Arguments for Evolution

What I am referring to as evolution is the belief in no God and that life started at the Big Bang and evolved into what we are today. I realize that evolutionist like to separate the views of the evolution of man and the Big Bang, but most evolutionist also believe in the Big Bang and the whole entire view point is what I will be addressing here.

Quote from evolutionist:
"And you cite..... what now? I have read several essays by scientists about evolution. Adaptation and natural selection have been observed, and from there it's simply a matter of time to reach speciation. Which, for that matter, has also been observed. While the fossil record is incomplete, some transitional forms have been located, and assuming that the holes are due to the rarity of fossilization is just as valid as assuming that the missing transitional forms don't exist."

This is from the talkorigins.org website. Creationist do believe in adaptation.

Creationist believe in a creator because life does not come into existence by chance (this has never been observed in science). Creationist believe in a creator which has been believed as long as man has been on the earth. Evolution has not been a widely accepted view point until Darwin.
Lets discuss some of the primary arguments for evolution (See my next posts for rebuttals):

1) Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang (Unless you are someone like Hugh Ross who doesn't truly believe in the Bible so they adapt the Bible with evolution): This theory believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, that the earth is billions of years old and that over billions of years we evolved by random chance and random mutations into what we are today.

2) Evolutionist believe in macro-evolution which means that we evolved from a completely different Kind.

3) Evolutionist believe that the earth is billions of years old. (So do other people who adapt the Bible to evolutionist theories)

4) Evolutionist do not believe in a world wide flood caused by God, but other forms of natural disasters such as the ice age.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Read more...

The Science of Evolution

If Evolution is supported by so many facts, then why does the latest gallop poll show that less than 40 percent of the American people believe in Evolution? In America, students learn Evolution in elementary school, junior high, high school, and even college. All of the public institutions and many private institutions still teach Evolution? But somehow they still haven't convinced the majority of the masses that it is true. Even though the Internet is dominated by Evolutionist propaganda, people are still not buying into this theory. People have said that Evolution is a fact for the longest time and now with Ardi, they are rethinking their theory. I thought it was already declared a fact?

There are all types of evolution that people hear of such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution and chemical evolution. Most supporters of evolution probably don't even know the difference because they usually get confused by calling their evidence macroevolution when in reality, it is only microevolution.

according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary means "comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level" (2009)

Microevolution is the only type of evolution that happens today and even Creationist believe in Microevolution. The other type of evolution has never been observed happening. It is amazing to me that there still are so many supporters of evolution.

One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems. According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an "irreducibly complex system" cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an "irreducibly complex system" will result in non-functionality (1996). This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail. The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing. Michael Behe (1996) gives an example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex mechanism. The mousetrap has five basic parts to it: hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and platform. If any one of these parts were missing, the whole mousetrap would fail to function.

The problem with the theory of Evolution is that we know more about science today than when Darwin was alive. The cell is way more complex than Darwin was aware of, and Darwin did not know about irreducibly complex systems like scientists do today.

Darwin might not even believe in his own theory if he was alive today.

Macroevolution is, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)" (2009). "Species formation" is referring to changes outside a species, e.g., a chicken evolving into a hamster. There is only one problem with macroevolution, and that is that there is no proof for it.

One of these problems is in the genetic code. The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it. For instance, a person could take a wolf and pick out one trait like a black colored coat, and then breed it for several generations until all they would get are black wolf puppies.

Read More

Read more...