1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. 2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us. 3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory. 4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy. 5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been. 6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones. 7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions. 8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity. 9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive. 10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.
lol looks like this was written by a first year university student. anyway, i dont wanna analyze it all, but number 9 is ridiculously oversimplified and ignorant. The Miller-Urey experiments in the late 40’s and early 50’s showed that organic molecules could be formed by inorganic processes under primitive earth conditions. By discharging electric sparks in a large flask containing boiling water, methane, hydrogen and ammonia, conditions presumed to be similar to those of the early earth, they produced amino acids and other organic molecules experimentally. Using variations of their technique, most of the major building blocks of life have been produced: amino acids, sugars, nucleic acid bases and lipids. This experiment proved that organic molecules could be formed from inorganic monomers under the right conditions. while the author of this list is correct that a coin is never going to sprout legs and walk around, that is merely because a coin is made entirely of pure metal, whether it is copper or nickel. No scientist has ever claimed that a metal object could evolve into a life form and it is a terrible example to support this kid's argument. [ lol maybe after i take a nap i will provide more counterarguments to each of the 10 points.... each of the arguments are quite flawed ]
^ and number 1 - 8 and 10................................... one could also says its rather ignorant to go on about 1 point yet conveniently leave the other nine LOL, that shouldn't happen, after all it was written by some 'kid', shouldn't be to hard for you to put right......
mmm i misread one of the sentences in there, nvm i dont know the age of the person who wrote it maybe it was al sharpton, that guy is h-core
1) is kinda off isn't it? why can't u argue it backwards and say one can't possibly KNOW how to design and create something... Knowing how to design and create something requires a chance of the knowledge coming to fruitition... Inventors aren't born with intricate designs of their inventions, these ideas happen upon them... do you really believe the creator of the nuclear bomb knew how to split an atom at the age of 3? I mean this is like arguing which came first... Chicken or the Egg? You're trying to argue that someone has to have a design in order to create... then who designed the higher being to create us he couldn't have possibly spontaneously generated by chance could he? i'll help argue the rest later... maybe...
chicken came first!!!!! lolz, lets not start that one again be quick and argue it plz, so i can counter-counter-argue it, thanks.
This is funny, there was just a video similar to this on LiveLeak.com and it was absolutely anihalated by the posters while using scientific facts. I believe I was one of the posters, too. And irreducible complexity has been disproven already. 1. A flagellum, the most complex biological mechanism known to man will work without many many parts gone. 2. The eye. Do a search on LiveLeak if you want to find the video. I think it was posted about 3 days ago. Not sure. And, the egg came first. A dinosaur didn't just instantly morph into a chicken. The change gradually happen inside the egg.
what is #10 trying to say? that evolution, like creationism, is based on faith? and that he would rather believe some higher being created everything rather than evolution? it's called the evolution theory for a reason... its a theory... no one takes it as fact or should take it as fact... so i don't see the point in #10 or how that's a flaw against evolution? if nething, its also a flaw against creationism isn't it?
science is basically: make a conjecture then prove proof(s) to either prove its true or false. this process is on going. so a theory is only good so long as there is no evidences/facts to prove false, it is open ended process, my man. whenever a theory or some part(s) of it is proven false, then that part/theory is re-study and a brand new and improved conjecture/theory is formed......then on and on....un-ending. actually, if anyone read the "15 answers to creationists' nonsense" at Sciam.com would have say what the fxxk is those 10 points talking about? creatists frequently misunderstood and misquote scientific theories to make their false points. remember two falses doesnt make a true.
you know what... apparently people like descartes and berkeley had their own theories about existance and evolution.. take berkely for example... he says everything thats going on right now is all in our minds.. like if im typing on the computer, the computer is just a set of ideas... which makes me think im typing on a computer.. and he says that when i leave the room, instead of having the computer disappear because its a collection of my ideas, he says a God is here to continue the existance of the ideas of a computer... what the hell is that bullshit... and take descartes... he says that i APPEAR to be typing on a computer, but in the outside world, maybe im not.. my senses tells me i appear to type, but it maybe deceitful... and all this relates to his theory of an evil genious whos manipulating our senses into believing im typing on a computer... but my point is, evolution in this author's definition may just be a figment of his/her ideas, nothing more.. so based on descartes theory, we will never know if those ideas are true or flawed.. yea.. it gets more complicated in philosophy...
lol i wrote an 1800 word essay on descartes, the guy is a mofo, i swear he was probably just super high when he was writing his shit. The only exception was his coining of the phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum". i love how elegant the latin is, and how it sums up his philosophical perspective in such a simple and concise manner.
shit tell me about it. i was learning this in lecture, and the whole hour and a half, i was like... wtf?!?! for a guy who made some pretty big discoveries in math, i dont know how in hell he came up with this shit..
2 major flaws of the argument its too wordy.. and its missing the point evolution theory is a theory, and theories are explanations we accept until they are proven wrong and superseded by another. go on and believe in your faith. but stop trying to disprove darwin's theory cos disproving it will not prove the existence of god. they are unrelated issues.
Amen (no pun intended!). Let's not even mention the flaws/inconsistencies/atrocities/and other problems with the bible... but for those interested, here's a sample: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html People question the existence of God/Bible for many reasons. E.g. Why is there evil in the world? Why do bad things happen to good people? etc... BUT FOR ME, it's all about the dinosaurs!!!! Will someone please talk about the dinosaurs?!!!
thing is science can at least point and give objective views on evolution and possible theories. Intelligent design just says, cause we cant prove it, we'll say god made it.... I think thats so true I hate these evolution bashing stuff, cause in the end, theory of evolution has provided much much more evidence to prove its correct than intelligent design ever has. And people should stop mixing faith and science, they can happily live next to each other in my eyes
whoa. call all creationist-haters ... come to this thread!!! lol. jk. -lol i think some of the statements made here are not fair. i think some of us are jumping down creationists' throats too quickly and too fast to even realize that atheists and scientists makes the same type of misconceived notions on Christianity too. i do not agree with this statement. it sounds great on the outside, but truthfully the relationship between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are tie together. they are polar opposite. one theory confesses that there is no god and the birth of life is through the production of one's own mistakes and triumphs. and the other confesses that there is a God and that He created all life (lets bear in mind, that I'm speaking for all creationism; since the assault of evolution is on all creationistic theories, not only Christianity's.) let's reverse the logic. if evolution is factually proven -- that humans descended from one-single organisms and then evolved through millions of years to reach to today's "dicks and janes". can it break the foundation of the theory of creationism? Yes and possibly religion all together. But so can the prove of creationism in the face of the theory of evolution. therefore, to state that they are "unrelated issue" is completely false and incorrect. the two theories (I'm calling creationism a theory, simply on the scientific definition of a theory: an hypothesis that has not been proven yet) is a two way street; both theories are related in a particular format -- and yet true that if one disproves the theory of evolution, will everyone come and join hands in celebrate for Christianity? probably not, but that isn't because creationism isn't true -- but our humanistic sociological and possibly psychological stubbornness. and the same will go -- vice versa.
lol meh, one of the most major things i can't stand about christian creationism is their idea that the earth was created 6000 [edited] years ago vs the scientific standpoint that says it was formed 4.5 billion years ago. now it doesn't take a genius to see that there is definitely something wrong with one of the interpretations... there is quite a huge difference between 6000 and 4.5 billion. studies of the time it takes for tectonic plates to shift, rocks to form and erode, and 'carbon dating' (which catholics seem to hate for some reason), all point to the world being atleast several billion years old. everything iv ever studied in chemistry and biology goes against the idea of a 6000 year old planet, its just not feasible, and yet hardcore christians hold to this concept like a fat american kid to his mcD's cheezeburger. Teaching children that the world is 6000 years old would mess a kid up so much as soon as he/she were to hit high school level science classes, and, atleast to me, it just seems completely illogical. Like the Creationist Museum in kentucky.. the shit they teach as fact there seems to be just monstrously out of touch with reality. i mean.. wtf... 27 million dollars spent to brainwash kids that humans used to ride on dinosaurs and coexist with velociraptors... and that the T-rex used to eat coconuts. one day.. maybe 100 years from now, if we haven't killed each other to the point of extinction in some huge war over resources, we are going to look back on stupid crap like this and wonder how humanity could be so gullible. Of course, by that time, we should all be worshiping at the church of the flying spaghetti monster, the only true god.
let me stop you there, fearless_fx. where in the Bible does it state that the world was created "3000" years ago? i'm not trying to be a smartass or douche. but, it seems to be me it is the same type of people telling others that Jesus Christ's birthday is December 25. if it isn't written specifically in the Bible, there is chance that the information is false and incorrect.
my bad, i meant 6000. the creationist museum is based around this concept of the earth's creation being roughly 6000 years ago
