Christians, could you cite a reason why evolution is untrue?

I am not a Christian but I like to say that evolution is untrue. There are thoughts behind each and every creation. It was determined how all of your interior parts must function. There is sense and intelligence in it.

Regarding earth, if there is no gravitation, people and all other creatures must fly in the sky. They can't get oxygen and they will die. Gravitation, rotation and revolution is made with reason.

God or supreme power had created spirits too. In fact without spirits, all human beings and other creatures are nothing. Science says nothing about all these invisible elements which always live with all creatures including human beings. Spirits are separate elements. A human being during his/her life time is living with many spirits which have joined one by one since birth. They are knowledge, skills, feelings, emotions, interests and everything. Even thoughts are not your own. For example, when you want to take a decision on a subject, one after another the spirits think and you just listen, choose or reject the ideas which they transmit to your mind through your brain in the form of thoughts. Brain is just a media to connect the spirits to your mind. A mind is just a computer's mind. After the destruction of a computer completely you will not get it's mind. The same is the case with the human beings. Soul is nothing but an energy needed for the functionality of a body. It is not a spirit or anything else. After death no one lives in any form and there is no reincarnation. All human beings are just robots made of flesh and bones and toys of the spirits for their games.

There are certain things like the Cambrian explosion, abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record, living fossils, extreme convergent evolution, the limits to artificial selection, nanotechnology in the cell, the amazing requirements of changing from single-celled life to true multicellular life, the difficulty of evolution producing features that require multiple mutations before gaining a benefit, etc. that cause us to find Darwinian evolution unlikely.

15 Questions For Evolutionists:

http://creation.com/15-questions

Responses To The 15 Questions:

http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1

http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-2

http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3

Evolution is not a Bible teaching. It is only a theory.

if evolution is true then can you explain why my dog clearly hasn't turned into an elephant?

How about a dozen reasons? One's not enough, two, maybe. How about a hundred? Not sure the length of the list is what will convince a denier. Evidence is for a thinker, a truth seeker, not an opinion seeker.

Sometimes it is argued that evolution is true because it is the "scientific consensus position." Most scientists believe in evolution. But this doesn't make it true. This fallacy is called the "inappropriate appeal to authority," or Ad Populum Fallacy.

Those atheists denying the evidence of the Bible are essentially saying "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural." Atheists fear and deny anything to do with God, and demand that Science must be limited to natural explanations.

This begs the question because whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Another example would be, "how can the Bible be right about a ~6,OOO-year-old earth, when we know from radiometric dating that the world is billions of years old?" This assumes that radiometric dating gives consistently reliable results; but creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. This hypothetical critic has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove.

Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?

Evolution is the biggest hoax ever claimed to be "fact", and alongside it the supporting myth of millions/billions of years. The entire world has been hoodwinked w/o any valid evidence whatsoever! This is a blasphemy to intelligence and knowledge and truth, a grave error and destructive to us all, perpetrated with ulterior motive to destroy God so man can be god. There is simply too much evidence of coordinated effort to remove God from our society, an intolerance of Christianity. The trumpets have sounded and the push back has begun.

But let's get back to the evidence rather than circle our thinking around myths of OPINION like evolution. It's tiring chasing one's tail, and you can't go anywhere with it, or while doing it.

We could discuss the fossil record which contains the mineralized remains of organisms that once lived on the earth. This is exactly what creationists would expect to find, since the Bible records a global Flood which destroyed virtually all life on earth, burying billions of organisms in sediments which have now turned to rock. These fossils come in distinct groups or "kinds," which are found in a somewhat organized order, consistent with the progressive order in which these organisms were buried as the Flood waters rose to higher elevations with different ecologies.

Although there is much variation within each kind or taxonomic family, there is little if any evidence of change between those basic kinds--exactly what creationists would expect, but contrary to the natural expectations of evolutionists.

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or a redwood tree in one step (Futuyma 1983, p. 197).

Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.

Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.

There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence. Anyone can repeat and observe the results; empirical science, observational science, operational science, all the same thing.

Evolution is part of "historical" science that requires no observable, testable, repeatable evidence. Evolution is an unsupported OPINION.

Science cannot even make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—but let's say you can just for fun. Turn it into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.

What you are looking for is empirical evidence. That may be a new idea to most atheists, so define your terms. Empirical evidence is how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact.

Empirical Evidence against evolution

1. Watson and Crick disproved Darwinian Evolution in 1953, but some people still must believe in "mythology & folklore," because we're still discussing it, still trying to get the correct information out to dispense with an infinite number of lies that develop around the myth called evolution.

The mechanism for Darwinian Evolution was discredited in 1953 when Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA refuted Darwin's assertion that the possible variation was infinite thereby disproving the common dissent aspect of Darwin's Model.

2. Crick says the human genome cannot occur randomly. If life cannot occur randomly, evolution in the past is impossible. Proof enough. Even if they some day do figure out how to create life from non-life in the lab, doesn't make any difference.

3. Evolution relies on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is empirically proven false over and over, and will remain false until it isn't. Abiogenesis violates the natural universal law of biogenesis--life comes from life, not non-life. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven false. That means evolution has no starting point and is therefore non-existent.

4. The Natural Laws pertaining to information hold that information is immaterial and that matter cannot bring forth anything immaterial. Yet the whole of the material universe contains vast amounts of information. To assert a materialistic explanation, it is necessary to demonstrate information arising from material interactions.. When we include DNA into the mix we are talking not just information but language - including syntax and grammar and complex algorithms. Not only can science not explain this but the Natural Laws pertaining to Information assert this type of information cannot be produced by matter or material interactions.

This is yet another line of evidence that invalidates systematic materialism..

5. Natural selection is well established but a common tactic is to point to evidence of natural selection and assert it proves common descent.. best to clarify Common Descent so everybody is talking about the same thing.

a. The net product of natural selection is a loss of information - the opposite of what is needed to drive common descent.

b. Gene knockout experiments have demonstrated once a gene is knocked out the cell uses other pathways to obtain what it needs. As a result there is no basis for natural selection to preserve the mutation, and good reasons not to.

c. Experiments and observation demonstrate most mutations are not random but are the product of guided physiological processes - once again observation and experimentation contradict the evolutionary model's claims.

d. Genes are not central and experimental evidence has demonstrated it is not the genes but other factors that determine body types - as all the selection in the world will not produce a novel body type because body type is not mediated by the genes.

At first the inferences used to argue evolution are almost compelling, but looking more closely they all fall through. Evolution fails because the more observations you make and the more data you gather the less viable it becomes. The point has been reached where those arguing for evolution sound more like the Greek Sophists than scientists!

-- the Darwinist's have been comparing the genes but ignoring the organization and structure.. Looking at organization and structure they would have found that the genes for this or that protein was located on different chromosomes. Genomics is concluding that all mammals have a common compliment of proteins (and so genes coding for those proteins) but where those proteins are coded in the Genome varies from genus to genus. Building a tree of life taking into consideration where in the genome the individual proteins are coded and you have something completely different than just looking at individual genes. This is one of several reasons Genetics and genomics empirically disprove Darwinism.

The simple fact is the more data that comes in - the less plausible Darwinism (any of it's forms) becomes. Were it not for the social and political aspects of the theory it would have been abandoned a long time ago.

I could give you a thousand reasons the theory of evolution is wrong but for the lack of you really caring what my answer is I will just give you this>>>>>>If life could occur spontaneously or ever did we would still see the same happening today: We Do Not.

Have a nice day.

First of all Evolution cannot even be made out without containing logical invalidities and contradictions of reason.You cannot make it out. Like Jehovah's Witnesses proof texts it relies upon isolated appeals that cannot fit with an overall system. It simply does not bear examination but has to be taken upon blind trust and cannot be questioned, as if whoever advocates somehow knows better.

Secondly, it is not science but supposition and assumption.

Thirdly, despite the appeal to masses of evidence, it only takes one conclusive piece of evidence to be repudiated and there are many.

Evolution can only be held from gross ignorance, or from heart motive. Look at how it is the dominant subject in Religion & Spirituality. It is nothing more than a device to deny God and sin.

So now we know the motive, we know why it is flogged so hard.

Evolution IS possible. From simple organisms became octopus which is evolution (from medusa?).

"The truth is because they die, (you) can't prove it." <--- This is the cite.

If you are mushroom or onion doesn't change anything, you only try to prove (that all died).

Lucy or human, does not change the thing.

People will say : "Oh you don't know with kids, you have very hard job"

Other will say : "Oh you don't know with people, you have very hard job"

...(etc) will say : "Oh you don't know with others, you have very hard job"

The cite you asked is up.

No common ancestor.

Subsequent to "the beginning", no they can't ... prior to the beginning, they need to.