Evolutionists help please?
963299
"Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer is the best one I've seen yet. It will more than likely contain everything you need.\n\nMichael Shermer, btw, if you're unfamiliar with who I'm talking about, is the founder of the Skeptics Society, who publishes Skeptic Magazine.
862281
You must have a lot of time to spare if you invite creationists to "debate" with you. You cannot convince them of the truth because they don't want the truth. They have no understanding of scientific method or principles. The scientific world accepts evolution and continues accumulating molecular evidence that shows beyond any doubt evolution has occurred. There is a Mount Everest of evidence out there, yet every creationist/IDer ignores it. Why? They are not interested in truth.\n\nThe world has moved on - IDers are wallowing in the dark ages. Do yourself a favour, do something where you will achieve an outcome. Talking with creationists won't get you there.\n\n(As a rule of thumb - the more rabid the creationist, the worse the spelling and grammar. There IS a correlation, I swear!)
991994
Could you clarify your question?\n\n\nEDIT:\nRead the answer carefully from Leviter_atin... It is good.\n\nReally look at the website s/he provided.\n\nAlso, I recommend you look at at least one book about evolution- "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Miller is a Christian and a cell biologist.  He does a VERY good job of explaining how science/evolution are NOT incompatible with Christianity.
331313
It is thought that man came from ape like ancestors, not quite monkey's.  \n\nIt could take hundreds of thousands of years for macro evolution to occur.  Wait around that long, and i guarantee there will be NEW species.  So it is still happening.\n\nThe fossil record is not complete because fossils are hard to come by, not everything fossilises despite contrary belief.  In fact it's amazing we have as much info as we do.\n\nHow on earth does it take less belief to believe in a god, there is no evidence whatsoever for this!  At least evolution has enough evidence to fill several hundred warehouses, what do you have, testimony.. Yeah right, thanks, i'll keep to evidence, not faith to inform my decisions about the world around me.
400596
I've been debating creationists for the better part of a decade and I have still never heard a single piece of evidence against evolution (really, common descent, almsot all creationists accept evolution, though they hate the word and refuse to use the correct definitions).\n\nIf they had anything, we'd have heard of it by now.  Instead we just get, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" and such nonsense.  (Hint: that question has been asked on Answers.Yahoo at least ten times since I started coming here three days ago, and it has been answered for over 100 years, GET UP TO DATE CREATIONISTS!)\n\nCreationists have no evidence against evolution.  If they did, it still wouldn't make creationism a reasonable proposition.  They need explanations for the evidence that contradicts creationism, such as the sorting of the fossil record (how did all those mangroves make it to the top?).
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
168592
Evolution - massive evidence.\n\nCreation - only has (incorrect) snipes at evolution, no physical evidence in it's favor.\n\nPeople interested in this question should check out the Index to Creationist Claims, which lists all know allegations that Creationists have made about evolution and why they are wrong.\n\nCreationist Claims are often built on a misunderstanding of science (the "2nd law of thermo says evo wrong", "there are no transitional fossils") or have picked up a single outdated study and ignored all more recent evidence (the "dust on moon means moon is young") or just invent their own science - with no evidence - to explain away the obvious (the "micro- vs macroevolution" bit).\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that Creationists always try to poke holes in evolution. Even if they were correct and our current understanding of evolution were wrong *that doesn't mean creationism is right*. There needs to be POSITIVE evidence - PHYSICAL evidence - in favor of Creationist ideas. And their just isn't anything. All they have are cheap shots against evolution.\n\n\nDon't get my wrong, if someone wants to believe in creationism, a 6,000 year old Earth, or the Earth is flat, that is perfectly fine with me. Its a free country. But don't come telling me these things are science unless you have scientific proof - physical evidence in favor of your theory.\n\nCheck it out!\n\n\nPostscipt - another common difficulty, a failure to understand the meaning of "theory" in science as oppsed to colloquial language. There is also the "germ theory" and Newton's "theory of gravity." So, are you skeptical of bacteria and gravity because they are "just a theory?"
789435
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..
990517
12 March 2002\n\nPOINTS OF ORIGINS: Variety is the Spice of Life\nby Dr. Glenn Jackson\n\nAmong modern environmentalists the term "species diversity" is a real keyword. Having lots of different species is considered good for the environment. But having all these species makes it hard to classify them all. When you start to talk about all of the extinct species too -- well, it gets pretty crowded. Most evolutionists are fond of pointing out that 95% (some even say 99%) of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct. Let me suggest a thought that may never have occurred to you before. Maybe most of these were just species that didn't make it to survive much beyond the year of Noah's Flood. Maybe all these "weird" prehistoric life forms only look weird to us because we're just not used to them anymore. There is mounting evidence that the ancient world had many more species -- but all living at the same time! -- not all living in vastly different times like the Paleozoic and Jurassic, etc. One entomologist (insect-studier) from Univ of Kansas says, "I never expected to find this staggering array of diversity. It blew me away." Dr. Engel is an expert on bees (Science News, 2/10/01, p87). A newer DNA study has found that crabs "must have evolved at least five different times." (Science News, 3/2/02) Now it's impossible enough to believe that crabs evolved even once -- let alone five times! Bat DNA seems to indicate that echo-location must have "evolved" in bats at least two times -- maybe three. This conclusion even has the evolutionists going batty! I'm serious. This has been driving them nuts. How could sonar have evolved twice? It's so far-fetched to believe that it could have even evolved once! To make matters worse, fossil species are now so many, that the names are getting all confused (Knoxville-News Sentinel, 2/4/02, pE14). I believe that the richness of the Earth's many species of living things today -- is nowhere near what it was before the Great Flood. That would explain why we see fossils of all these "weird" creatures trapped in the rocks left by the debris from the Flood. With all those extra life forms, there were plenty for evolutionists to choose from, while they were looking for all of their "missing links." Well, since they have started to double-check on all of those links, by using DNA, they have found that their best examples really weren't links at all -- but totally separate created kinds, just like the Genesis account predicts. If the scientists would only begin to do their investigations based on the assumption that creation is true and not evolution -- I'd bet that they'd reach their conclusions a lot faster, and things wouldn't be so confusing but would all begin to make perfect sense. Well, "thinking themselves wise they became fools." You keep thinking. \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
99308
• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm\n\n*Irreducible complexity\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm\n\n* Biological Evidence\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm\n\n* The Moon\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm\n\n*Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks \nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
581800
Sorry, this took longer than I thought it would.\n\nYou seem to be already convinced that science is favors evolution more than creation.  Modern science was invented by Christians.\n\nHere is some stuff about mitochondrial eve.  http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html\nSince the original DNA study was done, it was found that an error had been made and that the actual time of Eve's existence was only about 10,000 years ago.\n\nHuman foot prints chasing dinosaur footprints.  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm\nNow we know the real reason they are extinct - they were delicious.\n\nYou've probably heard of the tectonic plate theory (continental drift theory), but have you every heard of the Hydroplate Theory.  The latter does a much better job of explaining things in a more scientific manner with more geological evidence to back it up.  In other words, it supports the Bible story of a global flood.  See here: http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=13091\n\nThat's all I have time for now.\n\nPS-You won't find ANY of the above in your science textbook.  Its called CENSORSHIP which is why you weren't told about the existence of all this other scientific evidence.
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
513828
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
467879
Mother Christian. Father athiest.  They argued a lot over Adam and Eve VS Evolution.  My dad would win the arguments just because he was smarter.  I started out as an evolutionist, but I studied both sides of the issues and came to my own conclusion including evolution and scientific creationism.  I can argue with any evolutionist and either win or hold my ground now.  Never did have the discussion with my dad though because he left when I was 9.  He recently converted to Christianity and expects me to forget the abandonment.  I can't bring myself to act like nothing happened.\nSo did you have something you wanted to know? or just a poll?  You can email if there's something else you're after.