Evilution: the Descent of Man

[DeletedUser]

Evolution: a faith
Almost four hundred years ago Lord Francis Bacon contributed the scientific method to the realms of science. The scientific method is a form of inductive reasoning which includes three steps: observation, theorization, and experimentation. All reputable scientists accept this method as the only way to gather scientific facts. True science is observation and experimentation, and since the origin of life is something that is unable to be observed or repeated, it is out of the realms of science. However, we can take the information that we do know through observation and experimentation, compare those facts to the evolution model and the creation model, and decide which model better explains the origin of our universe. Yet, whether you choose evolution or creation it is an act of faith since neither can be scientifically proven.

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” – Sir Arthur Keith, anthropologist

“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.” – Dr. George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Science

 

[DeletedUser]

Evolution: a faith without a foundation
Although evolutionist scientists agree that evolution happened, they have yet to come up with a means by which evolution is progressed. They have no answer as to why there is so much variety amongst the organisms of our planet.

“Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species.” – Ernst Mayr, Harvard University biologist

“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it…” – Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History

“Evolution is…troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and development mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery – speciation itself.” – Keith S. Thomson, professor emeritus of natural history at Oxford University

One would think that in the almost one hundred and fifty years since Darwin wrote his book On the Origin of Species that evolutionist scientists would have come up with the answer; but, no, speciation is still “the central mystery” of evolution.

 

[DeletedUser]

Physics: evidence against evolution
In the following section, we will compare the first and second laws of thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. As we look at the application of these two laws in the natural world, we will see that they are in direct contradiction with the theory of evolution. These two laws have been tested under all kinds of conditions and have been proven to be true.

The first law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of conservation of mass-energy) states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. This law goes directly against the theory of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, our universe has evolved from nothing and is still evolving today. However, this law is in complete agreement with the Bible, which teaches that creation ended on the sixth day.

“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which he had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which he had done.” – Genesis 2:1-2 NAS

“It is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” – G. K. Chesterton, author and Christian apologist

The second law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of energy decay) states that every system left to its own devices will tend toward a condition of minimum potential energy and maximum entropy. This law is in even greater contradiction with the theory of evolution than the first. The theory of evolution tells us that most everything in this universe is evolving into a greater organism. Yet, the Bible is, again, in complete agreement with science.

“And, ‘You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are a work of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain; and they will become old like a garment, and like a mantle You will roll them up; like a garment they will also become changed. But you are the same, and Your years will not come to an end.’” – Hebrews 1:10-12 NAS

“…if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” – Arthur Eddington, astronomer

There are several arguments that are put forward to try to reconcile the theory of evolution with the laws of thermodynamics. One argument is that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems (such as the earth). This argument contends that the energy that the organisms of this earth gain from the sun is enough to offset the energy lost through entropy. However, there are two serious errors with this argument. The first is that it asserts that if energy is present it is usable. Undoubtedly, there is enough energy coming from the sun to earth to power the hypothetical progression of evolution; however, this does not mean that evolution has occurred. For example, if you have a load of lumber and materials lying in the sun they do not evolve into a house. However, if solar panels are set up and used to power machinery, a house can be built (notice that an intelligent designer must be behind this process – man). The second problem with this argument is that it requires that there is such a thing as a closed system. However, there is no such thing as a closed system. All systems receive and impart energy to and from their environment (Morris, 43).

Another argument that evolutionists put forward is that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to living systems. At first glance, the growth process does seem to contradict the laws of thermodynamics. In growth, we see an increase in complexity and design; but, if we look closer, there really is no contradiction at all. The key phrase in the previous sentence was “we see.” We see an increase in complexity and design; but, really, what we see is only the outward manifestation of the great complexity and design already present in the genes (Huse, 62).

The development of life, directed by the instructions contained in the DNA, presents no problem to the creationist; but it is a great problem for the evolutionist. How did the first life evolve without this pre-existence of order and design? Here again we see the contradiction between the facts of science and the theory of evolution.

Another law of physics that we should look into is the law of cause and effect. This law states that every event is the result of a cause. No effect is ever greater than its cause, but it may be lesser. Here I would like to quote from Dr. Henry Morris (Scientific Creationism, 20):

“Using causal reasoning, the theistic creationist notes that:
The First Cause of limitless Space must be infinite
The First Cause of endless Time must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless Energy must be omnipotent
. . . The First Cause of infinite Complexity must be omniscient
The First Cause of Moral Values must be moral
The First Cause of Spiritual Values must be spiritual
The First Cause of Human Responsibility must be volitional
The First Cause of Human Integrity must be truthful
The First Cause of Human Love must be loving
The First Cause of Life must be living
“We conclude from the law of cause-and effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, . . . omniscient, moral, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being! Do such adjectives describe Matter? Can random motion of primeval particles produce intelligent thought or inert molecules generate spiritual worship? To say that Matter and its innate properties constitute the ultimate explanation for the universe and its inhabitants is equivalent to saying that the Law of Cause-and-Effect is valid only under present circumstances, not in the past.”

 

[DeletedUser]

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!

 

[DeletedUser]

Some points:
1. Evolution isn't a faith.
2. Evolution isn't the descent of man. It's a scientific fact.
3. There is no Nobel prize for Science.
4. Evolution can be proven. You just won't accept that. Facts aren't dictated by your opinion.
5. What is the point of this thread?

 

[DeletedUser]

Mathematics: evidence against evolution
The improbability of any complex system arising by chance is proof enough that evolution is impossible. A look at the science of probability should convince any person that it takes much greater faith to believe in evolution than in creation.

In a “warm, little pond” of completely accessible components, the probability that any number of parts can come together and form a functioning organism is very small if the number of components to the organism is large. Assuming that there is only one combination that will function correctly, the method of finding the probability that the parts of a three part system would come together correctly is done by multiplying the number of parts in a series together. That is, if there are three parts, you would multiply 1 x 2 x 3 = 6. If there are four parts, you would multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24. If there are n parts (n being a variable), you would multiply 1 x 2 x 3 x …x n. The answers to these multiplication problems are called factorials. The factorial of three (written “3!”) is six. Therefore, the probability that an organism of 100 parts (ridiculously simple compared to the most basic living things) would come together correctly and form a functioning organism is one out of 10^158 (100!= 10158). The number 10^158 would be equal to a number written as “one” followed by 158 “zeroes.” To put this gigantic number into perspective, there are only 10^80 electrons in the universe (Morris, 69).

Now, the evolutionist might say that we have incorrectly calculated the probability of our 100-part integrated system evolving. He might say that he does not believe that the 100-part integrated system evolved all at once, but rather over time – piece by piece. He believes that the organism developed by a slow mutation process of trial and error. However, our evolutionist friend has only made his case harder to prove. To determine the probability of a 100-part integrated system developing by a step-by-step process, you would have to take 1 out of all the numbers represented in the series 1! + 2! …+ 100! Obviously, this number is gigantically larger than 10^158.

“The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” – Ilya Prigogine, a Belgian physicist and winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry

Compared to a living, reproducing organism, our 100-part system is very primitive. According to NASA, the most basic type of protein molecule that could be classified as living is composed of at least 400 linked amino acids (Huse, 68). Furthermore, each amino acid is composed of several atoms, and each atom is made of an amazing arrangement of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Life cannot be synthesized in the laboratory by “rocket” scientists; how can one believe that life, against such insurmountable odds, came about by chance?

“Great is our Lord, and of great power: His under-standing is infinite.” – Psalm 147:5 NAS

 

[DeletedUser]

According to the theory of evolution, our universe has evolved from nothing and is still evolving today.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the birth of the universe. It is about life, not the universe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Biology: evidence against evolution
Comparative anatomy proves that there is a Creator.

Around 1800 George Cuvier established the science of comparative anatomy – the study of the likenesses and differences in the body structures of the organisms of our world. The fact that many animals and humans share basic traits in skeletal and other structures has been interpreted by many evolutionist as proof that we all evolved from a common ancestor. However, creationists more logically interpret this similarity as proof that we all have the same creator. We were all created to live under the same conditions. We eat the same foods; we breathe the same air. In creation, God altered His basic design when a creature needed a unique feature or special capability. We, humans, do the same thing with our creations. All vehicles have wheels, seats, lights, a steering system, and an engine, but we adjust the basic design for racing, luxury, mass transit, or cargo.

Comparative anatomy also provides some damaging evidence against evolution. Certain creatures that, according to the theory of evolution, are not even remotely related have very similar organs. For example, an octopus eye is very similar to a human eye; but humans are not even remotely related to octopuses.

 

[DeletedUser]

Transitional forms are impossible.

For an organism to evolve into a higher organism by means of a step-by-step process, it must remain completely functional at every stage or it will die. For example, organs such as the heart or lungs (essential organs) must always be functioning for the creature to stay alive, and organs such as the eyes or ears (nonessential organs) must also remain functional for the animal to compete for survival. Darwin acknowledged this fact in his book Origin of Species when he said that “f it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” – Charles Darwin

“It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things [as eyes] once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.” – Frank B. Salisbury

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way [by mutations and natural selection] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” – Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer

According to the theory of evolution, bats evolved from small, four-legged, rodentlike mammals similar to modern shrews. A bat’s wings are composed of very long finger bones between thin layers of skin. For a shrew’s forepaws to become wings, its
fingers would, obviously, have to grow to the length of a bat’s “fingers.” Needless to say, this process would take a very long time; therefore, the shrew’s paws would be useless for grasping or running long before they became wings. This creature with “wing-paws” would not be able to feed itself or flee from predators – such a malformed creature could not have reproduced or survived long enough to develop into a bat. This logical assumption is confirmed in the fossil record. There are no transitional forms between insectivores and bats. Icaronycteris, a bat that evolutionists tell us lived during the “Eocene” period (57.8 million years ago), is the “earliest” known bat fossil – it is 100% bat.

Reproduction is the most important factor of survival for a species. If a species cannot reproduce, it will quickly go extinct. On the evolutionary “family tree,” reptiles descended from amphibians. However, there is no possible way that the amphibian egg could transform into a reptile egg. Any transitional form would be a hostile environment for the developing embryo, and it would certainly die. Most differences between the amphibian and the reptile eggs would have to be simultaneously changed before an amphibian could ever become a reptile. For example, the egg of an amphibian is not protected by a shell, as is a reptile egg, but is surrounded by a jelly. In a reptile egg, the embryo is connected to a yolk sac and an allantois (a part of the developing animal’s conceptus which helps the embryo exchange gases and handle liquid wastes). In an amphibian egg the embryo is not connected to either a yolk sac or an allantois, but is actually part of a yolk mass. However, the egg is not the only thing that would have to change – the amphibian’s entire reproductive system would have to be altered to be able to produce these new reptile eggs. These, along with many other such differences, make it clear that any transitional form between an amphibian and a reptile would be impossible.

Now that amphibians have miraculously evolved into reptiles, it is now time to take flight! That’s right, reptiles must now become birds. Everyone knows that while running, we breathe more heavily because our muscles require more oxygen. However, our breaths are limited by the capacity of our lungs. Flying requires much more oxygen than running; and therefore, birds are equipped with several air sacs to supply them with the extra oxygen. Needless to say, reptiles do not have these. In fact, a reptile’s entire body cavity would have to be reconstructed to be able to accommodate these air sacs and the muscles necessary for flight. Furthermore, reptiles do not even have the same type of lungs that birds have. A reptile’s lungs are supplied with oxygen during inhalation, and the air leaves the reptile’s lungs during exhalation. However, a bird’s lungs are supplied with oxygen during inhalation and exhalation by means of their air sacs. When a bird inhales, air passes strait through the lungs into the air sacs behind the lungs. When the bird exhales, the air is drawn back through the lungs for a second time, thus allowing the bird to draw the maximum amount of oxygen out of each breath. The differences between the lungs of reptiles and birds extend to many other areas as well. Reptiles receive oxygen in branch-like bronchi; birds receive oxygen through tubular parabronchi. Parabronchi have a cross-flow design, which allows air to flow through a bird’s lungs instead of in and out of them. In fact, birds are the only vertebrates that have parabronchi. In addition, a bird’s lungs are rigidly attached to the bird’s frame – they do not expand and contract within the chest cavity. Therefore, we see that the bird’s respiratory system could not have developed from “numerous, successive, slight modifications” of the reptile respiratory system but only from a massive reconstruction.

 

[DeletedUser]

Most creatures today, including octopi and humans, shared a common ancestor which had eyes like ours. Pretty simple.

 

[DeletedUser]

Natural selection prevents evolution.

These examples should demonstrate to anyone that transitional forms could not have existed. Even if it were somehow possible for a creature to start developing into another life form, natural selection would eliminate it! Our “shrew-bat” would be incapable of feeding itself or fleeing from predators. The “amphitile” would not last longer than one generation, and who knows what would happen to a “repbird” with a morphing respitory system! What many evolutionists do not understand is that natural selection is not a synonym for evolution, and it does not prove evolution. In fact, creationists used the idea of natural selection first to prove creation! Twenty-four years before Darwin published The Origin of Species, Edward Blyth, a creation scientist, publish a book on natural selection in the view of special creation. Natural selection is one of the many barriers set into place by God to prevent “evolution.”

“The [peppered moths] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection – or the survival of the fittest – in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from the beginning to end Biston betularia.” – L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Origin of Species

Evolutionists have often cited the peppered moths as evidence that evolution has been observed. However, all that we have seen in the peppered moths is natural selection in action. The moths did not acquire new traits – no moth that at one time was light-colored ever became dark-colored. There was no increase in complexity or design. There had always been light, intermediate, and dark-colored varieties of the peppered moths. What had happened was a shift in population ratio between the light-colored moths and dark-colored moths. The reason for the shift was because the moth’s environment had changed (Huse, 108). Before the Industrial Revolution in England, tree bark had a lighter color; therefore, the lighter colored moths were camouflaged and the darker moths were easily eaten by birds. After about forty-five years of industrial growth in England, the bark of trees in industrial centers, such as Manchester, had become sufficiently darkened by pollution to the effect of camouflaging the dark-colored moths and revealing the light-colored ones. Hence, the light-colored moths were eaten and the dark-colored moths flourished until they constituted about 95% of the moth population.

 

[DeletedUser]

Punctuated equilibrium does not save evolution.
Also called the “hopeful monster” hypothesis, the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis stipulates that evolution did not happen over millions of years but rather by quick macromutations. Adherents to this belief claim that new creatures have been created by sweeping rearrangements of the genetic code in one generation; thus, producing a new but completely functional organism in one generation. However, this hypothesis can be proven false on several points. First, if this hypothesis is true, we should be seeing it in action today. If new creatures are developed quickly in this manner, they should be popping up left and right. Second, macromutations are impossible. Even Darwin rejected the idea that evolution could be accomplished in this manner:

“He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings . . . will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. . . . To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science.” (Origin of Species, 229)

 

[DeletedUser]

Why are macromutations impossible?

Macromutations are impossible because mutations can only destroy or neutrally affect the genes that we already have. That is, mutations can never add genetic information, but they may subtract it. If a creature does not have the genes necessary to develop wings, no mutation will give it the genes needed. However, if an animal does have the genes which guide the development of wings, a mutation could damage the those genes. In fact, most mutations (99.99%) are destructive (Huse, 90). Furthermore, mutations are very rare – only one mutation occurs in every ten million duplications of the DNA molecule (Parker, 163)

Darwin’s theory was postulated at a time when the science of genetics had not been developed yet, and men such as George Mendel were just starting to understand its secrets. Mendel, unlike Darwin, established his findings on extensive experiments. Mendel used plants to try to discover how traits are passed down from parents to offspring. Mendel and other geneticists concluded that there are boundaries to biological change in kinds (horses, dogs, cats, etc.), because variety in a species is governed by pre-existing variety in their genes (Parker et. al, 385). You can only loose, not gain, genetic information through mutations.

 

[DeletedUser]

Paleontology: evidence against evolution

When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, paleontology had not yet yielded up a large amount of fossils; and the lack of “missing links” was dismissed, as evolutionists believed that over time our ancestors would be unearthed. In fact, Darwin even admitted this as a flaw to his own theory:

“[T]he number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Origin of Species, 292-293)

“The geological record is extremely imperfect. . . these causes, taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why. . . we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. . . . He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory.” (Origin of Species, 342-343)

However, there is no longer any lack in fossil finds today. Since Darwin’s time, over 100 million fossils have been unearthed (Parker et. al, 367); and the millions of transitional forms that would be required to bridge the gaps between kinds have not been found. Even the fossils that evolutionists have proposed as transitional forms are controversial and, comparatively, very few in number; and many of them are badly fragmented. Furthermore, these proposed transitional forms are very few in number of species. This is especially true of plants, which are virtually devoid of an evolutionary tree.

“It has been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years.” – Professor C. A. Arnold, paleobotanist

“. . . but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” – Professor Corner, botanist

Perhaps one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against evolution from paleontology is the complete lack of any pre-Cambrian fossils. Highly organized and diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates are found in lower Cambrian rocks, but there is a complete absence of any fossils in pre-Cambrian rocks. Obviously, it would have taken millions of years for these complex marine invertebrates to have evolved, but there is absolutely no fossil evidence as to how it occurred. Evolutionists can only offer what they think might have happened. These “Cambrian” fossils have no “ancestors.” If evolutionists cannot even explain “the origin of species,” how can they explain “the descent of man”?

“If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.” – Marshal Kay and Edwin Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History

Let us continue, however, to the next step – invertebrate to vertebrate. Not one fossil has ever been found of a transitional form between invertebrates and vertebrates, although this transition is thought to have taken about 500 million years and have involved billions of animals.

“The regular absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon. . . . It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. . . .” – George Gaylord Simpson, vertebrate paleontologist

“In the sediments of late Silurian and early Devonian age [about 400 million years ago], numerous fishlike vertebrates of varied types are present, and it is obvious that a long history had taken place before that time. But of that history we are mainly ignorant.” – Dr. Alfred Romer, vertebrate paleontologist

Another piece of damaging evidence against evolution is the existence of “living fossils” such as the coelacanth. For many years, the coelacanth was put forward as a link between fish and amphibians because of its unique fins. Instead of being attached to the skeletal system, a coelacanth’s fins are attached to its body by thick, fleshy lobes which allows the fins to be more freely rotated. It was said to have dwelled in shallow waters and was often depicted crawling out of the water onto land using its lobed fins as legs. Coelacanths were assumed by evolutionist to have gone extinct during the late Cretaceous period (80 million years ago) because a lack of coelacanth fossils in the subsequent strata. However, in 1938 a live coelacanth was found about 19 miles off the coast of South Africa. Not only are coelacanths alive today, but they live in deep waters! The most damaging piece of evidence that coelacanths provide against evolutionists is the fact that these fish have not changed or “evolved” over the 80 million years that they have been absent from the fossil record. Modern coelacanths are exactly the same as fossil coelacanths.

“Throughout the hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form and structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution.” – Jacques Millot, “The Coelacanth,” Scientific American

(to be continued)

 

[nashy19]

I think I can solve this in a link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Separate your fact from theory.

Edit: Sorry if I got in the way of your reserves.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I can solve this in a link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Separate your fact from theory.

Edit: Sorry if I got in the way of your reserves.

He also seems to think we want a religion. I don't worship evolution or anything else. It's a theory that fits the facts, so I'm happy with it. Christianity has zero to offer that every-single-other-religion-in-the-history-of-man-has-not-also-offered.

 

[DeletedUser]

I couldn't help laughing at every single post. Most of his "facts" don't make any sense, and some actually back up evolution.

 

[DeletedUser]

He really isn't going to believe you are right guys/girls. He believes the lies about evolution already and is too stubborn to change. Also, he just keeps typing those lies.

 

[DeletedUser]

My eight-year-old niece could poke Oregon-sized holes in his Rhode Island-sized argument.

Pretty sure that's an insult, but my US geography is hazy at best.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think evolution has a point