Changes

# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.

# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.

# 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.  

# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.

# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems.  Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young.  Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously.  Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.

# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems.  Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young.  Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously.  Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.

# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons:  First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.

# [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons:  First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.

# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.

# Evolution cannot explain how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if evolution said that beauty were useful then we would all expect to see the same things as beautiful.

# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>

# The fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>

# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>

# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>

# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.  In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>

# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.  In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>

# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s.  While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth. Scientists claim that the problem many humans have with wisdom teeth are a confrmation of tehir theory, and in this case the evidence can be interpreted in that way.

# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species.  No such result has ever been observed.

# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species.  No such result has ever been observed.

===Uncategorized===

===Uncategorized===

# There is excellent evidence indicating that [[dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref>  

# There is excellent evidence indicating that [[dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#History_of_dinosuars</ref>  

# No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.  

# No one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild. Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this.  

# 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.

# 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.

# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.

# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.