Evolution theory has many contradictions.

1. We don’t reject the theory of evolution simply because it is “just a theory.” We reject it because it is a theory that is inconsistent with scientific observations.

2. We don’t object to defining those creatures that survive to be the fittest for survival. We do, however, object to circular reasoning when it is used to date rocks and fossils. We object to circular reasoning when the theory of evolution is used to calibrate a molecular clock, and then that molecular clock is used to tell how long it took for species to evolve.

3. Some parts of the theory of evolution are testable, and some parts are not. Microevolution (the development of variations in species) has been confirmed by breeding experiments, and establishes the accuracy of Mendal’s genetic theory. Macroevolution (the development of new kinds of species) is only partially testable. The parts that are testable have failed the tests.

4. More and more scientists certainly are doubting the theory of evolution.

5. Disagreement among biologists (regarding the theory of evolution) are rampant because the evolutionary “facts” are merely opinions. There are no serious disagreements among biologists about other, non-evolutionary, biological concepts (how organs work, etc.) because these truths have been discovered using the scientific method.

6. The common ancestor of apes and humans hasn’t been found because there wasn’t any.

7. The theory of evolution must explain how life began on earth if it is to explain where all the existing life-forms came from. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that life could not have originated on its own through purely natural processes.

8. Random mutations, even when filtered by natural selection, cannot produce new biological features.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does explain why life could not have originated without conscious intent.

10. Mutations can prevent genes from functioning properly, but can’t produce genes with a previously unknown function.

11. Natural selection does explain variation within species, but cannot explain the origin of new species.

12. Speciation rate would have to greatly exceed extinction rate for some period of time for evolution to create all the species alive today. The current extinction rate is measurable, and (to some people) alarmingly high. Nobody has seen a new kind of plant or animal evolve naturally.

13. There are no transitional forms, living or fossilized.

14. Living things do show evidence of design.

15. Living things are irreducibly complex, which could not have been produced by a series of partially functional prototypes.

Micro and Macro "evolution"

It is not “Evolution” that Christians struggle with, but rather Darwinism

It is important that people understand the major differences between Macro-evolution and
Micro-evolution.

While not ALL Christians will agree with me here, I think the majority (on one level or another) will agree that God allows for adaptations, in His own creation. This kind of “micro-evolution,” both Atheistic Darwinist and Christian scientists both will typically agree does occur in real life.
The Darwinists take these adaptions and make them into something much bigger than they really are. They claim that the adaptions are actually mutations and they are good mutations because through the course of natural selection…these are the mutations are essential for survuval. Survival of the fittest.

Where Christians will differ largly is that these adaptions are natural and a part of God’s plan. He made each and every animal unqice and special. Some would survive and others not.

The biggest difference between Christians and Darwins is the begining of all Creation. Christians believe that the world was created by God.

But even Darwinism did not claim an absolute “origin of all life.” Despite the obvious play on words – the tilte of Charlse Darwin’s book.

The biggest mistake Christians claim from within Darwinism is the origin of ALL beings from a one cell being. This type of macro-evolution, you will not find in Christian belief. God created each being unique and seperate from each other.

While Darwins try to find and exagerate the similarities between all beings. Christians find beauty in the differences. We stand in awe and wonder in how each and every being/species were created by God.

While Darwins stand in wonder of how each and every species developed from a one-cell being.
Christians stand in wonder of how each and every species developed from one being, Almighty God.

What did Darwin really mean?

I think that part of the reason why there is a struggle with Darwinism is pure ignorance.
People do not know what it means to be Darwinist.

It is not the exact same thing as evolution!
Darwin merely provided a mechanism for evolution, that being natural selection.
There are other means by which evolution is thought to have occurred, and these things are still debated today.
Even within Darwinism there are several theories and sub-theories differing in their belief on the mechanics of evolution:

Pure Darwinism argued solely for Natural selection as the mechanism.

Then once you throw the idea of heredity into the picture, you come up with all sorts of theories!

Neo-Darwinist model, which we shall take as the mainstream theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved through two natural mechanisms: “natural selection” and “mutation”.

Some religious groups believe that evolution occurs with the help of a Creator….others believe that evolution occurs with the help of a Creator along with continual help.

Many groups, including Christians, might support ideas of evolution, but not Darwinism.

It depends on what you mean by “evolution.”
Do you mean evolution by means of natural selection, by means of God, by other means?

The question is more complex than most people relieve.

Problem: ID -Sticky apologetics

Some Christians love to use Intelligent Design evidence to evangelize.

It is a sticky situation:
on one hand ID does a good job of showing flaws in Darwinism and evolution. Which can be helpful for Christian evangelists…

The problem is, and it’s a big one, for evolutionists is that there is very, very little evidence that backs evolutionary biology aside from survival of the fittest. Darwin himself said that for his theory to be valid, the fossil record must contain literally millions of transitional species. Where are these millions? Show them to me and I’ll believe.

The fact is, they aren’t there. They have not been found, despite the billions of other fossils we have in our museums across the globe. God and His Creation are enough. No evolution required.”

On the other hand it does nothing to prove the existence of Christian God
In fact true Christians should NOT be ID supporters.
because ID is not enough! you need more! If you really are a Christian and believe the Bible than you will know that ID does not cut it.

It is a little sketchy to be a Christian who supports ID.
You are giving the wrong ideas off about your personal faith
you are giving off the wrong ideas about ID
and you are giving off the wrong ideas about Christians in general

intelligent design only demonstrates that materialist atheism is not true. It does not provide a basis for the distinctive doctrines of Christianity.

Proof of the existence of God is central to Christian apologetics, and therefore a part of Christian evangelism. ID offers a proof of a designer, which certainly is evidence for the existence of God because I’d say that philosophically… logically… God makes the most sense for the identity of the designer).

But this is dangerous grounds to stand on. If you are a Christian, I suggest reading the Bible and basing your world view on it…Creationism.

Problem: ignorance


So after the past week you have seen posts agianst Darwinism, about Expelled (the movie), about academic freedom, and the differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). Constantly I remind you that I am a Creationist and not a proponent of ID.

Why am I supporting it or giving it a fair chance? Why do I care? I am fighting for academic freedom. I believe in knowing all sides of the issues. I believe they should teach the controversy. I believe that idea of religion should be pushed aside a little bit and the science should be taught in classrooms. What I mean by that is I believe that in a classroom a teacher can be politically correct and teach Creationism, ID and evolution (all three sides of the debate) without pushing one side over the other. It must be done. The controversy must be taught without bias. Forget about religious views and show what each group believes.

Today more and more students are coming out of schools ignorant. They are without knowledge and do not even know the difference between ID and Creationism. Students are coming out brainwashed in the ideas of evolution. People are afraid that if ID and/or Creation is taught in schools that their kids will come out brainwashed in those ideas….but they what they missing their own point, students are currently being brainwashed! We need science taught objectively and all angles need to be presented. Yeah it would be difficult for a teacher to do, but it MUST be done!

If students want to be religious that is fine. But in the classroom they should learn ALL sides. They can study and or be a part of the religion outside of class period, that is great. I want people to know that facts and know the truth. I think the truth will really set people free. I believe that when presented with ALL angles, ALL sides, that people will make their own choices. People will follow the evidence and find what really is Truth, but when only ONE side of the story is giving at school, students are ignorant. Society is ignorant.

All I am asking is that we should have the freedom in America to study ALL vantage points in schools.

Teaching the controversy [regarding evolution versus intelligent design] is good education,” Laursen says, adding that he is “not shocked” to see such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union “opposing academic freedom and promoting censorship.”

Ravi Zacharias said it well: “To the extent that you can make your opponent’s position look ridiculous, to that extent you probably do not understand it.”

Darwinism is so crazy, false

Some reasons Darwinism cannot work!!!

1. It is mathematically impossible for amino-acids to form strings in the right sequence by chance and make proteins, and for these to give rise to a cell. See Miller’s experiment which failed.

2. Human embryos do not have gills, Ernst Haeckel lied to you.

3. There isn’t a “tree of life.”

4. The Myth of Vestigial Organs

5. Myth of Mutations

6. The Imaginary Family Tree of Man does not fit for actual men.

There are just a few of the fabrications you can draw from Darwinism. Visit the sources below for more interesting facts!

Sources:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1466
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/

Other interesting articles:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/838464/posts
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1142

I leave you with this awesome/ funny clip from Expelled, Michael Ruse and his crazy crystal theory: