Can Evolutionists Answer These??

[Dima]

I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. I bet you can't disprove even one.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think.

[OpenMind5]

First I am NOT an evloutionist. But heres some back-lash.

Originally Posted by Dima

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Bacteria and other single cell organisms didn't exactly leave behind fossils...

Originally Posted by Dima

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Biologist hate using the world higher. For all orgaisms have found a way to function for different reasons. They all have achieved teh same goal of life and homeostasis.

Originally Posted by Dima

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Not true. read my thread on "Get it Straight" It basicly says all things are made of Chem. and chemicals evolved. (Chem. Evolution)

Originally Posted by Dima

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

Originally Posted by Dima

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

ok....

Originally Posted by Dima

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Idk about you...but i have friends who look like monkeys...very hairy.

Originally Posted by Dima

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Like....what?

Originally Posted by Dima

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Just another idea. But this "flows" with a bible text. the only reason it could be an explaaintion. It might have been a major medorite too. OR my fav....ALIENS!

Originally Posted by Dima

God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think.

Ok...I am a christain...i know he is a devine creator...but that doesn't mean u can bash evoultionists. There are many people out there who support both like me. I believe in god and evoultion.

Think about that....
op5

[orbsycli]

yawn, where do you get that BS information?

[OpenMind5]

LOL! Orbsycli...lets be nice...probly one of those high filutant christain web sites that see evolutionists are the tool of the devil...thats all.


Op5

[orbsycli]

oh yeah i forgot, those exist! silly me.

[OpenMind5]

Don't worry...Let me refresh your memory

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...2437/devil.htm

[Dima]

I'm not trying to bash anyone. I appoligize if it sounded like that. Please, if you want to understand the basis of all of these facts, go to this link. it will answer all of your questions

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

[OpenMind5]

I gave you my comments and thoughts on all of them. It seems that u have copied and pasted these ideas. What DO YOU think about them? I beilive asked u a few questions in my previous posts.

Op5

[MortenS]

And why cite something that is from 1995, even Creationists have evolved in their tactics since then...pun intended.

[MortenS]

ok, here is my take on this:

I'll give you nine evidences against evolution. I bet you can't disprove even one.

How much do you bet?

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

It is true that we would really like more fossils for the important transitions between major taxa. It is not true that we have not found any intermediate forms. It is also not true that we do not have any evidence for the evolution.

One of the major points of evidence for a link between major taxa (fish->amphibium, amphibium-> reptile, reptile->mammal, reptile->bird)
is that the hypothesis formed about their relationship based on morphological comparison, of living and fossil specimens is very much confirmed when you look at independent DNA data and molecular biology.

See this link for transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1a.html

and then this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...al/part1b.html

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

First I need to know what you mean by higher order, example please.

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Abiogenisis is not part of standard evolutionary theory yet, as it is still on the hypothesis stage. Many exciting hypothesis, in various stages of testing. Very interesting field. Has not much to do with standard evolutionary theory though.

Humans resulted from animal, of course...look at yourself, then look at chimp. Do you not see the similarities? Nails? What other mammals have nails?
Is it not strange that chimps share almost 99% of the genetic material of humans if we are not related somewhat?

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Oh, I think many of the fossil finds of hominids have been quite conclusive...Take Lucy, very clear that this was a species that went upright, as us.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Please name one.

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Oh, please support this statement. For example by explaining how the marine fossils are found on in the Himalayas embedded in rocks. How did the water get that high? Where did the water dissappear to afterwards?

God is the divine creator. After you read these evidences, I want you to think.

Sorry, this did not help....still an atheist...