Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
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 genetic like many liberals claim and not a sinful choice, evolution should lead to the extinction of [[homosexuality]], yet to this day homosexuality exists among humans. See: [[Causes of homosexuality]]
+
# If [[homosexuality]] is genetic like many liberals claim and not 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]]
 
# 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.
  
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,188

edits

Navigation menu