posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:41 PM
Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient
to account for the existence of all natural things.
Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of
subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it
to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion
produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually
Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc.
The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an
instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is
supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed
energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system
(it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living
organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has
transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in
entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful
application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the
evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.
Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can
the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the
outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened.
Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence
of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate
formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?
Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis")
that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been
calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the
entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously
complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this
task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no
designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of
intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the
transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current
instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true
transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about
the rest of the creature too!
Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number
of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for
example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.
Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those
individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would
it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible
sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this
for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human
eye strains all common sense and experience.
Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for,
keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you
even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction
would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the
principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.
Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain
It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why
would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly
comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be
possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies
with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable
is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order
change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing
information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.
Complex things require intelligent design folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could
carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at
this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance,
even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long
we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a
"robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there
be any other explanation?
[edit on 27-12-2004 by rich34]