Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 1

[one.opinion]

31 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

Having said all that, I still often write for the lurkers who might be reading a post or thread and that God might simply use me as an example to those struggling with doubts that it is possible to ask hard questions, not get all the answers we want or expect, and still have a strong trust and confidence in Jesus Christ.

For the sake of the lurkers out there, my faith, allegiance, and obedience are to Jesus Christ. He humbled Himself to take on a human body, sacrificed that life for sinners like me, and rose again to offer a new, spiritual life to all that accept (praise God that this truth was made clear to me!). I owe Him my own life and work toward understanding and following Him better each day.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I do believe He used the words He meant. Which is curious because He didn’t use a word for “perfect”.

He didn't use the word "perfect"  but the Hebrew phrase recorded does mean "perfect."   And since God doesn't have a standard of good that isn't perfect, you really don't have a case in trying to parse the word "good" to mean something less than perfect.

[Guest]

Quote

The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.
Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.

Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle.

Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.

The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

Evolution is Scientifically Impossible

Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)

The Indoctrination System Called "Education"

The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented.

A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate.

Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a "team player" and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades.

The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it.

Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately. (...)

[Darwinian Evolution cannot be observed and replicated in order to be scientifically validated and also there is not one single known case of a change of kinds]:

Source and Additional Material: 9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False

Now go make a cat out of a dog by manipulating DNA!

[one.opinion]

58 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I didn't "imply" anything, Jesus said it, not me. Speaking of Moses (who penned Genesis) Jesus says,

John 5:47 (KJV)

But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Listen, everyone has to learn, but for me, when men say things that outright change what the word of God says, then I don't believe them. They can call themselves Christians, but until they believe the word of God, well, I can't accept their claims to believe Jesus. Why would they need Him if they believe evolution which says there was no Adam and Eve and no original sin, so no Jesus? A = B = C. Evolution negates the word of God and the mission of Jesus and our ministry as followers.  

Two quick questions:

1. What does the Bible say one needs to do to be saved?

2. Do you believe it?

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Those aren't the questions you should ask, it's, Do you believe the word of God where those answers reside? If you do, why do you pick and choose what to believe from it and what you don't based on personal thoughts? God's word is good.

An interesting attempt to take the high road while refusing to answer 2 straightforward questions.

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Because brother, you're ignoring the question with a question to which you also know the answer. Your questions to me imply I don't believe the word of God.

I was testy in my reply earlier, and I apologize for it. Allow me to hit the refresh button, let me share my theology based on Genesis 1-3, and then you can judge whether my views are heretical. You have passed judgement on me without evening knowing what I believe and I think that is a mistake on your part. What do you say, can we admit to our own faults in this thread to this point and then you can read what I have to say?

[Guest shiloh357]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Two quick questions:

1. What does the Bible say one needs to do to be saved?

2. Do you believe it?

It's about far more than that.  It's not just believing the "right things" about Jesus, as if everything else in the Bible is of little importance.   The fact is (and I know this first hand) you have a very bizarre and incoherent theology and you have to twist Scripture and pervert the Bible to force an accommodation of your heretical beliefs.   You have to introduce ideas into the Bible and challenge (violate) basic biblical doctrines in order to reconcile your false teachings with the Bible in your imagination.    It appears that as long  as you can choreograph things in your mind and justify it to yourself, you feel free to believe what you want at the expense of the authority of the Word of God.  

 

[RockyMidnight]

11 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

So I've laid out the crux of the matter: evolution denies the need for a plan of salvation. This is right in line with these verses:

Psalms 10:4 
In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.” 

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

Evolution started with the denial of God, but since science is proving over and over that the universe is so complex that statistically it cannot have happened randomly through any process, so they turn from billions of years to billions of miles - yes, aliens. They now believe an alien race came here and seeded the earth. Star Trek has been pushing that for over a generation. Here is the "strong delusion" aliens. Every Sci Fi show is about aliens, some good, most bad. The point is even the evening news talks about that UFOs are real. They are nothing more than demonic activities. We either believe God despite our five senses or we don't. After all, isn't that what Heb 11:1 explains?

Here is the domino effect for sure: no Adam, no Eve, no Sin, no God, then yes to aliens to remove God from His unmistakable handiwork. That's just plain Vulcan logic.

The Lord has said: "These people praise me with their words, but they never really think about me. They worship me by repeating rules made up by humans. So once again I will do things that shock and amaze them, and I will destroy the wisdom of those who claim to know and understand." (Is 29:13-14 CEV)

The Lord said, "These people claim to worship me, but their words are meaningless, and their hearts are somewhere else. Their religion is nothing but human rules and traditions, which they have simply memorized. So I will startle them with one unexpected blow after another. Those who are wise will turn out to be fools, and all their cleverness will be useless." (Is 29:13-14 GNB)

I make liars of false prophets and fools of fortunetellers. I take human wisdom and turn it into nonsense. (Is 44:25 CEV)

I make fools of fortunetellers and frustrate the predictions of astrologers. The words of the wise I refute and show that their wisdom is foolishness. (Is 44:25 GNB)    

This applies to aliens as well, even Vulcans!

Cheers!!! 

[one.opinion]

23 hours ago, Abdicate said:

It's ok, I get testy at times, so forgive me too. We easily apply feelings to text assuming people write coherently. I am not good at that.

Thanks! I appreciate your graciousness.

I haven't formally written these up (but it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to do some day), but these are the important theological points from Genesis 1-3 that I can think of off-hand. I put up a list like this recently and Shiloh helpfully amended some of the points, but I can't remember where the thread was ? Hopefully, this one is a bit better than the last version.

1. God alone is the Creator of all things.

2. God created humanity specifically and imbued a spiritual aspect capable of communing with Him.

3. Humanity (and the entirety of creation) is cursed with sin and doomed to spiritual death after Adam's deliberate choice to disobey God.

4. God set a plan in motion in which the perfect Jesus Christ would become incarnate and pay the penalty for the sin of all mankind.

Now stretching beyond Genesis 1-3, Jesus would lead a sinless life, die a physical, atoning death, and resurrect to defeat death and give every individual the possibility of eternal life. Eternal life is achieved through acceptance of God's gift, with nothing we can do to earn that gift.

So yes, I do interpret much of the descriptive language as figurative, particularly the 6 day aspect of creation, but I believe that we share the same major theological points.

As to what you say in other posts, I agree that an atheistic evolution would indeed be contrary to what the Bible teaches. But that is not the evolution that I think evidence supports. I think God creating through evolution is a much better explanation of the evidence that is available.

I understand that it is unlikely that I will change anyone's mind toward my view of creation events. What I would like to change is the perception that Christians that accept evolution are dangerous heretics and a scourge to the modern Church.

Oh, another thing I would like to change is bad arguments against evolution, since it is the point of the OP, after all. The more Christians that disagree with evolution understand about the topic and are able to make well-reasoned arguments (and avoid the bad arguments), the less opportunity is given to atheists to mock followers of Jesus.

[Guest shiloh357]

53 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks! I appreciate your graciousness.

I haven't formally written these up (but it wouldn't be a bad idea for me to do some day), but these are the important theological points from Genesis 1-3 that I can think of off-hand. I put up a list like this recently and Shiloh helpfully amended some of the points, but I can't remember where the thread was ? Hopefully, this one is a bit better than the last version.

1. God alone is the Creator of all things.

2. God created humanity specifically and imbued a spiritual aspect capable of communing with Him.

3. Humanity (and the entirety of creation) is cursed with sin and doomed to spiritual death after Adam's deliberate choice to disobey God.

4. God set a plan in motion in which the perfect Jesus Christ would become incarnate and pay the penalty for the sin of all mankind.

Now stretching beyond Genesis 1-3, Jesus would lead a sinless life, die a physical, atoning death, and resurrect to defeat death and give every individual the possibility of eternal life. Eternal life is achieved through acceptance of God's gift, with nothing we can do to earn that gift.

So yes, I do interpret much of the descriptive language as figurative, particularly the 6 day aspect of creation, but I believe that we share the same major theological points.

As to what you say in other posts, I agree that an atheistic evolution would indeed be contrary to what the Bible teaches. But that is not the evolution that I think evidence supports. I think God creating through evolution is a much better explanation of the evidence that is available.

I understand that it is unlikely that I will change anyone's mind toward my view of creation events. What I would like to change is the perception that Christians that accept evolution are dangerous heretics and a scourge to the modern Church.

Oh, another thing I would like to change is bad arguments against evolution, since it is the point of the OP, after all. The more Christians that disagree with evolution understand about the topic and are able to make well-reasoned arguments (and avoid the bad arguments), the less opportunity is given to atheists to mock followers of Jesus.

That entire post is theologically incoherent.