| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]] | | [[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]] |
| − | The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any one of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 1%. | + | The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any one of the 49 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 1%. |
| | ==Counterexamples== | | ==Counterexamples== |
| | ===Logical examples=== | | ===Logical examples=== |
| Line 15: |
Line 15: |
| | # There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one major kind of animal evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Also, "Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?"<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref> | | # There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one major kind of animal evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Also, "Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?"<ref>[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]</ref> |
| | # If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity. | | # If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity. |
| − | # If [[homosexuality]] is a result of genetics like many [[liberals]] claim and not [[Homosexuality and choice|a sinful choice]], evolution should lead to the extinction of [[homosexuality]], yet to this day homosexuality exists among humans. See: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]] | + | # If [[homosexuality]] were a result of genetics as many [[liberals]] claim and not [[Homosexuality and choice|a sinful choice]], then evolution should lead to the extinction of [[homosexuality]], yet to this day homosexuality exists among humans. See: [[Causes of Homosexuality|Causes of homosexuality]] |
| | # The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc. | | # The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria are, and always have been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerance of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc. |
| | | | |
| Line 62: |
Line 62: |
| | #Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing. | | #Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing. |
| | #There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no similar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement. | | #There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no similar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement. |
| − | #The whale is an extraordinarily unique sea-based mammal (see diagram above right), which has no plausible evolutionary ancestor. | + | #The [[whale]] is an extraordinarily unique sea-based mammal (see diagram above right), which has no plausible evolutionary ancestor. |
| | | | |
| | ===Uncategorized=== | | ===Uncategorized=== |
| | + | # Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages. |
| | # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations. | | # No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations. |
| | # Circadian phenomena—internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings—defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref> | | # Circadian phenomena—internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings—defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref> |