Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've got something rather long to post. I hope its allright. Well, here goes:

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere
In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?
I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

(4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8 )What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?
Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?
For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?
Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.
Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?
To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.
Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?
Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?
Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18 ) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?
If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.
Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".
Robert H. Congelliere
Comments? Students: Let me know what your teacher or professor said after they looked over these questions. Did they give you any answers?

Which doesn't exist, seeing as how evolutionary theory makes no claims about the existence of god. Some people (i.e. you) seem to be able to find 'atheism' hidden in it, but that has more to do with their ignorance than the actual content of the theory.


Love promotes the perpetuation of our genetic material. Empathy and cooperative impulses, which undergird morality, are essential for social animals like humans. I don't understand why you have so much trouble with the idea that these traits could have evolved, seeing as how they have clear advantages as regards our fitness both as individuals and as a species.
And moreover, it's unlikely that we'll ever be able to point to a specific gene and say, 'Well, gentlemen, we've found the "Don't Murder People" gene.' Love, empathy, altruism et al. are complex reactions originating in specific parts of our brains, not in our genes. Genes merely determine the structure of the brain, and it's easy to see how proto-humans whose genes had given them brains with more developed social impulses would have gained an evolutionary advantage, thus cementing a particular set of genes and behaviors within the evolving human race.


Well that's just stupid. Kindly don't waste our time, then, and go be obstinately ignorant someplace else.

Well that's just stupid. Kindly don't waste our time, then, and go be obstinately ignorant someplace else.

Well this isn't ironic at all. Because I know that all it would take for you to change your beliefs would be a good talk on the internet.

Sorry if I seem judgemental, but almost every atheist I have met on one of these online forums is the same in the fact that they won't change their beliefs. It is good to have a strong belief system though.

Now, I realize you might say if God showed himself to you, you would believe. I doubt that would happen (for numereous reasons) and some people would still try to explain it away.

i believe in creationism but i also acknowledged evolutionism. the theory of evolutionism, yes it is a theory, is made up by man. man can make mistakes. it is evident from the past and present and will be in the future. creationism on the other hand is the first whole book of the Bible, the Word of God. now its in clear and plain words. which do you believe?

alright, this is directed to cyberpunk hero about his convorsation with xkido

what he was saying about love and morals is logical if you had enough brains to figure it out.
Humans are the only living things(besides a dolphine) that has sex for pleasure, this is no mistake, humans are proven by science to be the only living things with emotion, love, pleasure or any kind of chemistry in a relationship! If this earth was populated through evolution and not creation then we would be the same as other animals, we wouldnt fall in love, we wouldnt feel the emotion we do, like love, lust guilt, deprestion. we wouldnt feel any of it. mortality and and the ability to love were things given to us by God, it says in the bible we were made in his image, which is why we are so different from every other living creature. there is no way you could explain all of this through genetics. emotion hasd nothing to do with genes. genes are not behavioral things, they are structual and inherited things from ones parents, they are in no way a sorce of emotion.


get off your high horse buddy!
its obviously not idocy if there are more christians in the world then any thing else. just because you have some brain blockage does not mean you need to attack someone else for it. it is knowen fact that there are more christians in the world than any other type of religion/anti-religion, the only thing that comes anywhere close is evolution, but there still isnt nearly as many. and beilve me, he wasnt preaching he was stateing his belife, you wanna hear some preaching...then PM me >=D

I'm bored enough.


All fossils are transitional. Any claims to the contrary shows a profound misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.


Why is this a separate point? Weird style of writing.


Nuclear fusion of lighter elements. This is well documented in astro-physics. It's no mystery, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, except insofar as they are both science.


They don't exist in nature for the most part. Except metals I believe. Atoms bond to form stable molecules, based on the natural laws of the universe. Why do you presume design were none is evident?


Chemical reactions.

They reach a stable equilibrium. Study some basic chemistry, it answers this.


When? I dunno, some a long time ago, some recently. It depends when the chemical reactions that formed them took place.

All of this takes place after the big bang though, as matter does not condense from energy until after the energy density falls below a certain threshold.


Scientists use the term matter to describe... matter.
All chemical compounds are matter. This is pre-school science. Why am I answering this?


Scientists do not use the term primordial soup, except where they are talking to laymen, and only then because it is a term they will recognize.


None of these things, bar the first one, are actually anything to do with the theory of evolution, and are covered in other aspects of the wider science syllabus.


Through a process known as abiogenesis.
Goes a little something like this.



Not really human emotions, other life forms have these as well. As for their source, from the physical structures of the brain, which are a direct result of genetics.



Symmetry is a very reasonable outcome, yes. It is actually the most likely one.
You misunderstand genetics is you think it is a literal blueprint describing where every cell goes, and what shape it will be. It is much more general than that.
Also, all of these are only vaguely symmetrical, not perfectly so.


Minuscule, however, as this is not what happened, this is entirely a strawman argument.

Gender only had to develop once, and all others inherit this.


Why? Because it is advantageous. Genetically combining the DNA of two specimens allows for a more robust organisms. As for how, hermaphrodites came first, although that term is really an gender-centric one in this case. Two organisms sharing DNA, after a time, individuals diverged so some were more suited to certain roles.
However, you are also stuck in a human-centric view. You forget that gender is far more complex than simple male and female. There are species with more than two, and species with one. There are species which used to have two, and now have one. I forget the name, some form of lizard, where there are only females, and where two females must simulate mating in order to conceive.


Evolution proceeds when there are differences in offspring. That does not require more than one parent. In fact it is faster when there is only one, as mutations have a greater effect that way.


Your idea of a partially developed eye seems to be one cut in two. All of these are documented, but I will cover one because it takes too long to cover them all.
First stage of an eye is simple light sensitive cells. Next comes a pit lined with such cells, giving vague directional light sensitivity. Then the pit deepens, and becomes similar to a pinhole camera, in that it slightly focuses the light, giving the ability to detect direction better. The opening of the pit gets plugged with mucus, acting as a lens, again increasing the ability to see more clearly. The primitive lens is then covered in a layer of transparent cells, protecting the eye. The hard covering surrounds the lens, and is shaped more lens-like, improving vision. The lens is covered in more transparent cells, a cornea. The lens cells around the lens attach it to the surrounding area better, and thus allow it to be pulled and stretched, allowing it to be focussed. And so on. The best thing, ALL of these stages exist in animals living today.


You assume that fully functional requires it to be the same as modern animal's organs. This is not the case. Also, first "animal" is a single celled organism, doesn't have any organs whatsoever. This only comes into play long after multicellular life develops.


For the same reason they teach about the basics of gravity before teaching how matters forms. (Which is only taught in advanced classes)


Pretty good I would have thought. It is essentially a balancing act, which is precisely what evolution is best at, optimising a balance.


It ain't science though, as there is no metric of design.


Come from? Why must it have "come from" anywhere? It is a fundamental force of the universe.

Btw, there is no "The Law of Gravity". There are various laws of gravity, and various theories. Please specify which you mean.


not really, no.


Evidence of what, exactly?

That the universe is large, yes. Nothing more.


Not really, no. Because it begs the question what created the creator. You will of course claim that your creator figure needs no creator, he simply is. Which means that causality is NOT universal, in your world view, which kinda ruins it as an argument.


How do you measure design in an objective manner?


I cannot find any mention of a chair of evolution on their website, and all references I can find for that name are from the early 20th century. Really digging back into the past for that one.
As for the quote itself, I cannot find reference to it.

To deal with the point made. He is wrong. Creatures can be observed to evolve, no more is needed to dismiss his argument.

But let's look deeper. Science is the study of the natural world. How exactly does he expect anyone to do anything other than reject supernatural causes for events?


None of those are relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution, which works just as well if the universe was created as if it was not.
Whoever wrote this insists on attacking ALL of modern science.
Keep that in mind.


That it can be observed is one thing. But tell me this, can you give me "coercive proof" of say.. anything? Nope? Thought not.
Science deals with proving things beyond reasonable doubt. The realm of absolutes is that of mathematicians and philosophers.


Nope.


Funny that he never bothers to add any evidence of his ideas.