Replies

That is false, and nothing more than a creationist talking point. Why don't you let science be the judge of what is, and is not, science, and what has failed? They are qualified in this area, you are not. For that matter, creationists have been declaring the theory of evolution as failed for 150 years. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. They should just learn to leave science alone.

The theory of evolution has failed because it no longer explains observational data. That's how scientific theories are commonly disqualified; they no longer match up to real world knowledge.

I studied evolution for six years in graduate school, and included both fossil man and human osteology on my Ph.D. exams. It is the nonsense that creationists keep coming up with that fails to explain the data. Dinosaurs and humans cavorting around together? A 6,000 year old earth? Those religious beliefs, applied to scientific questions, are what do not adequately explain the data.

Oh please. There is no data that dinosaurs and humans were "cavorting" around together, nor is there any Biblical basis for the notion for the young Earth theory. The Garden of Eden could have lasted for untold amounts of time, the Bible doesn't say, and all manner of creatures could have lived outside its boundaries prior to the first sin. In this manner dinosaurs and the age of the world is easily explained. Of course, God could have merely set up the world as it appears now to confound our understanding of it. After all, we know that soil is made up of decaying organic matter, but if we examined some soil that God made then to our observation it would be made up of creatures once living even if God had commanded it into existence.

The flaws with evolution are many. The basic premise of evolution is that random mutation causes incrimental changes that over time transform single celled organisms into multicelled organisms, one species into a completely different species, randomly, but in a manner that increases each alteration's ability to survive.

Yet if this is truly what is happening then why do we not see it in the fossile record. More precisely, why do we not see all of evolution's failures in the fossile record. With species changing into new species we should see lots of evolutionary dead ends. Yet thus far all the fossile record has ever revealed is fully formed organisms that appear out of no where, live for huge periods of time, and then disappear to make room for the new strata of fully formed organisms. Curiously, we never see the odd misshapen creature that just couldn't cut it. Even if such creatures don't last long, because they're failures, it seems rather incredible that for millions of years not a single one would manage to fossilize.

Another flaw is how specific organs and cellular components would form. 1% of an eye, for example, is utterly worthless. Why would a creature evolving to be more fit in its environment evolve an appendage which, while potentially useful in the future, is currently nothing more than a drain on precious calories?

Evolution apologists, of course, invent a fanciful story about light sensitive cells being at least somewhat useful, but this musing misses the larger point. Even if light sensitive cells would be more useful and would eventually evolve into an eye (two huge assumptions) it still doesn't explain other even more troubling problems. Light sensitive cells, even if they were to develop, are useless on their own. You have to have nerves connecting them to the brain. You have to have a brain capable of understanding what those cells are saying. The brain, the light recepitive cells, and the nerve connections all have to evolve at the same time since any one component is useless without the other two.

We're expected to believe that this random mutation occurred, but that there are no fossiles of creatures with three eyes, or one eye in the back of their head (or the bottom of their foot).

The problem is even more acute when you consider the internal makeup of a cell. Even if you ignore the notion that self-replicating RNA strands could spontaneously appear in ancient organic soup and then form a cell, the internals of a cell are impervious to evolution. Cells are basically incredibly complex pieces of molecular machinery. As most people who aren't burying their head in evolutionary sand know, chance and complexity are countervailing forces. No one would look at a computer and conclude that geological forces randomly created it, but that's what evolutionists do upon observing a person. However, for evolution to work random chance must produce the complexity we see without remembering what it just created. If a cell mutates something useful on this go around it is just as likely to mutate something useless on the next. The typical evolutionist answer of stage driven mutation doesn't solve this problem, it just illustrates the bankruptcy of the theory.

That doesn't stop the evolutionist, however. Beginning with the premise that God does not exist the evolutionist contorts himself to force the evidence to fit the conclusion he has already reached. That is the exact opposite of observation and the scientific method. That is the methodology of a zealot and a dogmatist.

I'm not going to bother to respond to your post in any detail. Your understanding of what the theory of evolution calls for is severely flawed, and I simply don't have the time tonight to explain what the theory really predicts and where you are incorrect.

Just one example --

...we not see all of evolution's failures in the fossile record

There is a reason for this. See if you can work it out for yourself. You probably wouldn't believe any explanation I provided anyway.

That is the methodology of a zealot and a dogmatist.

And that is the evolutionist.