Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

[AFJ]

Alex, my faith is in God AND his word. We are instructed to stay in sound doctrine. Did you read Rom. 5:12. Death came through one man because of sin. One of the reasonings of evolution is that not all things are DESIGNED perfectly that there are mistakes, giving an argument for unguided mutation.

The Apostle Paul taught that death had entered into the world because of sin, so it is to be expected that things will not perfect. You can see things breaking down everywhere. Even our cells have programmed death.

Death came into the world through Adam, not an amoeba 3 billion years ago. This is a scriptural doctrine from the beginning to the end and it has everything to do with salvation, justification, sanctification, redemption, the atonement, and entire plan of God. I can give you scripture after scripture.

[alextemplet]

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to come here and bolster your faith with logical fallacies claimed as evidence for a Creator. Is your faith not strong enough to stand on its own without such support? Or if it isn't, and you need some evidence of God's existence, then such evidence exists, but you're looking in the wrong place. I'd be happy to elaborate on that in private, if you choose to e-mail me. I noticed you have yet to respond to the e-mail I sent you a few days ago. Are you going to take me up on the offer of a private discussion or not?

[AFJ]

I am having a hard time understanding how you are able to argue that because we do not currently understand something means that it is forever inexplicable. It could just mean that it is perfectly explicable and we simply haven't been able to figure it out yet. What you are saying is not only a logical fallacy but also a sign of weak faith. You sound as if you will no longer be able to believe in God if everything can be explained. I cannot understand how anyone can think this way.

Alex, first of all who are you to judge me, and my faith. How is it that because I believe in the unseen hand of God in the cell that my faith is weak. Even if it is explained further, I still see it as a miracle. It is something that no man can design. But then the people in Jesus day saw miracles and still would not believe.

[AFJ]

And you quantify and qualify my faith, when you don't even know me. God only knows my heart and faith. Do you think that because you say these things it makes it true?

Alex, at least you have not been able to accuse me of being wrong in my science, because the things I have written, I have researched and can be verified. Maybe you do not agree with my beliefs, but my science has been correct.

I will not judge your faith though, but I will only tell you what the scripture says.

[alextemplet]

I am not trying to judge you, although I can see how you might get that meaning. I am trying to understand you. If you feel your faith is secure then why do you feel the need to bolster it with something that can so easily be disproven? That doesn't look like strong faith to me; it looks like desperation. That is why I am having such a hard time understanding your motive.

I do agree that all of creation can be seen as a miracle. In fact that is one of the biggest reasons I am pursuing a science degree.

You have yet to give me an answer as to whether or not you are willing to pursue a private discussion.

[AFJ]

Alex, my motive is not to bolster my faith. I am a witness that's all--that's what we are to do--let our light shine. We live in a nation that started with biblical principles--the Mcuffy reader in public schools which had bible stories in them. The day was started out with prayer and the pledge of allegiance. Now we infer to our children that they are souless products of nature. Just accidents.

And you have disproven nothing to me. I have listened to evolution since 1970 when I first saw it at show and tell in a Time magazine. Radiometric dating is untestable and in doubt by some scientists. It is at best inconsistent, and has been proven to greatly exaggerate ages of known-age rocks. And there is only more and more evidence of water catastrophe. You can watch the History channel and see it. Every other time I watch it there's another geologist explaining how this or that was formed by massive flooding, ice, landslides. Burial grounds all over with evidence of sudden death and trauma as they were covered quickly with sediment.

I have evidence inside me and there is evidence on earth and in the cell and all you have to do is tune in to the right voice.

[alextemplet]

I have evidence inside me and there is evidence on earth and in the cell and all you have to do is tune in to the right voice.

If you are speaking of evidence for a deity, then you are indeed correct that there is evidence that such exists; however, I repeat that you are looking in the wrong place. Relying on long-since disproven theories will accomplish nothing but reveal your own ignorance of the scientific method. Science requires a person to have an open mind, to be willing to admit when evidence might prove a person wrong or prove an opposing theory right. I can put the question to you very directly: Are you even willing to consider that evolution might be true, or that your own theory might be wrong? If not, then you are in the wrong place. This is why I suggested we pursue a private discussion through e-mail, and you have yet to even give me an answer as to whether or not you are interested in that route. I have asked you this question many times, and a simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

[AstusAleator]

Back to the original topic... what was the original topic??

[alextemplet]

Back to the original topic... what was the original topic??

Are there any solid arguments against evolution?

[wbla3335]

Not yet.

[GaryGaulin]

AFJ, you had excellent questions. And also found the following sentence that I am not surprised has a weakness:

Speciation

Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart.

But this would take vast amounts of time also, as your theory says....

That was added as a bridge to population over time related topics that Evolutionary Theory supports itself with but it's only one of the types of speciation that would here be out of place dwelling on like it's the only one. That's one reason why scientists are in trouble, not all speciation events have "transitional" forms especially paleopolyploidy where there is immediate doubling or more in size.

You are right, especially with it coming before a fruit fly experiment where if that was what we were relying on for speciation then I doubt a one school year would matter. I'll work on that. Let me know what you think I can do. It might fit in the Behavioral Speciation section that is the only slow one gene at a time speciation type that is even still rapid enough for lab experiments.

Being that evolution would take so much time it seems that the populations would get so large that there would be evidence of it in our crust, seeing they would overpopulate and then regulate through lack of resources, catastophe, or disease.

Trilobites were once everywhere, which is why there is a mind-boggling number of different kinds in public and private collections. They could quickly multiply until they run out of food then maybe ate each other until there was more food available. Something happen then they were driven to extinction then something else took over.

Most of the crust is silicon and oxygen, with of course all the other elements and compounds. [/i]

WHERE ARE THE VAST AMOUNTS OF CALCIUM THAT WOULD HAVE COME FROM THE BONES OF THOSE ANIMALS WHO DID NOT FOSSILIZE?

I know that in soil and bedrock is "calcite" that makes cave stalagmites, buffers water and clogs pipes. Large deposits of once living shells and bones are mined for calcium and magnesium. Marble deposits are pressed into stone prehistoric shells which is also hard to tell they were once living things.

BECAUSE IT ALLEGEDLY TOOK SO MUCH TIME TO SPECIATE, WHY WOULD CALCIUM NOT BE DISPERSED EVENLY IN THE CRUST,

Like in the ocean experiment in the theory, there is water and other "sorting" that carries things to where they collect, are deposited. Where calcite precipitates out of ocean water into basins it can in the far future be mined for lawns and gardens.

BECAUSE THE ANIMAL POPULATIONS WOULD HAVE OVERPOPULATED, COVERED THE EARTH AND THEN REGULATED THE POPULATIONS? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE CRUST OF THIS.

And how did immobile plants seperate? They happened to somehow seperate and then mutate and then their transitions become dust--no trace.

Some transitions happen right away, others in too short a time for there to be fossils. This theory predicts missing transitional forms leaving no trace, because they never existed. Maybe I need to include a little on the missing transitionals in the theory.

Sexual reproduction has a good amount of crossover exchange which greatly accelerates the ability to adapt and change.

Yes completely true within designed kinds.The genetic material between certain species will not do this though--it produces nothing. And preferential instinct keeps this from happening also. Hippos will not mate with an alligator even tough they are in the same habitat.

There are "living fossils" that have changed so little it seems to us that they should have become a new species by now or at least new morphology. But this change is relative to how fast our genome changes in comparison to theirs. So it is not time alone that matters, we must also consider the genome learning rate in our consideration of how long it takes for a given genome to speciate.

You mean like blue green algae for on example. Supposedly the oldest living fossils or fossils period. A bit out of the subject at hand but evolutionary theory compares apples to oranges, comparing asexual to sexual, microorganisms to complex multicellular creatures who have entire immune systems, and do not rely on plasmids to adapt and survive.

And yes, my thoughts exactly, evolution would predict no living fossils in bacteria, because of the cloning between parent and daughter. How would they speciate and be seperate species. Once they changed their genetic material it should have remained and the old would have died off quickly. Cyanobacteria are still here after supposedly 2.8 billion years.

I'm glad you agree, and I like your Cyanobacteria example. It's a very simple design that works very well. A genome like that can possibly survive until the sun blows up. But one like ours has to rapidly change for something of our complexity to have emerged by now. If our genome was the same way, then we would still probably not be much past bacteria yet. My my theory-driven opinion anyway.

[AmairahRyder]

Okay, I have to admit, I am a Christian. I don't believe in evolution. But that's beside the point. Every evolutionist paper and book I've read, every teacher I've listened to, has said that the world came to be with an explosion of gas. Where did that gas come from? That's the point many of us try to make. If the world came from some type of gas, who made the gas? This isn't exactly solid proof, but it's something to think about.