Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Reverted edits by SamCoulter (talk) to last revision by Jcw
Line 14: Line 14:  
# 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.  
 +
# Evolution is internally inconsistent.  It posits that all life must continuously improve, but on the other hand, it holds that some creatures, like the horseshoe crab, the alligator, the shark, and the [[coelacanth]],<ref>http://www.dinofish.com/</ref> have remained virtually unchanged for improbably long time periods.
 
# 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.
 
# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. It stands to reason that this must have been created fully formed, and cannot have evolved from a simpler form. The term for this phenomenon is [[irreducible complexity]], and it can be seen in countless biological features.
 
# The bacterial flagellum has been proven to be useless when missing a single part of the mechanism. It stands to reason that this must have been created fully formed, and cannot have evolved from a simpler form. The term for this phenomenon is [[irreducible complexity]], and it can be seen in countless biological features.
Line 23: Line 24:  
# "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 artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
 
# 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>
Line 59: Line 61:  
# 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. 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.
+
# 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.
 
# 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.
Line 91: Line 93:  
===Uncategorized===
 
===Uncategorized===
    +
# The common "Chimney Swift" is a bird having behavior often mistaken for that of a bat<ref>http://www.suite101.com/content/facts-about-chimney-swifts-a25479</ref> -- a mammal -- thereby suggesting a common designer rather than an evolutionary process; the Chimney Swift also migrates all the way from North America to Peru every winter, without any plausible evolution-based guiding mechanism.
 
# 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.
 +
# [[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
 
# 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.
Line 99: Line 103:  
# 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>
 
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.
 
# If religion were as harmful as evolutionists claim, natural selection would have phased it out, but it continues, meaning evolutionists are wrong about both evolution and the supposed harmful effects of religion.
 +
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
    
== Logical Conclusion ==
 
== Logical Conclusion ==
Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,910

edits

Navigation menu