Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

There are logical reasons apart from Scripture's direct testimony to reject the theory of evolution and accept creation and a Creator.

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible
trilobite fossil


Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.


brotherjoseph's picture

Someone in the evolutionary theater years ago made the comment that if you put out a pile of building materials that remained for the length of time necessary, they would eventually assemble themselves into a structure. He also contended that if you seated a monkey at a piano, and again given enough time, that the monkey's random plinking would eventually become organized and he would play Beethoven.
Most thinking persons would not agree; after examining a building and it's complexities, they would agree that it was planned, arranged, and constructed by an intelligent designer.
Taking a look at any of Gods creations reveals highly complex design AND a the ability to repair itself and reproduce itself "according to it's kind."
Man has yet to even understand the construction of an Amoeba, much less the much more complex creations. We have been studying God's handiwork for over six thousand years; we have dissected much of His works including the Atom, but have yet to produce any remotely related creature or building block from nothingness.
I enjoyed the little tale about the "worlds most prominent scientist getting to talk with God". As the exchange goes; the scientist tells God, "We don't need you anymore, we can even make a man now." God is a bit surprised and asks the scientist to show him. The scientist agrees and arranges his equipment and then goes out to the garden and brings in a pail of earth to put in the machine. God says "Ahem, you must use your own soil, not mine."


KARS's picture

Yahoo! I finally found my missing VT issue. I have read just about every article to my family yesterday; for it is now 12:22am. I liked this article it had me laughing so hard that I made up my own word. Anyway, having pets over the years, I know that God has given the animals the ability to learn something after repetitive lessons. And the way they learn is with a treat with one word commands. Other than that, they do what God designed them to do. I mean after all; can you train a bee to wash the dishes so you don't have too?


AisforATHEIST's picture

Some of what you say is bang on. Most of what you say is incorrect. For instance "macroevolution" (or speciation as it is correctly known) is scientific fact. there have been many occasions where speciation has been observed. one of the more commonly referred to is A 14 year experiment done with Anolis Lizards. They were spread across 14 Caribbean islands that had no prior lizard populations. These environments differed. Over the course of the experiment, the lizards adapted to their surrounds, and formed *new species*. Scientists were able to predict exactly how each lizard population would evolve before seeing the results. With the process of Evolution, new species had been formed.

Scientists at Michigan state Uni have successfully witnessed a new strain of E.Coli. They kept a frozen living fossil record. after noticing the change they revived different generations to find the point of mutation. they found pre-mutation cells did not have the ability to feed on citric acid under any circumstances. However post mutation cells did. The mutation was beneficial allowing the E.coli to feed on the citric acid and that colony flourished. It was a Naturally selected random mutation


brotherjoseph's picture

You seem to have a bit of confusion between adaptation and evolution. If you take note of many of Gods creatures, you will find that they have been given the ability to adapt to changes in their environment or food supplies. Even the lowly virus adapts to attacks. This is all a part of the created creatures makeup in order to survive as these changes come upon them. A caucasian person has white skin until exposed to ultraviolet, he then turns brown as his body adapts to what could otherwise be a deadly attack at the cellular level. Many species have adapted or mutated, but none have evolved.

I am continually amazed at how eagerly some embrace the evolution theory which proposes that eons of time passes while creatures make the minute changes that eventually makes them into a new creature. With those billions of changes, surely there would be billions of examples in the fossil record of intermediate species. There is however, not one example of an intermediate specimen. We find some extinct species fossils, we continue to find formerly unknown species fossils, but still no intermediate fossils. Why do you think that is? Because Charlie's theory is simply imagination.


Skip's picture

Hello AisforATHEIST,
I was taught that mutation is not Evolution.
Is that not correct?
God wisely built into many living things the ability to adapt/change.

Nadine Yacoub

Nadine Yacoub's picture

I completely agree with this article and the arguments!
I recently had a debate in my Biology class and the topic we were discussing concerned evolution. I was in the anti-evolutionist group. Here is an argument that I discovered that could prove why evolution is false... without using the Bible:

1. The Chromosome Count Proves Evolution Is Wrong

There is no evidence - scientific - that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Each species has a fixed chromosome count. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. For example, if an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, then it could not successfully mate with a female. So it could not be passed along to the next generation. To conclude, evolving a new species is scientifically and physically impossible.

Nadine Yacoub

Nadine Yacoub's picture

Here are a few more arguments that could prove evolution is false without the use of any religious books:

1) The fossil record:

The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and the link from man to ape is missing in the fossil record.

2) DNA:

There is a very big difference between a chimpanzee's DNA and a humans DNA. They both have different intelligence and different anatomies

3) Happening Today:

If evolution were an actual procedure, then we should see it happening today. But we don't.


Carnuntum's picture

@Nadine Yacoub

Your arguments are absolutely erroneous.

1) You claim that an animal with a missing or extra chromosome cannot successfully produce offspring. That is untrue. People with Trisomy 21 (although rarely) can successfully produce a child, and thus debunks your point.

2) Just because we have not found these fossils, means that they do not exist? That is akin to saying that because I have not yet found a book I am looking for at a bookstore, surely it must not exist.

3) In fact, the DNA of humans and chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical. That said, chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago, and because evolution does not occur in patterns, it is only logical to assume that we would have differences.

4) This argument is silly. Evolution in complex creatures occurs gradually over millions of years. For us to see it happening, we would have to live for millions of years. However, we have seen evolution occur in less complex creatures such as bacteria. This is why bacteria become immune to medicines meant to kill it


KARS's picture

What is important here is faith & repentance. If we spend our time arguing about when the LORD made His creations; then we are wasting our time. The fact is He made them and that is that.

He wants us to change ourselves to become more Godly in character, that is what is important. Stop making it so hard. Take a good look outside and what do you see? His magnificent works around you.


DanielSnedden's picture

I recently came accross a video on Youtube which has an animation of the flood in Noah's time. It lines up with God's account in Genesis of how the earth was formed and explains many of the geographic anomolies which non believers cannot explain in their models. The Harvard graduate's name is Walter Brown and he calls it the "Hydroplate Theory". It explains coal formation and why there are manmade items sometimes found in the deposits. (Hammers, jewelry, metal containers, etc.) It also explains why dinosauers and human activity are found together. It is a very interesting idea and deserves serious consideration. Thanks for the article.


mm2smile's picture

In response to Curnuntum:
1) In the bigger picture, if a person with trisomy 21 reproduces, does their offspring always have an extra chromosome as well? Have we seen a species with 28 chromosomes start to consistently and generationally have 30?
2) Maybe your argument would be true for 1 book in one bookstore, but when you are looking for a whole series in every bookstore you can find, and talking to every expert, and still haven't found evidence if it'd existence, you probably will question it's existence.
3) the DNA may be very similar, but there are far more differences than DNA can account for. Humans have far greater cognition, and much more complex society and commerce than any any other species. Is there evidence of any other species even having full fledged commerce?
4) again, bacteria does evolve and adapt, but we don't have any evidence of it becoming more than bacteria, turning into a higher life form.

Overall, as started before, we see evidence of adaptation within species, but not everything coming from nothing. Darwin also thought that cells were simple building blocks and if they were found to be more complex, which they clearly are, he would be wrong.


PleaseUseLogic's picture

Wow. This is a stunning work about ignoring facts. First of all, this is saying that essentially all biologists are either wrong or lying. Also, don't say "why do we even bother talking about this, god made it." If you can say that with a straight face, you should go into theater. Any theory should be doubted, whatever your personal beliefs. Yes, I am a Christian. To respond to brotherjoseph's first comment, the simple answer is no. No actual biologist would say a stack of bricks would turn into a building. That violates both common sense and physics. To his second statement, he is misinterpreting the postulation. What it is saying is that a lot of things can happen randomly; they just take a really long time. Theoretically, the monkey would press the keys in just the right order to play Beethoven. Also, saying that humans can't do something doesn't mean that it is impossible. Yes, we don't understand a lot; that doesn't mean that what we do understand is false. To everyone that says "Oh, it should be in the fossil record!" the answer is not necessarily. Most fossils are either imprints or bones. Bacteria don't have bones, and imprints of something microscopic are hard to identify.


PleaseUseLogic's picture

To everyone who says "Beings adapt, not evolve" that is nonsensical. "Adapting" is microevolution. What you call evolution is macroevolution. What is the difference between adaptation and evolution? Essentially, scale. One creates new species, and one changes your skin color. However, both things occur by exactly the same process. In response to Skip, evolution is the creation of new traits via mutations; mutations are the path that lead to new traits. To what Nadine Yacoub said in his first comment, that is false. While apes do have two more chromosomes than us, we both have essentially the same genes. The two just fused together to become one chromosome. Something like this could happen, or a large chromosome could split apart. Yes, this is unlikely. However, unlikely does not mean impossible.The thing you don't seem to understand for your fourth argument is that evolution takes a very long time. Like, several million years. Also, macroevolution has been seen to occur. Did you actually look this up? If not, please do. To what KARS said, that is the viewpoint of an utterly closeminded person who would fit well in the 1000s. Keep an open mind.


VinnieDaBest's picture

Somatic mutations occur in non-productive cells and won't be passed onto offsprings

Germ line mutation occur in reproductive cells which are passed onto offsprings

The cause of mutation is a DNA that fails to copy accurately, when a cell divides it makes a copy of it's DNA and sometimes the copy in not quite perfect.
That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation.

Sabrina Peabody

Sabrina Peabody's picture


You made some points that I think some people would like to discuss further. However, while you do continue to comment, please do not line them with words that will not edify others and may not promote a positive discussion. Calling people ignorant and closed-minded does not foster the kind of communication we would like on this website. An exchange of ideas in a constructive way would be wonderful!

Thank you


benjaminlight's picture


I don't see facts that have been ignored so much as I see certain dogmas of science that have been challenged, and that is the core of how science works. People looking at the available evidence and postulating possible reasons for what they see, what we refer to as a theory.

This is what Darwin did. With his somewhat limited understanding of science at his time... this is what scientists are doing today - but the problem is, many scientists today have tunnel vision.

They are working within certain dogmas of the scientific field, evolution being one of them.

To step out against evolution means losing your tenure, to write articles that even mention the possibility of design - means not getting published, the scientific establishment - the very establishment that should be encouraging skepticism, is stifling it in the name of 'science'.

If you can look at the world around you, and come to the conclusion that all of this happened randomly over a long period of time... that the intricate behaviors and actions of honeybees, the chemical ballet dance that is the malate shuttle, or any other host of things (continued)


benjaminlight's picture

(continued from previous post)

found in the structure and interaction of living organisms, then I don't know how effective this reply will even be, but...

You are correct in stating that we desperately need to clarify our terms a bit - to say that organisms adapt and don't evolve is erroneous. The purest definition of evolution is change in a population over time, which is verifiable. Additionally - natural selection, absolutely positively occurs, which leads to these changes over time.

We do need to ensure that we make a distinction between microevolution (small-scale, short term evolution of a population as we observe in bacteria, as well as other rapidly reproducing populations of organisms) and macroevolution (long-term, large changes in populations of organisms that can lead to one 'kind' of organisms becoming something different), often scientists refer to this as speciation.

Speciation occurs when a population of organisms becomes different enough from the original population that they can no longer interbreed (either from behavioral or physical differences) or produce viable offspring (ie. sterile hybrids, or other post-zygotic controls) Speciation DOES occur. (cont.)


benjaminlight's picture

It can be verified and seen in situations where organisms are isolated from one another geographically, post disaster, or a myriad of other reasons.

This can result in organisms that are a different species, or at the very least, different sub species.

All of that can be verified by hard evidence, though a little less so in the case of speciation to be fair. (Because they choose not to reproduce with one another doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable, artificial insemination could produce an offspring that would be able to reproduce particularly in short-term allopatric speciation type situations.

... and herein lies the problem with Evolution. Individual components of the theory are verifiable. Natural Selection occurs, Microevolution can occur, Macroevolution in certain circumstances can occur, but to take those three bits of verifiable evidence, and say...

The building blocks of life spontaneously arose in a primordial sea, it coalesced, began to live, began to reproduce, changed over a very long period of time into a variety of organisms, which populate the earth today.

That takes a larger leap of faith in my mind than belief in a Creator. (continued)


benjaminlight's picture

(continued from previous - last one I promise)

Which is the core of your first point in response to BrotherJoseph. The statistical odds of this occuring is next to zero, and if you seat a monkey at a piano, his random plinking will never become Beethoven, his random keystrokes will never write the works of Shakespeare... As soon as he makes a mistake, even once - the piece is ruined and his random plinking has to start over - hitting the exact same keystrokes up to that point again... It is the same with life - one small chemical mistake late enough in the game and it becomes some inert organic compound, not a living thing.

You are correct in stating that "It's not in the fossil Record!!" is an erroneous argument. Not all organisms fossilize, and looking for a single missing link isn't accurate - it's as though blue shifts to red, and all the color differences in between represent transitional organisms - it's small incremental change over a really long period of time.


Some of those interim fossils WILL exist. Particularly as we get further up the chain of organisms, and the fact that we haven't found many of them is problematic to evolutionary theory.



benjaminlight's picture

(continued from previous)

Which means we're placing a lot of faith in fossils that haven't been discovered - yet scientists consider their position to be PURELY evidence based, and attack those who place faith in a Creator as being ignorant and closed minded. That is inaccurate. It becomes a question of what you place your faith in...

You discuss mutations as a path to new traits. Mutation often can cause changes, but more frequently - causes detriments to the organism. It also depends as Vinnie commented on the type of mutation. Genetic variation and Natural Selection itself acting on that variation is more valuable to the change of a species.

Regarding the chromosome argument, new research is indicating that we are actually more different than chimps than we originally thought we were. It was published in Nature in 2010, and focused on the differences in the Y chromosome. While not comprehensive, it shows us that the old mantra "We're 99.8% similar to chimps" is not accurate.

You finished your comment with how I will finish mine. Evolution is a highly charged issue - with many sides. Just because I don't believe evolution has occured - doesn't mean that I am (continued)


benjaminlight's picture

(continued from previous)

Sent before I could fix the last section... scratch the last paragraph.

I will finish my series of comments in the same way that you finished yours. Just because I don't believe that large scale evolution occured, (that life spontaneously arose, began to live, reproduced and changed into what we see today) doesn't mean I am uneducated, ignorant, and close-minded. I have simply chosen not to accept the scientific dogmas that were fed to me in college. I have studied this topic extensively and I have come to a different conclusion than you have.

That doesn't make my conclusion any less valid than your own. In fact, I would implore you to the do the same thing you implored the rest of us to do.

Keep an open mind.



PleaseUseLogic's picture

In response to BenjaminLight's first paragraph, yes, there is some herd mentality to this; nobody likes to be an outcast. However, still many biologists support evolution. The Discovery Institute gathered around 600 signatures from scientists who disagree with evolution. Project Steve found around 1,250 biologists named Steve, or several variations thereof, such as Stephen, Stephanie, Esteban, and other similar things. All this was done anonymously; no names were given. While you can argue indoctrination, or fear of being hunted down by evolutionist hunter-killer robots, that is still overwhelming evidence towards the scientific community supporting evolution, or at least a large portion of it doing so. In your later comments in your first post, you said that scientists don't reject scientific dogmas enough. While this is probably true, just because something is widely supported among scientists and is this polarized does not mean that it is automatically wrong. For your argument that says "look at all the beautiful, complex things out there" is inherently flawed. Just because something looks like it is impossible to replicate with nature doesn't mean that it is impossible(cont)


PleaseUseLogic's picture

It's hard to believe that each twinkling star is a giant fusing ball of hydrogen. That doesn't mean it's not true. Also, interim fossils have been found for several things. While not for everything, it is enough to show that macroevolution does occur. I recommend looking up dolphin evolution. There are several other examples of a fairly complete fossil record showing a gradual change from one species to another.


Light's picture

I don't know how evidence is faith based; it's right there for you. There are some strange arguments here, like with the bacteria one. Evolution doesn't 'create' a more complex organism, just one that is more successful than it competitors. And evolution isn't small and incremental. Organisms stay roughly the same for millions of years, until a change in the environment demands they change.

But evolution is a theory that all science points to. There isn't an example the points to a supernatural god or deity.


benjaminlight's picture


I agree - many more scientists believe in evolution than don't. I'm just saying I find it fascinating that a discipline that prides itself on skepticism sure doesn't like people moving from the party line so to speak.

Cetacean evolution is a mess - with a lot of assumptions based on some pretty hairy interim fossils.

I also didn't say it was impossible - just statistically approaching zero. The odds of it happening are like hitting the lottery day after day after day after day. Nothing is impossible, but stastically approaching zero might as well be for all intents and purposes. To state that it occured is like stating that this happened not once, but again and again and again.

What are the odds?


Evidence is faith based when you take the 'evidence' that you see and make the jump to illustrate what you want to see and what proves your idea versus letting the evidence speak for itself.

A small section of jawbone that is found as a fragment is not enough to realistically infer an evolutionary relationship. Unfortunately it happens all the time. Sometimes it gets caught, sometimes it doesn't.

Remember Archeoraptor?


PleaseUseLogic's picture

In response to BenjaminLight's latest comment: Scientists don't like people saying that evolution is false in the same way scientists don't like people saying that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits around the earth. It is demonstrably true. Also, saying that something approaches zero is not the same thing as saying that it is zero. When you have millions of years, the difference between zero and almost zero becomes a huge gap. Also, scientists don't (or at least shouldn't) say that a scrap of jaw is evidence. That is clearly bad science. However, there are many examples of complete transitional fossils. Also, yes, there have been hoaxes. That doesn't mean that those are the majority of the data. Don't mistake anecdotes for data.


KARS's picture

Now I know this is old timer stuff. Let's think on this.
The movie: "Grapes of Wrath" The time: The dust bowl of the 30's.
So what happened? A serious draught. So what did they do? Moved to adapted to a new area.

That is what God's creatures and man do. Move or adapted to their new enviroment. Makes commend sense to me. Survival of the phitis (I don't know how to spell this word), hopeful you know what I am trying to say.


benjaminlight's picture

My apologies for not getting back to this sooner - I am not receiving the notifications of new comments. :(

You're correct in saying that scientists don't like people saying evolution is false, but you're incorrect in stating that its demonstrably true. We went through this in an earlier comment so I won't belabor it - individual components of evolution are absolutely true, however when you put the whole thing together, it's an explanation of observable data that is quite incomplete in its explanation. A true scientist will admit this fact readily and many still place their faith in its explanation.

There are incredible holes in numerous animal lines, and while we're not looking for specific 'missing links' perse (an organism that is THE definitive in-between) it is troubling how many of the organisms that are in-betweens that did not fossilize and survive. Again - not irrefutable proof - but troubling nonetheless.

And basing entire organisms on fragments or small components happens all the time. In cetaceans even. That whole line is a mess. They use tooth and ear morphology to make links between whales today and fox-like land animals from the past...

Sorry. Not good enough.

Joshua Infantado

Joshua Infantado's picture

Hi Everyone,

One of the latest Beyond Today program discusses this and it is really a great work! It is entitled, "Evolution's Leap of Faith".

Anyway, even if you say that evolution really happens (which I don't believe in), scientists still have to face the hard facts found in the complexity of DNA. Everyone who have honest eyes to see will admit that DNA is far too complex and intricate to be a product of evolution.

In addition to this, evolution will never be able to explain what caused life here on earth. Even the big bang theory will not suffice.

No matter how people will argue how true evolution is, it still remained as theory, which means it is still unproven.


Sceptic77's picture

I am not a scientist so by no means am I someone to have the evolution debate with. But I'm assuming the point of this article is by somehow disproving evolution it somehow proves the existence of a creator. It doesn't. The bottom line is none of us were here a billion years ago or even a thousand years ago so we just don't know how we started.

The debate for a creator or no creator is not 50/50. There are an infinite number of possibilities for how life started and none of us have the answer. The burden of proof is on the believer and not the skeptic. Funny how the creationist expects air tight evidence to support any scientific theory yet faith and lack of answers are more than enough to believe in a specific God.

Sad that people think that we are the centre of the universe and everything was created for us. The fact that we are here and can't prove how is not a reasonable explanation for a creator. Even if there is a creator how do you know that he is immortal? That he can hear your prayers? That there is an afterlife? You can't. Stop expecting proof against your beliefs when you can't provide proof in favor of your beliefs.


Zakariel's picture

As a believer, I have always had the mindset that if science is applied objectively, it certainly points to the direction of The Creator.

I have found this article very insightful in explaining how ridiculous the theory of macro evolution is. That said there are still questions to be answered such as the list of "human evolution" fossils as outlined in wikipedia:

My take on this would be that the fossils listed were simply different human types like neanderthals (which we know we did descend from). It would be interesting to hear what the author of this article has to say about the above though.


Dav's picture


This article was nothing about proving that a creator exists,
it's about showing how Evolution lacks with facts,
and can even be proven wrong. The whole point is
that Evolution isn't any more true nor likely to exist
than a Creator. Personally my interest is not how or when
it all began, we will never know, there will always only be
theories and even someone believing in God can't say
when or how God created it.

Also about (quote) "Funny how the creationist expects air tight evidence to support any scientific theory yet faith and lack of answers are more than enough to believe in a specific God".

A reason why to expect pure evidence from scientists and their
theories is because that is what scientists are saying.
If my teacher says that you need evidence (which according to them it exists evidence for Evolution) I expect evidence.
If they then tell me something which they do not have evidence to support the theory, I'm not going to accept it.

Proving that "God" exists with facts doesn't work,
that is true. But ask a believer "why do you believe?"
they will not say it's because of any proof, but out of
experiences in their lives etc. (cont..)


extremeblueness's picture

You guys forgot another reason: N for Newton. Newton's third law states that "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction." Evolutionists have yet to figure out how the big bang is possible when there was no action to provide the reaction. If, however, God provided the action, the big bang and creation of the universe suddenly becomes a possiblity. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." -John:1:3 (NIV)

@Dav Whenever the the impossible has been eliminated, what remains must be the truth. And although that's not the exact quote from Mr. Doyle, this would be at least one of the reasons which creationists do not require supporting evidence - just evidence that renders evolution impossible, because there's only two possibilities: that at some point in history, intelligent life evolved from nothing, or that at some point in history, life was created from nothing.


bigdoug1971's picture

The argument above about the lizards on the separate islands adapting is a good point. The fact of that statement that I will point out here is that even though those lizards adapted and changed, they are STILL lizards. They didn't evolve into birds or grow hair.
That's the problem with all the evolution arguments....If monkeys or apes evolved into people, then why are there still monkeys and apes? Creatures evolove to survive, but they are still the SAME creature. People have become smarter and more efficient, but they are still PEOPLE. I'll never dispute a creature may grow larger, swim better, become more dexterious, or change colors to survive....but they are still the same creature! Fish don't turn into dogs. Lizards don't turn into birds. Monkeys don't turn into people.
If you want to argue it takes millions of years, why haven't crocodiles changed? Sharks? These are both said to have survived millions of years and are still the same creature.


murray437's picture

bigdoug1971, the example of the lizards on the islands is that over the course of there separation they have evolved into separate species. (A quick google gave me this large list of examples of recently observed speciation events . **Link removed to comply with comment policy**).
Once these species have separated they are free to evolve in whatsoever way would cause them to be better suited to there new environment. Humans and Chimpanzees went through this millions of years ago. From a common ancestor. You are right to say monkeys do not change into people because monkeys are a separate line of evolution that branched off from Apes (including Humans) before chimpanzees and apes diverged. Humans were never monkeys.
The fossil record by its very nature has holes, a fossilization event in large animals is incredibly rare and it is no surprise that there are gaps. But to whoever was saying there are no intermediate species discovered (eg. fish developing into tetrapods (4 Limbed creatures) just wikipedia Acanthostega and Ichthyostega for example.
You should also take care to avoid lumping people who believe in the big bang from evolutionists. The most convin


murray437's picture

from previous comment:

convincing argument for God/creator I have heard was based around the necessity for a first cause. Any argument based on claiming evolution being false is bound to land on deaf ears as evolution is a fact. That it is labelled the "theory" of evolution is not an argument as everything in science is a theory that has been accepted due to evidence. Something which creationists are generally keen to ignore.

Sorry that was so long, there is more I could say in support of evolution but am busy. Hopefully I haven't been too ranty


murray437's picture

From my first comment.

*since chimpanzees and humans diverged


Skip's picture

Hello murray437,

I have to agree, "Any argument based on claiming evolution being false is bound to land on deaf ears..."

People believe what they want to believe, all or any evidence to the contrary. So, what do You WANT to believe? That is the question! Personally I admire the argument that Aldous Huxley once used in the 1930's. He said (and I paraphrase) "I choose not to believe in God because if I did believe, it would get in the way of some of the things that I choose to do."


Skip's picture

Hello murray437,

I really like bigdoug1971's argument which is essentially:
although there are literally hundred of different kinds of dogs, they are still dogs. Within species was created the ability to adapt & change. I call that good planning! Bad planning doesn't survive and with poor conservation, even good planning struggles.


Kodi's picture

I feel as though there is a lot of misinformation being thrown around here. Hopefully I can try to clear it up in a way that is easily understandable.

1.) There seems to be the notion that microevolution and macroevolution are two separate things. In reality, these are actually the exact same thing, but on two different time scales. Macroevolution is the same as microevolution, just on a much larger scale.

2.) Plenty of comments are stating that adaption within a species exist, but that evolution into another species does not. Allow me to attempt and explain what "adapting" really means.

Adaptation in the context we're using it is the change in a species to better survive in an ecosystem. This change doesn't occur by an organism magically changing or gaining traits.

What adaptation really is, is just natural selection. The survival of the fittest. The animal who has the best traits for survival will be more likely to survive than the latter. After generations and generations the gene pool will start to lose bad traits (animals with poor genes will be killed more often than not, and will not pass on their traits.)

I'm running out of characters so let me add another comment.


Fpiceail's picture

Sorry, Mr. Seiglie, but there is an astonishing amount of mis-information in this article. I will have a lot of upcoming comments showing this.

Let’s start from the beginning. Firstly:
“…variation (now known as mutation)”
It is absolutely not known as mutation. Variation is the differing traits between individuals of a species. Mutation is one of the mechanisms by which variation arises; however it is responsible for only a small amount of the variation that happens. Mutation itself is defined as a change of the base pairs in the DNA of a cell. Obviously it must happen in a sex cell for it to have any impact on evolution.

Most of the variation we see in more complex organisms arises from sexual reproduction. This is because;
- The gamete receives a combination of the genetics of both parents. This routinely causes different traits to come about in the offspring as alleles are randomly paired
- During cell division in sex cells, chromatids (the parts that make up a chromosome) are crossed over with those of adjacent chromosomes. This causes an even more random assortment of alleles


Fpiceail's picture

This is why we have bacteria that haven’t evolved much over billions of years; they do not reproduce sexually, therefore their variation comes solely from mutation. Mutation is very random and unpredictable. The majority of the time, mutations are neutral (they usually don’t have any effect on the organism’s physical traits). In other instances, they can be deleterious (harmful), lethal or beneficial. It is pretty rare for a beneficial mutation to occur (“beneficial” also depends on the environment of the organism’s habitat) and usually the change is minor anyway. However, it is still enough to affect evolution. This is how a certain type of bacteria developed the ability to digest nylon.
Maybe this sentence was just an oversight on the part of the author, but nevertheless it is very misleading. Mutation and variation are not interchangeable terms; variation is a phenomenon, mutation is a mechanism by which the phenomenon occurs (just one of the multiple mechanisms, as well).


Fpiceail's picture

“What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.”
While micro-evolution and macro-evolution are valid biological terms, they are rarely even professionally used. This is because there really is no point to using them; macro-evolution really is just micro-evolution over a large time scale.
Remember, the theory of evolution doesn’t claim that one species will suddenly transform into another over a generation. What actually happens is this:
- Variation causes different traits to be present in the offspring of a species
- If a new trait helps the organism to survive and, most importantly, to reproduce, this trait will become more prevalent in the population
It sounds simple, but there are other things to consider. For example, if there is a sudden environmental change and thus a new selective pressure, evolution can actually occur at a more rapid rate. An example of this is bacterial populations developing resistance to antibiotics.


Reason's picture

ExtremeBlueness and others,

In keeping with the last several commenters, I would like to address the misuse of scientific terms, which I assume stems from a misunderstanding.

1) The most aggravating misapplication of a scientific law would be Newton's third law of MOTION; it does not apply to every relationship you can think of unless it is with regards to forces. The overly simplified version always quoted, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," does not imply that God caused the creation of the universe. God is not a force.

2) Which brings me to the second misunderstood scientific concept thrown around on this comment string: the Big Bang theory. Firstly, "Big Bang" is a misnomer, which was derogatorily given to the theory explaining that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating instead of expanding at a constant rate.



Reason's picture


3) The Big Bang and the theory of evolution are not inextricably linked in explaining each other. The Big Bang theory explains the origins of the universe and the expansion as evidenced by cosmological redshift of distant galaxies. It does not explain the rise of life on Earth because it does not seek to.

4) Also, the Big Bang theory is not the theory explaining the formation of our solar system (which includes the Earth). The theory that would be more closely tied would be a theory of solar system formation; however, this also only goes as far as explaining the structure and arrangement of the solar system, which explains why Earth has the conditions that allow life to exist. From there in explaining the origins of life, it would move to a biological theory.

5) Related to point 3, for someone to accept the theory of evolution does not require them to accept the Big Bang theory as well. You might notice that many of the people who accept one also accept the other; that would be because those people examine explanations logically and accept the most reasonable explanation.



Reason's picture

continued again

6) Upon rereading Blueness's comment, I noticed "there's only two possibilities: that at some point in history, intelligent life evolved from nothing, or that at some point in history, life was created from nothing." I'm not sure which one of those is supposed to represent the "evolutionary" perspective because those are both creationist views. It is impossible for anything to "come from nothing." The correct explanation is that intelligent life evolved from unintelligent life. And there is plenty of unintelligent life. But where did unintelligent life come from then? (would probably be your next question). Well, prokaryotes and archaebacteria (a.k.a. single celled very simple life) gave rise to eukaryotes (more complex life). Those first two were originally formed through interactions of proto-cells, which formed from chemical reactions of organic matter.

continued again (sorry)


Reason's picture

last continuation
7) I also noticed the backwards logic frequently employed (and it appears in the actual article): "It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade." The reason there can be people is because there were plants that produced oxygen. Humans adapted to use trees for wood to build homes, and the same goes for the birds. The roots limit erosion in the tree's own evolutionary interest. Fruit exists because it causes animals to spread the seeds of the tree when they eat the fruit, thus in the tree's own interest. As far as being biodegradable, it obviously is. Everything was "biodegradable," until humans developed non biodegradable materials for tools. The shade provided by the tree is a by-product of the tree gathering as much light as possible, so it prevents light from reaching the surface as it attempts to gather solar energy to survive.

Humans have intricate connections to the environment, so everything appears designed for us, but it actually shows that we evolved from it.

Sabrina Peabody

Sabrina Peabody's picture

Concerning point 1)
God is spirit, power and also called the Word (John:1:1). If He says it, it is done. So if He created the laws of the universe by His Words, then by His integrity, those same laws and continued to be in effect. Perhaps I am missing your point but for the universe to be constantly expanding, something had to first put it in motion. If it was just a force, could it not have been the force by God's Words and His life force? Can scientists explain a force that creates something from nothing?

I know some leave room for the possibility that God created the universe and then let the earth evolve over time (prokaryotes and archaebacteria to more complex organisms), dinosaurs roamed the earth and prehistoric man, etc. Prehistoric man did not have the same consciousness as Adam and Eve, which is when God makes man (with a reasoning mind) and the ability to become a spirit being. From that point on, the world progresses as it did before, with organisms adapting appropriately to changing environments, etc. Would that fit your reasoning?


Skip's picture

Hello Reason,

Thank you for your definitions. It is always better when those who are going to speak with one another can come to an agreement about the definition of terms.

I believe in God.
I believe that God has communicated with humankind.
I believe that the Bible is the Written Word of God. AND
I believe that there is no contradiction between true science and that revealed, written Word of God.

Where do we go from here?

Brady Butterfield

Brady Butterfield's picture

I've been to the deserts of the Western US and seen firsthand the ancient layers of silt and mud that you've mentioned in your article. One great site is in Eastern Utah in the Southern House Range at Fossil Mountain. I advise you to visit if you are willing to see evolution first hand.
The mountain is a desolate place with very little vegetation and no additional human contact, it is perfect for examining rocks, locating fossils, and contemplating the origins of creation. The mountain is layered deposits much like a natural pyramid with each step illustrating a different time in geological history. You can literally get your hands dirty with millions of years of fossil deposits as you break open rocks that illustrate the coming and going of hundreds of different types of ancient creatures. The rocks themselves were once layered silt that was gently deposited on the bottom of a large sea that at one time covered the Western US.

One simple fact to point out is that generally only the hard parts of a creature are fossilized, those creatures with soft bodies are not preserved. For example, if a Nautilus died today only its shell would remain after a period of time.


KHansen's picture

Why do people assume that God would not use evolution as his means of creation? It is in fact a perfect means of creation in that it never ends. Everything is a work in progress, including man.

Be careful in assuming what God would or would not do or how God would do things.

Norbert Z

Norbert Z's picture

KHansen, the answer to the question "Why do people assume that God would not use evolution as his means of creation?" is, evolution is an assumption. So yes, be careful in assuming what God would or would not do or how God would do things.

Malachi 3_16-18

Malachi 3_16-18's picture

KHansen, Yes, let’s be careful not to assume what God would do or how He'd do it. We also have to be careful in using the word “evolution.” It can also simply mean a process of change.

If you mean the evolution theory commonly taught as fact, let’s consider that naturally-occurring small mutations can’t cause a completely new type of animal, e.g. a cat changing over time to a dog. Selective breeding produces the greater variety of animal species today, but that isn’t accidental.

We don’t know the specific processes God used to create life on earth, except He spoke & it came into existence (Ps:33:6-9; Gen:1:11-12, 20-27). He created the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. that scientists have discovered & tried to quantify, & has sometimes tweaked them at will, e.g. making the sun stand still (Josh:10:12-14), or parting the Red Sea (Ex 14:21-22). But the actual creation act, described in Genesis, was completed in 6 days; the pattern/laws were already set in motion, so if perpetuation of that is “evolution”, I don’t think it’s the best term. Man alone is the ultimate “work in progress,” being born w/ the potential to become a member of God’s Family & live forever (1 Jn:3:1-3).

Christopher S.

Christopher S.'s picture

All things that man had so called, "discovered" were really shown to them by God. God made us in his image, we didn't turn into a completely different species from MONKEYS, that is completely disproving how God made the heavens and the earth.


faulkwood's picture

I'm not a scientific scholar so I won't try to debate evolution versus creation here. However after reading the article and almost all of the comments, what occurs to me is that the debate will be never ending as those who don't want to believe in God, for one reason or another, will always try to find a reason to explain Him away.

The thing is, they don't have to. It is good enough to simply say, "I don't believe," as this is their free choice. Needless to say we all know Romans:1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Continued in next comment.


faulkwood's picture

Nonetheless, it would appear some need "proof" before believing. Unfortunately, it's a catch-22 (if I'm using that correctly). It's almost a prerequisite to believe without seeing (if people are requiring something they can SEE to equal proof). John:20:24-29 says it best, "Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Ultimately, in the end, it's a choice to believe without "proof." Although our personal experience with God is proof enough for those who have found it. Peace!

Will Tyler

Will Tyler's picture

Even if you were able to disprove evolution that doesn't prove creationism. It's not one or the other.


Mediator547's picture

I agree with you Will Tyler and I think that people should be more open-minded on these types of subjects. Nobody has the right answers, and if you think you do, then you are out of your mind. I mean, why does everyone has to spend their whole lives trying to figure out the unthinkable. Wouldn't life rather be spent enjoying what is real and not chasing all of the right answers? It's as if people are too wrapped up in beliefs and evidence that sides are being picked. Why do we have to chose sides. For all of the creationists, would God want you to split up from your own people? And for the evolutionists, this is how species go extinct... They try to take more than they are given and they end up abusing it. I think that it would be pointless to spend your life searching for the right answers. You won't find them. Just enjoy what God, or evolution has given you: life.


Daberg70's picture

"Just enjoy life" and "it's pointless to waste -ahem- sorry... spend your life searching for the right answers" are both remarks that bother me. The first seems harmless, but it implies that you can't enjoy life while searching for the right answers. That is far from the truth. The second "opinion" is only true if you never find your answer. Once you find the truth you will know the search was far from pointless. Moving on to the real point of my post. In regards to those who argue against Gods existense... To find God, simply seek him. There are zero witnesses to evolution. There are millions of witnesses to God. God is real because we witness Him. Those who have come to know Him are his people and He is our God... because that is the entire purpose of His creation. If you are intelligent enough to explain to a worm in the dirt that he will someday be a beautiful butterfly soaring on a breeze and sipping sweet nectar then you are intelligent enough to debate the existence of God. Thank you, I'll take God's word over yours every minute of every day because He willingly proves himself to me and He is happiness without compromise. Read scripture and pray for understanding. Peace.

Dwi Santosa

Dwi Santosa's picture

Hi, I'm from Asia but I learn about world history. Many people (especially European) now has Christianity phobia because of the dark history of church. Indeed church did many things wrong back them like push people to accept that flat Earth theory is correct etc. However, what i see now is just the same. Scientists are like religious persons at the ancient time that all people have to believe in them, assuming they did not do the research in wrong methods. If you don't believe in them, you won't be told that you'll go to hell but you may be told that you are not scientific, stupid (for students like I was), not logical, ancient, and all bad labels. C-mon man, evolution is just a theory. Even if you say it's been proved in certain ways, it's other people that did research and tell the research to you. You still have to put your faith in them. The worst thing, such theories is mandatory in education curriculum and teachers have to teach to the children as truth. Isn't it INDOCTRINATION just like what the old times church did? I tend to agree with postmodern people that start to doubt science 'facts' (which are not really facts) because basically we know nothing. Other people told us.


jutsme's picture

Wonderful article and a nice (relatively) peaceful discussion. As I've said many times: can we all just agree to disagree, continue to love one another and go to bed now? I agree with the last few posts we will not convince one or the other that we have to convert to the others belief, so let's all have faith in what we do believe and be at peace! It takes as much faith to believe in either side of the argument (haven't seen atheism mentioned, so we won't go there) so keep the faith and peace out people! I do have faith (betting my life, and afterlife on it) in what I have seen evident in my life, I'd be dead already otherwise. I have evolved to new life! Dwi, I think that is essentially what you're getting at!


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved part 1.

"What is taught in classrooms is not mere microevolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.”

What’s taught is the theory of evolution. Micro evolution and macro evolution are not separate types of evolution. The actual term of macro evolution is a comparison term, Macro is a metre, Micro is a Cm. You can’t get to a metre without a cm and to propose that micro is true but macro is not is stupid. It’s like saying okay well I agree that these 100cm can happen but a metre can’t. What?.

”What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of”

Stop right there. Evolutionist is a completely dishonest term, It’s a way to make evolution seem like a belief on par with creationism which is not only dishonest but wrong. Secondly please note that no one uses this type of terminology for other scientific theories and facts like Techtonics, Gravity, Germs, relativity or atomic theory. Which is surprising because germ theory, techtonic theory and the theory and law of gravity all disagree with the bible. So we’ve covered that it’s dishonest and hypocritical, let’s continue.


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved part 2.

”What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life”

Evolution only replaces god as well as all other myths regarding the diversity of life, It doesn’t answer where life comes from or what triggered the big bang. Many people in fact most people even creationists accept evolution but believe god guided the process.


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved part 3.

"I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found"

The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites.

That is to say, their earliest representatives are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins.”

The earliest occurring trilobites in the fossil record are the Olenellids, members of the order Redlichiida, suborder Olenellina, and particularly the Fallotaspididae. Contenders for “first trilobite” are Eofallotaspis tioutensisSdzuy 1978 from the Anti-Atlas Mountains in Morocco and Profallotaspis jakutensis Repina 1965 from southeast Siberia. It is true that the triolobite fossil record is not great but that isn’t surprising as no one really knows where to look and the oceans aren’t mapped very well at all, In fact we know more about mars and the moon than we do about the oceans. Also note that even without fossils evolution is still on solid ground they are not required


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved part 4.

”This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!”

Define faith. Because most definitions of faith do not include evidence which evolution has. Secondly One of those peices of evidence is DNA, Now let’s say DNA evidence is on faith. That implies doubt does it not?
Now let’s take this principle and apply the same scientific testing with DNA into the court room. Serial killers, Rapists and murderers have been convicted on DNA for decades now. So keeping reasonable doubt in mind, shall we release them all?

Notice how when asked this an Evolution requires faith claimer quickly backtracks.

Also note that there’s no evidence of a creator at all.


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved part 5

”Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!”

This is a shocking thing to say! Not only have transitional forms been found across the fossil record but every single fossil ever found is a transitional fossil. Evolution doesn’t stop and it will never stop unless life comes to an end across the board. Even looking through our genus you find plenty, Homo erectus, Habilis, Ardipithecus, heidelbergensis the list goes on and on.

Your statement of no transitional fossils is a lie.


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved part (7-8) whatever one it is now.

"If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species"

First of all it’s important to point out the lack of correct terminology here so I will use the correct terminology so no goal post shifting arrises. What the questioner is asking pretty much is why aren’t cats turning into non cats, etc. We’re speaking at the family level in the biological classification system.

The simple answer to this is that evolution is a branching process and within a short period of time you’re not likely to see these branches split off that far but it’s quite clear not only through DNA evidence, Not only through Chromosome evidence and not only through the fossil record that it has happened in the past.

Take for example humans, We’re apes even though on the surface we don’t look like our cousins outside on the inside we’re still bloody similar so what triggered that exactly? The answer is speciation.


Sciencepwns's picture

This page disproved continued

”The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.”

The author is no longer speaking about Evolution. Life from non life is called abiogenesis. No one knows how it happened, The current evidence suggests it happened on earth but there is also strong possibilities that it happened elsewhere. There are species on this planet today that can survive unprotected in space but once again, This has nothing to do with evolution and is yet another dishonest peice of nonsense by the author.

"How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?"

The correct answer is obviously that they evolved at the same time. Plants however have many other methods of reproduction so to say that before bees came along that plants would die out is frankly quite stupid.


ccSlatherChristian's picture

Another side note of this is, we have monkeys, we have apes, we have humans, where are all the other generations of evolution, how come they arent here?!


jsalmons77's picture

I find it funny that many people here say that those who believe that there is a creator believe so based solely on "feelings"

I guess we could say the same thing about evolution because the one sided approach and dogmatic views that infiltrate this theory is just as biased.

Given enough time, I guess everything is possible. This is the central theme that evolutionist hold on to, but it is something that many well known "present-day" scientist are letting go of. Check out A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. This included signatures from many respected scientist in all disciplines who have dissented from evolution. Evolution is in a way a cult just as those who would say ID is.

The fact remains that mutations are for the majority not beneficial. No new information is transferred and offspring are usually sterile. Sure, most would say...but there's a chance and it is plausible. Is there a chance that unicorns inhabit the moon? I guess there is a chance, but the evidence points in one direction and that's not it.

Evidence for God is all around us people. God by his own nature is outside time and space assuming God did create time and space. It is hard to quantify this.


Paulus88's picture

Caruntum: this chimp human argument has always been a favourite evolutionary propaganda trick but can be argued another way: chimpanzees and humans are so similar because they share the same designer, have been created with the same biological materials. The DNA is different because they have been programmed differently. So even having almost I dental biological makeup they are different because of genetic programming.

In response to reason well done sir you have been successfully and fully indoctrinated ! You explain the theory well. The only reason however the environment appears so designed for us is because we adapted to it then changed it to suit us. We have the intelligence and physical body to do that. We were created that way. Now if we evolved from bacteria billions of years ago where did all this extra DNA come from ? And what about the genetic code for this extra DNA did it just align itself with different instructions ? There is a massive difference between a single cell organism and a human astronaut. So please explain the genetic evolution you say happened? Please explain when approximately and where approximately we gained more DNA then more then more ?


Is-god-so-weak-he-cannot-make-evolution's picture

F: The first recorded Hard-Body fossil not having a known predecessor fossil... Oh wow... maybe... it had a soft body predecessor that did not leave a fossil in the first place. *gasp* what a shocking idea.

A: as to the transition of from one evolution to another, how fast does it occur? Some Elephants have lost their tusks after realizing they are being hunted for them... and it did not even happen over that many generations; why can't other evolutions be just as fast? Soft-body and then Hard? Scale then feather?

L:A man stays out in the sun and gains dark skin to protect himself, generations of men across hundreds... perhaps thousands of years stay out in the sun and suddenly one is born with darker skin; evolution. As to the age old question of chicken or the egg? I'd bet on the egg as an evolutionary tactic similar to a butterfly transformation that started out like a soft fish egg and eventually evolved as the birth process with a hard shell to protect itself.

S: Ever seen a drug addict that makes his own drug? He didn't need the drug at first. But then he does... and the drug needs him to keep going.

E: Who made God? Did man make him and send him back to create man?


dan.k's picture

@Carnuntum you criticize Nadine Yacoub for having an erroneous argument yet point two of your argument that states; quote,

'Just because we have not found these fossils, means that they do not exist? That is akin to saying that because I have not yet found a book I am looking for at a bookstore, surely it must not exist.'

Can also be written as...

'Just because we have not found these fossils, means that they do not exist? That is akin to saying that because I have not yet found God in this vast expanse of a universe, surely He must not exist.'

See my point is, seek and you shall find, which I gather is your logic here as well. I challenge you tho to do just that, study the bible, as in study it, scientifically if you will. I already did my research and came to the conclusion which is very evident, that their is intelligence behind all of what we see.
Another thing is, point four of your statement only explained adaptation, not evolution. Seeing that bacteria becomes resistant to medicine does not make them a completely different organism, it only makes them 'immune'.


rwp_47's picture

Everyone believes in a god ... regardless of whether he is an atheist, biblically religious, or anything in between. Because we all believe in existence. The alternative? Neither you nor your opinion exists (audios!). So the belligerent non-religious must believe in a universe that was not created. Because a creation necessarily implies a creator - God. But if one believes in a non-created universe then one must believe that the universe has always been (otherwise you'd have to believe it created itself from nothing - and that would be completely unscientific) - and it didn't have a beginning (its self-existent), it is inherently self-alive, has prodigious intellect, and it creates fabulous and stupendous things. So basically you'd believe what all pagan religions believe - that nature (the universe) is god. Now if that were true I don't know what good it would do one because in that case all you have to look forward to is six feet of earth over you in a couple of years. Whereas the God of the bible promises his people eternal God-life, and to nonbelievers he promises utter destruction. Logically, there's only possible winning hand. And an atheist obviously isn't holding it.

jesus lover 68

jesus lover 68's picture

I hate to say it, but this is a ridiculous argument put forth, the author chooses anything convenient that biology has and makes it part of his argument while ignoring many other terms that completely counter his argument. You can't prove God exists (as of now), can't prove evolution is correct (as of now), however there is more solid proof that evolution exists than there is God exists. It is wrong to spit on the arguments and beliefs of others as incorrect just cause they are different from your own. Tolerance is important. People like this are what make me lose faith, not evolution. Clean up your act.


supertraq's picture

Adaptation has nothing to do with evolution period..Still the same species,and as far as missing link,it should missing links..For every species there would be a progressive fossil record to follow,as science says there would be,but there are none,for some reason those fossils don't exist,big mystery there..Also why do we not see evolution going on now?It does not exist,period..


supertraq's picture

Also with evolution there would be no species as each new being would be related to the last but all would be differnt.Seperate species could not exist.


rosewhite's picture

What really baffles the evolutionists is their deliberate refusal to accept the Fast Sedimentation and Diagenesis of the Flood is what caused the multileyered fossil record that to them seems to be evidence for a line of evolution stretching back 550/50/750 million years in a Universe that is 2.8/3.5/5/7/8/13/14 billion years old!

The Flood stripped all loose vegetation, small structures, creatures and humans off the Earth but most importantly it washed away all loose soils, sands, gravels and clays and sent it all into the seas where it smothered all the bottom feeders and most of the other fish and aquatic creatures and over the days of the flood all the land debris drifted and settled according to its own buoyancy until everything had settled in the many layers that over the that 4,400 years have hardened into the rock in which the fossils are found.

Calcium carbonate washed out of rock and some dark green vegetation when mixed with the sands very quicky sets into the stone in which many fossils are found.

Evolutionists refuse to accept this but prefer to worship Satan by promoting his evononsense.


rosewhite's picture

It is wrong to say Trilobites are the lowest fossils and hence the first creations as below them on the sea floors were the Ediacarea!

Wiki says trilobites lived from 521 to 250 million years ago: 270my so no wonder there are so many of their fossils - but that is nonsense as just the dead trilobite fossils would cover the seafloors thousands of yards thick!
But below the trilobites are the Ediacarea which Wiki says lived from about 635 to 542million years ago - then presumably there was a gap of no life whatsoever until a trilobite suddenly evolved itself in about 521mya!

The Ediacara are fragile worms designed by God to live and burrow in the sea floor eating and recycling all the detritus that floats down from above - in fact they occupy the same role as earthworms do on land. They were so soft bodied and fragile as to leave no real trace execpt their burrow and impressions of their bodies.

They all died when the cold Flood waters from the sky flowed down onto them and brought the fine loose materials that compacted around their bodies.

Evolutionists totally refute this.


rosewhite's picture

What Evoluionists fail to understand is that by promoting evolution as a fact they are promoting Satan's lies and the evolutionist who proclaims 'I'm a believer in God but the Bible's Genesis Creation account can't really be true, can it?' is copying Satan who said to Eve 'God didn't really mean it when he said you woudl die if you ate the fruit did he?'

Darwin was actually quite scathing of God but many times had to reluctantly allow for the fcat that evolution had to start with creation.


LetsEvolve's picture

Anti-evolutionists; I'm sorry, but the evidence is just overwhelming. But of course, the innate arrogance of our species will always lead you to discard whatever REAL evidence is shown, and to overestimate whatever "evidence" you back your claims with. It's too bad we can't attach pictures in this chat, because I have an absolutely perfect sequence of pictures of the evolution of the horse taken with real fossils at the Smithsonian. Feel free to visit the Smithsonian's fabulous exhibits and weep at the reality that all that sets us apart from other life forms is our more developed brains,hands and fortunate posture for speech development. Farewell, until you come up with the next excuse to discard or simply ignore REAL and verifiable evidence.


londonbrandon's picture

I have noticed that Mr. Mario Seiglie writes many articles on science.

Mr. Seiglie, what is your education and background in science? Particularly biological evolution?


londonbrandon's picture

SKIP: What do I want to believe? (good question)

I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. I have found falsifiability to be a helpful tool when juxtaposing any given contemplation against my own desires or bias.

Not all people believe what they want to believe. I want to believe that I'm younger, smarter, better looking and more compassionate... The preciousness of science is that belief is held tentatively. To quote Bertrand Russell, "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out- which is the exact opposite".

and btw, What's wrong with "I don't know?"


There is nothing in science and absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest or support the idea that our universe is not eternal. It very well could be. Certainly the big bang theory (merely) proposes that it was an existent universe that expanded.


londonbrandon's picture

SKIP: What do I want to believe? (good question)

I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. I have found falsifiability to be a helpful tool when juxtaposing any given contemplation against my own desires or bias.

Not all people believe what they want to believe. I want to believe that I'm younger, smarter, better looking and more compassionate... The preciousness of science is that belief is held tentatively. To quote Bertrand Russell, "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out- which is the exact opposite".

and btw, What's wrong with "I don't know?"


There is nothing in science and absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest or support the idea that our universe is not eternal. It very well could be. Certainly the big bang theory (merely) proposes that it was an existent universe that expanded.


LetsEvolve's picture

This one goes to supertraq.

Supertraq, how in the world can you say adaptation has nothing to do with evolution!? Put simply, evolution is nothing more than several mutations over time in order to adapt to ever-changing environments. You say there are no transitional fossils. My goodness, how wrong you are. Take a trip to Washington, to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, and look at the perfect sequence of the evolution of the horse with real fossils. Do you want proof of human evolution too, as if it were necessary? Look at Australopithecus' skeletons, and the one that pretty evidently is the previous step towards the current human form; Homo Erectus. Come on, we're discussing facts here!!


rwp_47's picture

londonbrandon -
You wrote -
"There is nothing in science and absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest or support the idea that our universe is not eternal." ...

What does that have to do with anything I said lindonbrandon?

Even if what you said was true (though I suspect not), but even if it was - so what? I don't think I even mentioned the big bang theory. So I don't know what your comment there is all about.
So, what's your point? Was there something specific I said that you disagreed with?

Basically all I said was everybody believes in a god. Even those that ignorantly and mistakenly claim they don't. And the only other thing I mentioned was that I point out that the only position that offers any kind of desirable and meaningful future with specific promises to the individual involves a Creator God. And all other views promise nothing more than eternal death a few years down the way. Do you have some proof that this isn't true?


rwp_47's picture


Actually there is nothing in science and absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest or support the idea that our universe is eternal.

But reason to think its not eternal can be clearly ascertained from the second law of thermodynamics (which is the central foundation stone for all of science).

But in any case there really isn't "a mathematical type proof" one way or the other. But interesting the only one smart enough to know that is the bible (Ecclesiastes:8:17).
"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it."

So londonbrandon, don't ask a proof of me (because I already know there's no way to prove it either way) ... because the fact is the human brain simply isn't a good enough tool for that job.
If you disagree - then let's see y-o-u-r proof.


rwp_47's picture

Jesus lover 68
The 2nd Law of thermodynamics requires time's arrow to point in only one direction (the future) and for disorganization to increase (as that is what causes times arrow to move in only one direction). Evolution postulates the opposite ... that things become more organized ... that nature literally lifts itself by its bootstraps. So evolution completely disagrees with (and is at complete variance with) the most fundamental law of science there is ... the law of entropy. Therefore if one relies on science as his determinate of truth ... then evolution's most basic working hypothesis is based on an untruth which is at complete variance with science's most fundamental law. So simply stated ... the theory of evolution is simply unscientific. Prove me wrong.


londonbrandon's picture

Hello RWP_47.

Surely you are aware in 2014 that from an apologetics framework, the 2LT argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of this law. (?)

The laws of thermodynamics only apply within a thermodynamically "closed" system, in which no free energy can enter from outside the system. Under such circumstances, the available free energy is used up and degraded until it can no longer do work, leading to thermodynamic decay and increase in entropy and disorder. While the entire universe may certainly, ultimately be described as a closed system with no new energy/matter being created, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHIFTING OR CONCENTRATION OF ENERGY ON A PLANET THAT IS CONTINUALLY (for the time being) RECEIVING NEW ENERGY FROM THE SUN. Biology can be seen as a process that extracts energy from the environment to create order and complexity for the time being as well.

Here's an example: A brand new truck rolls off the showroom floor. No rust, very few flaws, no stress fractures in its frame, etc. Where did the steel in that truck come from? Mostly, it came from old rusty cars, refrigerators, tin cans, etc, that were melted down and repurposed.

Heather Disher

Heather Disher's picture

I believe that if you are viewing the "closed system" as the universe, and not just our planet, RWP's point is completely valid. It would make no sense to view our planet as its own system in any framework, as it depends on the sun and moon for the most basic functions.


kOOLAIdScISSORgEEk's picture

It is true that bacteria can change so it can survive BUT it has never turned into a fish or a completely different species. Proving the theory, that bacteria turn into fish then lizard then monkey then human, is FALSE. Evolution is FALSE!


antievolution's picture

Can I ask everyone who believes in evolution, how can nothing come from something??


londonbrandon's picture

Hi Antievolution.

The question "how can something come from nothing" in regards to evolution is malformed IMHO.

Evolution is not abiogenesis.

Imagine watching a video of dominos falling half way through. You can see what has fallen and when, you may be able to make predictions about what is going to fall. What you can't see in this particular video is who or what pushed the first domino (human? earthquake?) but that has nothing to do with what you can observe. Biological evolution is similar in that it describes changes in allele frequencies among populations. As far as how life got started on this planet -- it's just not a question that biological or Darwinian evolution claims to answer.

Hi Koolaidscissor. This argument sounds like "If dogs come from wolves, why are there still wolves"? Or, "If Humans came from Monkeys why are there still Monkeys"? Biological evolution is the change in allele frequencies among populations of living creatures. Populations spread out in groups and change over time according to what mutations benefit them. (or most often, they die out as has happened to 99.9% of species). Modern species may have shared common ancestors.


londonbrandon's picture

Hello kOOLAIdScISSORgEEk. Your comment appears to belie a misunderstanding of the the theory of biological evolution. Can a small change occur to bacteria? Can another small change occur? You can witness bacterial evolution in real life if you want to.

For example, in 1988, biologist Richard Lenski took a dozen glass flasks and added identical bacteria to each of them. Those 12 populations have been evolving ever since, letting scientists watch evolution in real time.

Day after day — including holidays and weekends — workers in Lenski's lab at Michigan State University in East Lansing feed and care for the E. coli bacteria. The bacteria eat and divide again and again. The original microbes have produced more than 50,000 generations over the last 25 years.

Else You Are Mad

Else You Are Mad's picture

Their must be some Other that created the universe. If the Lord created everything how dare us as his creations question His biological plan? Obviously all His creations have evolved. Gaps in the fossil record mean only that an animal did not die in a way conducive to fosilization. Think of evolution as God's way of ensuring His creations continue The to prosper. The Bible was written and translated by man, and thus is not the true word of God. And by denying evolition you are blindly deny God's work. Who would you rather trust: the evidence God left for us or someone blasphemously denying the beauty of His work by saying he knows the truth? Just objectively think about that.


Norbert Z

Norbert Z's picture

Science and the scriptures should both be held to the same standard of knowing when assumptions are being promoted as facts.

Take the example mentioned by londonbrandon about placing bacteria in a glass flask. Does that mean if we place chimpanzee's in a flask they will eventually turn into mankind? Obviously the idea in such a question is absurd, but numerous well meaning scientists are using such experiments to prove an assumption that ape like creatures evolved into mankind.

From what I understand, I agree with Dr. David Berlinski's view about biological evolution, that it's a pseudo-science at best. There are numerous youtube videos where he points out how people are promoting assumptions as fact in the name of science.


thatonechick's picture

To brotherjoseph;
You say that there are no fossils of transition species. Well, I present to you Tiktaalik, a genus that shows the transition from aquatic vertebrates to vertebrates walking on land.
This genus was found in Canada, and has been nicknamed the "fishapod". Look it up.

Login/Register to post comments
© 1995-2015 United Church of God, an International Association | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence and questions should be sent to Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to

You may login with either your assigned username or your e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.