group will adapt according to environmental pressure. The change in DNA will not be the same. Enough change between the two groups would eventually make them unable to interbreed. We call this speciation and macro evolution. There is no known mechanism for why it would not occur. Mean while speciation has been observed as well as other scientific evidences for evolution in the higher taxa.
Macro evolution is not one “big” evolutionary step.
TSC have you ever heard the psychological term “projection”? People often project their thoughts onto others because we perceive putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes. So when I see, “All reasoning is based upon presupposition. The only way you can justify evolution with science is with the presupposition that the bible is not true.”, it gives me insight into what you are thinking.
I can take away from it that your only justification for creationism and reasoning to argue against evolution is the assumption that the Bible must be true. In real science a theory or explanation is not invalidated or discarded because someone doesn’t want to believe it. We tried it for hundreds of years and all we got out of it was the Dark Ages. All that matters in science is if an explanation is compatible with what is observed, works with experimentation, and can be used to make accurate predictions about reality. Evolution works. Modern biology would not exist today without evolutionary theory.
I do understand the definitions related to this topic. I was using words loosely and apologize. I did not realize it would illicit such a condescending response. So here is what I meant technically by what I said. Evolution is taught as a validated theory instead of just a theory. Evidence that counters the theory is not even discussed when it is taught. Since a theory is valid only as long as there is no evidence to dispute it, don’t you believe this evidence should be taught. As you pointed out, creation scientists spend most of their time disproving other theories so there are plenty of alternate interpretations of the facts if you will.
The reason creationists hypotheses are not presented or rather why they are not validated by the scientific community is because to do so would require us to be God, which obviously we are not. The creationists hypothesis of how the world came to be cannot be repeatedly tested, and therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory by your definition.
This is why creation scientists spend their time using scientific evidence to counter theories such as evolution and the big bang theory…etc. There is no reason to waste time trying to accomplish something that is not possible by man. We are talking about the origin. They are using evidence to dispute the evolution theory because it can be disproven as it is a theory.
The idea of macro evolution is not one giant step and I never said it was. But if you look at it as a whole it really is. You are talking about evolving from the simplest organism into all the species we have today. And this happening by random occurrence and over millions of years. Two things that are hypothesis and have not been proven by any means. Things such as natural selection and interbreeding have been seen by man but there is no proof that says this leads to macro evolution. Just what we observe, slight variations. By the definition there has been no repeated tests that prove this hypothesis to be true.
It is true that my presumption (counter to yours) is that the Bible is true and valid and correctly describes the origin of life on earth. I will not leave it out when discussing this topic because it is the basis of my belief of how life on earth was created. Just because man’s feeble minds cannot explain it with science does not make it any less true. But anyways, the real reason I brought it up was to explain that because of these different presumptions we will never agree. We will look at the same facts and interpret them in two completely different ways, each conforming to these presumptions.
Would also like to mention that this really is kinda an old post so nobody is really reading it anymore(at least I am not seeing any traffic to it). I just see all comments coming in so I responded. Not to say it hasn’t been intriguing.
First, when an explanation has obtained the level of scientific theory we are highly unlikely to merely abandon it in the face of conflicting evidence. The sheer level of scrutiny involved to get that far and to have it be fundamentally wrong despite some of the most intelligent people trying to rip the theory apart as part of peer review is extremely unlikely. It would not be a scientific theory if it had not already made accurate predictions about the diversity of life and biology in general. Theories are always changed and adapted to better fit our understanding of the facts.
Second, have you ever considered that you might not fully understand what constitutes as evidence. Science is a methodology and as such there is a process one goes through to conclude what the evidence supports. Without a correct usage of deductive reasoning removed from any kind of personal biased one can not rely on the conclusion made. You yourself admit to having such a biased as have most of the apologetics that originally argued this “evidence”. I have read and debated most ofwhat creationist argue to be evidence and I can not remember one that was not somehow based on a misconception, assertion, or fallacy. Noting most of them having been debunked for decades or longer.
I think your misconceptions about macro evolution is a prime example. The difference between micro and macro evolution is the difference between taking a step and walking. One is just the accumulation of the other over time. So this whole, “All we see is micro not macro.” is like saying, “All we see is people stepping not walking.” Continuing this analogy speciation occurs when one or more groups of a single species continuously take steps away from each other and eventually have walked out of sight from the other.
In essence you admit to people being able to take steps, but believe they never walk.
Evolution was widely accepted in the late 1800’s before there was any real scientific evidence so I think it is really hard for those who support it to deny parts of it are just not true. They did not even reconcile Darwin and Mendall’s ideas until the 1930’s. I also never alluded to abandoning the theory, but conflicting evidence should be taught with the theory. There are some parts that are obviously true because we observe them..ie..natural selection. The theory that everything evolved from a single source over time is not one of these things. In all of our recorded history and in all of our controlled genetic experiments, there is no proof. We cannot do it even though we have tried. That makes it no different than the Creationists theory of how life came about on this earth. Therefore it is nothing more than a guess. Your analogy makes absolutely no sense and has no relation to what we are talking about.
You continue to explain what you believe but simply explaining it using technical terms does not make it true. Bias or no bias, the theory has major gaps. None of which can be addressed. Even you have ignored these small points I have brought up and instead try to say that I just do not understand the concepts when obviously I do. In the end, you have to have just as much faith in your theory as I do in my God.
Hi debunker
Your arguments are not valid and you don’t have any clue regarding what a theory is.
A theory must be falsifiable, evolution is not falsifiable. A theory is based on facts which can be proved by experiment. Also, these experiments must be reproducible. Evolution depends on mutations and therefore cannot be proved by experiment. It depends on a set of beliefs put forward by Darwin who did not have a degree in biology and therefore was not qualified to preach his beliefs as scientific theory.
Evolution’s proof is based on dubious fossil records which the evolutionists try to fit in with their evolution belief. According to evolutionists any bones found of ancient apes are hominids that walked upright. This absurd view has come about because evolutionists are desperate to find the missing link between apes and humans.
Also, at present why don’t you get fish coming out of the water onto land and developing legs as the evolutionist claim happened millions of years ago? Why don’t you see the stages in apes turning into humans? Why don’t you see it happening now? You don’t see it happening now because evolution is false; its whole premises are false.
If an animal stretches it neck to eat does that mean the brain sends a signal to the animal’s genes and tells the genes to adjust its information so that when the animal mates it offspring will have a longer neck. This kind of nonsense has been touted by some evolutionists regarding the giraffe. This explanation for the giraffe’s neck is like mind over matter i.e. magic.
I read these websites where creationists try to use hearsay and invalid arguments to prove evolution is wrong. I guess my question is why do you try to provide evidence evolution is wrong shouldn’t you be able to get people to believe you on faith alone. People like you are a dying breed. 500 years from now the majority of people will finally open there eyes and look at the world around them and realize that the idea of God just doesn’t really make any sense. I was raised a Christian and as I have become older and actually began to understand how the world works the idea that God created everything just doesn’t make any sense and I’m honestly baffled that so many people still believe in God. A person is smart, but it just seems people as a whole are stupid and willing to believe what their parents tell them they should believe. I think it’s hillarious that any time you see someone asked a question about proving the existance of God and creationism in an interview on TV that not one person can say anything that seems intelligent. All of you creationism and believers in God I leave you with this question, if a man came to your door step tomorrow and told you he was Jesus Christ, and lets pretend for one second that he actually is Jesus Christ risen from the dead, and he said he has no proof that you need to use your faith in God and believe in him. He asks you to help him reach out to the world and tell everyone he is back and living. Would you believe him and help him (remember this is the real Jesus Christ) even though he has no way of proving it to you or would you turn him away thinking he was some whack job????? What would you do??? I think if more people approached religion the same way they approached any other important decision in life then the world would be a much better place.
I find it hard to believe that you were raised as a Christian with the question that you raised. I would consider that person a ‘whack job’. When Jesus returns he will not return as before (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, Isaiah 29:5-6, Malachi 3:1, Matthew 24:43-44, Luke 12:39-40, 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 3:3, Revelation 16:15)
To answer another one of your questions, obviously faith in God as an argument does not work on people such as yourself as you have proven. That is why I try to use a little common sense and science to show how evolution is an impossibility. My arguments are not invalid, although the 2nd law of thermodynamics is one of the harder topics to argue. Others are much easier. Your tornado interview theory is not a very strong one. First, rarely do you see anything on TV discussing creationism or even arguments against evolution. Second, there are many very intelligent scientists out there that can argue these points very well if you look for them. And even if man can’t explain it, it doesn’t make it any less true. Such is your faith in evolution.
As for me, my belief in creationism isn’t based upon anything man can test in an experiment. It is based on my faith in God. The evidence for God is all around you…you just have to open your eyes. God Bless.