We did not come from monkeys. My degree was science/chemistry. Some scientist believe this junk theology…but many do not! It’s a theory….in other words…an idea which has never been proven or disproven…therefore it remains a theory.
Now a few examples of why I do not believe this theory:
Any animal that has evolved does not remain….yet the monkey is still with us…the average day monkey has not evolved into a man!
I believe many animals have adapted to their environment and thus their features change to meet their surrounding needs…thus adaptation! However, to evolve into something totally more advance such as monkey into man would mean that the monkey would no longer exist because man would take his place…why does the monkey still exist????
The same can be said for apes and all other animals someone could possibly say man evolved from! Why do they all still exist today?
Charles Darwin was a very smart man. His adaptation theory is quite genius and his studies were revolutionary and also opened the eyes of the scientific community…however his evolution theory lacks common sense from such a pioneer!
Even if you disagree with the above…how do you explain how any life began on earth? Life cannot just spring up…and Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Consider the following:
Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils–creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000’s of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms….
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
1st law of thermodynamics states the energy(in this case life) cannot be created or destroyed! In other words life cannot just form…some form of energy must have been present! This is not a theory, it’s a law.
Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past. Again this cannot happen as energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!
Darwin himself wrote:If 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.
Darwin wrote:To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
The ability to fly supposedly evolved spontaneously by chance at least four times: for insects, birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles. Yet intelligent man did not figure out the principles of flight until the past century.
Many of what Darwin considered to be transitional species have been discredited. Even Archaeopteryx, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds, is not. Modern birds have been found deeper in the fossil record. For the most part nature’s divisions are not blurred and indistinct, currently or in the fossil record. The phyla appear in the fossil record almost instantaneously in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, with no apparent connections.
Evolution teaches that fish evolved from lower animals. How did they get fins? No evolutionist claims that fins came in one generation, but rather in many generations. In other words, the development of fins was a GRADUAL development. And from where did birds get their wings? No evolutionist claims that wings came in one generation, but rather in many generations. They claim that the development of wings was through a very slow, gradual process. Now when the process, let us say, was half way complete, the "fin" or the "wing," as the case may be, would be useless — good for nothing — for a fish cannot swim with a part-fin nor can a bird fly with a part-wing! A part-fin or a part-wing, would be a monstrosity, not a perfect adaptation such as we see everywhere in nature. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose. That fact proves that EACH CREATURE, IN ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES, HAS BEEN EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW, and was so created in the beginning.
Hugo de Vries aptly said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."
Science has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life can only come from life (law of biogenesis). Things dont improve naturally as a matter of course (entropy). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.
Prof. Fleischman, modern zoologist of Erlangen after repudiating Darwinism, said, "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."
Dr. Clark (recognized as one of the world’s greatest biologists) was biologist of the United States National Museum, he stated bluntly that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong "on almost all vital points." "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups, arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex. . . .Appearing as a distinct creation."
Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).
Another thought: If there is not supreme being that created heaven and earth and all creatures, then explain how the Earth and world is so organized and designed for life? How did our planet adapt to us???? If the oxygen mixture were more than it is we would die…proof of this is hospitals in earlier years were giving a little too much to preemie babies….they died! In the rest of the universe both WATER and OXYGEN are very scarce; in fact, hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all matter in the universe, yet our earth is designed for life…unexplained or superior design????
There are scores of other "laws" in the universe that are perfect and necessary to make up this vast universe. All students of astronomy are familiar with Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion. There are "laws" of motion, laws of heat, laws of light, laws of sound — and all are PERFECT, never-changing, never-failing. Rear Admiral D. V. Gallery (USN; writing in the Saturday Evening Post), said, "The stars. . . .in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of LAW. Earth’s scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask, "Where came these laws?"
Edwin B. Frost, at one time astronomer with the Yerkes Observatory, wrote: "Everything that we learn from the observational point of view in the study of astronomy seems to me to point precisely and always toward a purposeful operation in nature. . . . "I cannot imagine planets getting together and deciding under what law they should operate. NOR DO WE FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLAR OR STELLAR SYSTEM THE DEBRIS THAT WOULD NECESSARILY ACCUMULATE IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT RANDOM. . . .
Proof that the Universe had a Beginning "to assume that the universe had no beginning . . . fails to account for the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF RADIOACTIVITY." (Scientific American).
Animals breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; green plants (in sunlight) take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Without plants in the world the time would soon come when all animals and all men would use up the available oxygen in the air and would perish." * Who designed such a complex system??? * "Give the plants a free hand and the water would in time become so alkaline as to destroy them. Give the animals a free hand and they, in the end, would be killed by the acidity they themselves produced; but the two working against one another insure the maintenance of conditions vital to both. All life is like that: a thousand interacting and balanced forces, like the flying buttresses of a towering Gothic Cathedral; destroy one and the whole graceful fabric comes down in irreparable ruin." (Creation’s Amazing Architect).
Flowers supply bees with nectar; bees in turn transfer pollen from one flower to another, thus preserving the life of the species. HMMMM??? These species formed a treaty all on their own?????? Is this their own plan or of a superior design?
IF THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WERE INCREASED, THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WOULD SOON BE RUINED BY MOLDS! Who keeps these in check???? By chance they sustain??? Not probable!!!
The atmosphere gives us a protective covering from the harmful effects of the ultra-violet rays from the sun. Dr. Florence E. Miller, scientist connected with the Smithsonian Institute, says that we live "miraculously" on this planet, protected from eight "killer rays" from the sun, by a thin layer of ozone high up in our atmosphere. "If that little belt of ozone, approximately forty miles up and only one-eighth of an inch thick (if compressed), should suddenly drift into space, all life on earth would perish." The whole subject of "ozone" in the air is so unusual, it seems almost incredible. "There are two kinds of ultra-violet rays — long and short. The long are deadly, and are absorbed and neutralized by that ozone belt. If permitted to come through, they would blnd and blister the human race, and would soon destroy all life on earth. The short violet rays, on the other hand, are necessary to life. If that belt of protective ozone were too thick, so that the short rays could not come through, we would all die of rickets. "the most deadly of the ‘eight killers’ comes through in quantities just sufficient to render great service, without destroying us. It keeps down the growth of green algae, one-celled plants that grow in streams. Unrestricted, they would multiply so rapidly that they would clog all the streams of the world, and lead to endless flooding of the world. On the other hand, it is fortunate for the earth as we know it that the algae were allowed to develop in moderation."
The earth is just THE RIGHT DISTANCE from the sun, relative to the amount of heat and light the sun pours into space. If the earth were much closer, it would be too hot; If it were much farther away, it would be too cold. Dr. William J. Humphreys, formerly with the United States weather bureau told the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees "you could bid goodbye to all the big cities of the earth,"
Blind evolution is helpless to produce such endless intricacies of design and adaptation. Why – how -could chance evolution, by "random changes," produce an intricate, living, workable mechanism like the examples described above?
Our world was designed for us to live in…everything designed for a reason. The food chain for example is a complex design of energy passed on…who designed such a plan???
reproduction of new life is complex! Who designed such this plan?
All things organic and non organic were designed and have specific function in the universe! These did not randomly decide to do their part…it was a superior design created by a higher being!
We did not come from monkeys. My degree was science/chemistry. Some scientist believe this junk theology…but many do not! It’s a theory….in other words…an idea which has never been proven or disproven…therefore it remains a theory.
Now a few examples of why I do not believe this theory:
Any animal that has evolved does not remain….yet the monkey is still with us…the average day monkey has not evolved into a man!
I believe many animals have adapted to their environment and thus their features change to meet their surrounding needs…thus adaptation! However, to evolve into something totally more advance such as monkey into man would mean that the monkey would no longer exist because man would take his place…why does the monkey still exist????
The same can be said for apes and all other animals someone could possibly say man evolved from! Why do they all still exist today?
Charles Darwin was a very smart man. His adaptation theory is quite genius and his studies were revolutionary and also opened the eyes of the scientific community…however his evolution theory lacks common sense from such a pioneer!
Even if you disagree with the above…how do you explain how any life began on earth? Life cannot just spring up…and Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Consider the following:
Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils–creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000’s of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms….
Recent discoveries prove that even
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
1st law of thermodynamics states the energy(in this case life) cannot be created or destroyed! In other words life cannot just form…some form of energy must have been present! This is not a theory, it’s a law.
Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past. Again this cannot happen as energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!
Evolution teaches that fish evolved from lower animals. How did they get fins? No evolutionist claims that fins came in one generation, but rather in many generations. In other words, the development of fins was a GRADUAL development. And from where did birds get their wings? No evolutionist claims that wings came in one generation, but rather in many generations. They claim that the development of wings was through a very slow, gradual process. Now when the process, let us say, was half way complete, the "fin" or the "wing," as the case may be, would be useless — good for nothing — for a fish cannot swim with a part-fin nor can a bird fly with a part-wing! A part-fin or a part-wing, would be a monstrosity, not a perfect adaptation such as we see everywhere in nature. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose.
NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose. That fact proves that EACH CREATURE, IN ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES, HAS BEEN EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW, and was so created in the beginning.
Hugo de Vries aptly said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."
Science has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life can only come from life (law of biogenesis). Things dont improve naturally as a matter of course (entropy). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.
Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).
Another thought: If there is not supreme being that created heaven and earth and all creatures, then explain how the Earth and world is so organized and designed for life? How did our planet adapt to us???? If the oxygen mixture were more than it is we would die…proof of this is hospitals in earlier years were giving a little too much to preemie babies….they died! In the rest of the universe both WATER and OXYGEN are very scarce; in fact, hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all matter in the universe, yet our earth is designed for life…unexplained or superior design????
I realize what a theory is…this is all to start a debate!
And yes I do have a degree in Science/Chimistry…and I realize there would be those who go nuts of the mention that evolution is nonsense…thus my debate!!!
There are scores of other "laws" in the universe that are perfect and necessary to make up this vast universe. All students of astronomy are familiar with Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion. There are "laws" of motion, laws of heat, laws of light, laws of sound — and all are PERFECT, never-changing, never-failing. Rear Admiral D. V. Gallery (USN; writing in the Saturday Evening Post), said, "The stars. . . .in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of LAW. Earth’s scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask, "Where came these laws?"
Edwin B. Frost, at one time astronomer with the Yerkes Observatory, wrote: "Everything that we learn from the observational point of view in the study of astronomy seems to me to point precisely and always toward a purposeful operation in nature. . . . "I cannot imagine planets getting together and deciding under what law they should operate. NOR DO WE FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLAR OR STELLAR SYSTEM THE DEBRIS THAT WOULD NECESSARILY ACCUMULATE IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT RANDOM. . .
Proof that the Universe had a Beginning "to assume that the universe had no beginning . . . fails to account for the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF RADIOACTIVITY." (Scientific American).
Animals breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; green plants (in sunlight) take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Without plants in the world the time would soon come when all animals and all men would use up the available oxygen in the air and would perish." * Who designed such a complex system??? * "Give the plants a free hand and the water would in time become so alkaline as to destroy them. Give the animals a free hand and they, in the end, would be killed by the acidity they themselves produced; but the two working against one another insure the maintenance of conditions vital to both. All life is like that: a thousand interacting and balanced forces, like the flying buttresses of a towering Gothic Cathedral; destroy one and the whole graceful fabric comes down in irreparable ruin." (Creation’s Amazing Architect).
Flowers supply bees with nectar; bees in turn transfer pollen from one flower to another, thus preserving the life of the species. HMMMM??? These species formed a treaty all on their own?????? Is this their own plan or of a superior design?
IF THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WERE INCREASED, THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WOULD SOON BE RUINED BY MOLDS! Who keeps these in check???? By chance they sustain??? Not probable!!!
The earth is just THE RIGHT DISTANCE from the sun, relative to the amount of heat and light the sun pours into space. If the earth were much closer, it would be too hot; If it were much farther away, it would be too cold. Dr. William J. Humphreys, formerly with the United States weather bureau told the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees "you could bid goodbye to all the big cities of the earth,"
Blind evolution is helpless to produce such endless intricacies of design and adaptation. Why – how -could chance evolution, by "random changes," produce an intricate, living, workable mechanism like the examples described above?
Our world was designed for us to live in…everything designed for a reason. The food chain for example is a complex design of energy passed on…who designed such a plan???
I Got my Degree from The University of KY if you must know!
I knew I’d get a stir from everyone on this topic. People get so cruel when it comes to such a subject as evolution! I don’t mind people bashing me! I only put this together to start a debate…and that’s what I accomplished!
If you throw in a few off beat phrases or words it’s nice to see who catches the bait. I’m giving the 10 points to the one who catches the biggest wrong in this thread!! Let’s see who is really a science expert?
Dear Libby
I noticed from your profile that you are a recent newcomer to "Yahoo Answers". Your question has been posed many times before. I will say that your logic is sound, but will be attacked harshly by those that are evolutionary diehards. You will be called stupid, ignorant or a moron. They will cite the ACLU’s website. This website goes as far as to tell people how to debate Creationists.
They will also bring in "every body knows" statements such as one answerer did when he talked about transitional fossils, and that there were many that have been discovered. Notice he gave no source. Another belittled you by asking if you were ignorant of "Nature". Now I will use an "everybody knows" statement. Everybody knows that "Nature" is a publication that has a strong evolutionary bias.
Others will either ignore or play down issues that do not support their point of view. I noticed that nobody explained how DNA, RNA, cell walls, amino acids, proteins and all the other things that are needed to maintain a cell all came together at one time and then lasted long enough to reproduce asexually. Tack on to this the whole process of sexual reproduction, and you have a huge hurdle for those that believe in evolution to overcome.
Another thing that you will find is that they will put you and I and anybody else that challenges them in the same category as those that they say are absolute idiots such as those that believe in a flat earth, (Richard Dawkin is famous for this technique.) and that the craters on the moon were made by Satan as he struggled against God. (The ACLU website indicates that a prominant Christian preacher said this.) As you would see if you examined the ACLU web site they set out the religious doctrine of atheism. (They call it Scientific.) And then tell their leaders and disciples how to win converts by undermining all other religious teachings.
Once you understand that evolution is an atheistic religion passing itself off as science you will have a better chance of going toe to toe with them in debate.
My daughter is a Chiropractor. Recently she indicated to me that those apes that are supposed to be closest to us genetically have a different number of vertebrae than humans. I recently looked at an article in the National Geographical Society. “Everybody knows” that they are extremely pro evolution. They indicated that they had found fossil remains of the oldest human baby at 3 million years. However most of its vertebrae were missing. In the same article they used fossils that had been shown to be fakes, as genuine finds. I find it interesting that another discovery of fossiled human remains are not mentioned in their article. The reason. These fossils, (Ten humans in all, five males, four females, and one child) were found in the same strata layer as the dinosaur graveyard in New Mexico. “Everybody knows” that dinosaurs went extinct about 100 million years ago. Humans have only been around for 3 million years. Therefore the find is fraudulent. That’s how evolution works. (See below for the source.)
Remember Libby, that the ACLU spends millions upon millions to advance their religion. I think that the main reason for this is that they are too proud to admit that there may be a God. (If there was a God, that God might require something from them.)
Here are some web sites that you will find interesting.
www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.
This is the website of Geologist Don Patton. He has several evidences that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Interesting.
Another is:
www.evolution-facts.com
This is a website that looks at hundreds of different difficulties with evolution.
A third is:
www.darwinismrefuted.com
This is a look at evolution from an Islamic point of view. (Christians are not the only ones that have problems with evolution.) I found this site both large and well thought out.
I hope this helps,
God bless
Bryan