Why the Evolution theory is wrong

I think that they simply theorize everything. If something comes that seems to contradict the theory, they further theorize to cover the gap. They make up alot of nonexistant things that supposedly fills in the gaps. For example, an evolutionary response to my articles question of where is the 2-5 cell creatures would be they are extinct. This would be a theoretical response. Theoretically they have to exist or evolution is wrong. So a new theory is required to support the old. They must assume that they existed and died off, and that is why we don't see them. They need no proof for this, because it is theoretical. It is a possible explanation to the posed problem. That is what they do with ALL discrepancies. Another example is the existance of comets. Supposedly comets have a life span of 10K years. If this is tue, there should not be any comets in existance if the earth is really 4.5 billion years old. So they theorized the existance of the Oort cloud. They have never seen the Oort cloud, it is a theoretical cloud that supposedly spits out comets. That explains why comets exist after 4.5 billion years.

A couple of points: A friend and evolutionist pointed out that Darwin wrote The Origin of SPECIES, not The Origin of LIFE. This is different from today's neo-Darwinism in that Darwin proposed a way that new life forms could develop from a first living cell, not how the first cell could get the game started, and on that point, Darwin appears to have suggested that a divine kick provided the first life form to get evolution going. That may not be the contemporary picture at all among secular evolution, but Darwin bore the tragedy of enduring his child's death, and became a deist and wanted an account for how a deist version of God could set up the dominos for life to exist but not intervene in history. He didn't pretend to know how a first cell could evolve from non-living material; certitude in something like \"chemical evolution\" before any \"biological evolution\" only came later. Second, there is a degree of flexibility built into Orthodoxy; the Orthodox Church rejected Novatianism, which was essentially Orthodoxy without the flexibility of oikonomia, not allowing remarriage even after a first marriage was ended by death. (Now the Orthodox Church does offer a \"council of perfection\" that bereaved faithful remain faithful to their spouses, but this never takes the merciless hard edge it took in Novatianism.) I would point out that the original poster was willing to believe that if the evidence was for evolution, that was how God did it. (It just turns out that today's science at very least cannot plausibly account for what would have created the first working cell. I personally believe there is more that it doesn't account for, but I don't want to go into that right now.) There is something quite Orthodox in his attitude. Third, I would like to give some links from my website. The first and second reply directly to this question, but the third says something I consider even more valuable: [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/origins/]The Evolution of a Perspective on Creation and Origins[/url] [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/young/]Why Young Earthers Aren't Completely Crazy[/url] [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/religion-scicence/]Religion and Science Is Not Just Intelligent Design vs. Evolution[/url] Evolution is significant when it is the cutting edge of the sword wielded by secularism and naturalism. But Orthodoxy has more important things to pay attention to. [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/]Christos Jonathan[/url]

I have something that I wish others would heed. Speaking of theorizing instead of facing facts... This kind of post is the kind of argument that an evolutionist would read and be reassured that creationists don't get science. It's not just that you have their estimate of the age of the universe wrong by more than half (the standard picture is around 13 billion years); the whole thing smells like the kind of science I get from legalistic Protestants. In cases like these I wish that people would either understand the mainstream scientific claim (even where it is wrong), or else refrain from claiming to understand science better than mainstream scientists. And when you argue this way with an evolutionist, you do more than any fellow evolutionist to convince your opponent that evolution is the only game worth considering. [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/]Christos Jonathan[/url]

Post script: I winced after writing the last note because it seemed correct but wrong in spirit, (maybe) winning an argument but not building up the person I was responding to. But I really am concerned for the effect arguments like that have on evolutionists: it closes their mind completely, and does more than anything else to assure them that there is no need to consider whether there might be a God behind our world. If you have come into Orthodoxy from a heterodox tradition, you may understand why some people say it takes years after joining the Orthodox Church to really be Orthodox. It's a long process that starts as Orthodox gilding over a Protestant or other interior; I know that in my own writings, even recent ones in some ways, there is something very non-Orthodox about them, even after several years in the Church. It takes years of immersion for the change to take effect. In this respect I would compare science to Orthodoxy. It won't make you holy, or prepare you for Heaven, or usually give you an edge in fighting your passions; it may make your passions worse. But science is something that takes years to learn. And when I meet arguments like the ones I've encountered here, they don't come, as the original poster's argument, from spending years trying to understand science. They come from the mine of arguments provided by Protestant fundamentalists. Understanding evolution from the attacks made by Protestant fundamentalists is every bit as hard as understanding Orthodoxy from the attacks Protestant fundamentalists make on it. You can't even understand Orthodoxy from Catholics assuring us that we have the same faith; Protestant attacks are less of a window into the soul either of Orthodoxy or of evolution. If you want to get letters after your name understanding biology and then straighten things out, fine. I personally would rather do other things with my time, and there are really more Orthodox things to be concerned about. But unless you are going to dive into that river for years, please don't present yourself as an authority. The piece I mentioned earlier about why there are really better things for most Orthodox to be doing, is [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/religion-science/]Religion and Science Is Not Just Intelligent Design vs. Evolution[/url]. And one of many bigger things to be concerned about, I try to convey, is [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/silence/]hesychasm, spiritual silence, which is a kind of organic food for the soul[/url]. Let's get on to better things. [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/]Christos Jonathan[/url]

I've also posted, [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/creation/]Creation and Holy Orthodoxy: Fundamentalism Is Not Enough[/url]. It doesn't say that much more than what I've said here, but it gathers a couple of things together. [url=http://JonathansCorner.com/]Christos Jonathan[/url]

I've been on the fence post about evolution. I figure that if that is the way life came about, it is because the LORD chose to do it that way. If it is not the way life came about, it is because the LORD chose to do it another way. Science and the Church do not need to argue.

I enjoyed wgat you had to say on several levels. I have considered going further in the scientific field, but I really want to be a doctor and don't want to concern myself with disproving the evolution theory. I have a bad habit of feeling the need to express my thoughts to everyone. I know I am arrogant and prideful making myself to know more than the evolutionists, but I am really trying not to be. So I want to say thank you for the kind rebuke. I did enter this atmosphere with the thought that if evolution is the way God did it, I am willing to believe it. However, even though I was almost convinced, although maybe on a superficial level, I had to reject this idea on the scientific basis that there are no intermediate creatures. Whether possible or not that God himself could have put His hand in it, I don't know, but obviously He did not do it that way or there would be intermediate creatures supporting it. There are no intermediate creatures, so based on a scientific observation alone I reject the idea that God used evolution. I also liked your article about the young Earth scientists not being completely crazy. I think it is almost obsurd to think based on the bible alone that there was a literal six day creation because God did not create the sun until the fourth day. How was God measuring the days? Since it was written by Moses, this may be the description that God knew Moses would understand. However, even though I am willing to believe whatever the scientific data says, if the earth is old or young, I do not draw this conclusion by the scientific observation. A study on the science has led me to believe in a young earth. I believe the earth is less than 10K years based purely on scientific observation. With everything we have observed concerning time dilation of large masses and what would theoretically happen in zero gravity, I have drawn the conclusion that even star light may be reaching us within days for the closer stars and within a few thousand years for the farthest stars. This may be obsurd sounding to you, but I am steadily working on writing an article about my observations and how I know this is a fact. I am willing to send you the article if you would like to read it. Time dilation is very difficult to understand and some people have theorized the opposite effect than I am saying now, so it may seem wrong without me being able to explain myself. However, my opinion is based on observation and not theory alone. I believe that when I present my case along with an overview of the known observations that it will be seen as accurate. I am fully convinced that the science alone without even diving into one scripture will show a young earth.

I was looking over my comments and read what the scientist that believe in evolution are saying concerning time dilation, and I realized that I made a mistake by saying that some people have said the opposite. They say that the effect is essentially the same as I believed it to be. However, when I researched their answer on how long it takes star light to reach earth, they did not calculate time dilation into the equation. Most of the time light travels in an absolute zero gravity. We supposedly have discovered two black holes in our milky way which would greatly effect the way we view time. Since their are also a large quantity of other stars as well, along with us living in a system of 9 planets, we live in a highly gravitational area. This would effect the way we view time. I looked at the pictures of other galaxiex and noticed smearing of light. This is because time is moving slower near their galaxies causing us to acually see the light as it trails away until it gets far enough away to be uneffected. Once the light is in zero gravity, time is experienced by the light differently. It moves quicker. The light is still moving at the same speed, but the way it experiences time is relative to us, so much faster, that it crossed space at a fraction of the time. It is not possible for this to not be taking place. All observational evidence indicate that in zero gravity (deep space) this is certainly what would occur. The dilation from earth to zero gravity is not just earth's gravity, but the sun's and everything else around us. We are in a milky way that has a gravitational pull that is effecting us. The effect is greater that we think. I am not a mathmatician and I am unable to stick the numbers into the equation to see how long the light is actually taking. There are very difficult equations on the dilation effect, and I am going to leave that to others. I do know that the light is reaching us very quickly relative to the numbers believed by the genaeral scientific field. If you know how to do the equations for time dilation, please let me know, I am very interested.

Dear brother, I appreciate your kind responses, particularly as I had gotten on to Orthodox Web to apologize. I have had people drop the hammer on me to push their opinions, and I believed that my posts had been \"dropping a hammer\" when you had just made a few brief remarks. I believed that I did to you something that I don't like to have done to me. I am impressed with your response. Thank you for your kindness. As far as time dilation, I've had some math and physics. I don't agree with your conclusion, but you are reaching for God's truth and I am impressed in what I see in you morally. Thank you. Christos Jonathan

Bit of a no-win situation for those deluded evolutionists, eh? If horses with toes and birds with teeth don't count as transitionals. Every time you find a missing link, now you have two more links missing!

Seriously though, I wanted to offer the perspective of someone who has accepted evolution. I'm writing my PhD thesis right now, so I am unlikely to be able to respond to further posts. But I would like to share a good resource for learning what evolution actually says, and why we should believe it's true. Here it is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ The author helpfully starts by defining evolution, as \"common descent\". Note that this adds a tremendous amount of clarity to the discussion. It's a simple, testable idea. Moreover, it doesn't trivialize the topic: evolutionists accept it, and anti-evolutionists deny it. In fact, it distills the very essence of what we're arguing about when we argue about evolution. The author explains in a lot more detail why this important; I highly recommend reading the introduction. This definition also leaves out a lot of distracting \"side stuff\", including the origin of life itself. True, one way of looking at \"evolution\" could include the origin of life. But I think it's better to leave it out, because (a) it makes the topic too broad to be easily covered, and (b) there is already plenty we disagree about and can discuss[1], without it! If anyone is really serious about learning about evolution, I recommend this document. It requires slow, careful study. At the end of it, I came to the conclusion that either evolution really did happen, or God arranged irrefutable evidence to make us think that it did. (At which point, why not just play along? :) ) In particular, I think the \"protein functional redundancy\" and \"endogenous retroviruses\" (for example) are powerful and compelling, and do not have credible alternative explanations. So this is why I (and others) accept evolution. And this is why claims of missing evidence --- evidence that, in fairness, we would not expect to survive even if evolution were true --- does not persuade me otherwise. Because the evidence that it did happen is too overwhelming and unambiguous. [1] Yes, I realize it's silly of me to say \"discuss\" when I don't plan to return to the discussion, due to severe time constraints on my doctoral thesis. Send me a message in September and I may be willing to talk more then. ---- And let me respond to the watch analogy, too. Analogies are helpful ways of understanding things that are alike in some respects, and unlike in others. What's critical is that the comparison depends only on the alike parts, and not any unlike ones! Here's what I mean: evolution absolutely requires that the things which evolve are self-replicating, and that offspring can differ slightly from their parents. This is not remotely true of any watch I have ever seen. The analogy fails at a critical point. If the intent is to expose a genuine flaw in the basis for evolution, I hope honesty will compel you to stop using the analogy if you've now seen how it fails.

I know this gentleman said that he is not going to be able to respond, but I would like to respond to what he said and perhaps I will drop the same note into him later (after he gets his Phd). The reason why the lack of intermediate creatures matters much more than what he trivialized. Their bones should have survived. There is no reason why atleast one creature of each link out of billions of years and billions of supposed creatures wouldn't be in the fossil record. A horse with toes and the other alleged missing links show their depravation of missing links and the fact they use these creatures further disproves evolution. The horse with toes has been shown not to be a horse at all. Also, even if it were a horse, that would seem to indicate that it is further breaking from a more complex creature to a more simple creature instead of evolutionary progress. The way toes are formed is this: inside the cell there are digestive lysosomes with chemicals inside them that will destroy the surrounding cell. When the infant is in the mothers womb, it has been predetermined that this child needs fingers and toes by our genetic code. In the gaps where toes are to be, the lysosomes deliberately erupt and kill the cell, and therefore construct toes. This is one of the many fascinating things of our bodies. To go from toes to no toes is regression and not progression. There is also the problem that all these alleged intermediates are a part of micro-evolution. I never said micro-evolution is wrong. Actually, micro-evolution is a fact of life. The problem is exactly as this intelligent writer shows. He thinks, as well as all evolutionists, that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution. It does not. Micro-evolution is a part of God's design to give us variety. Foegive me for not being clear and saying evolution is wrong. It would be more accurate to say macro-evolution is wrong. In principle, when I hear the word evolution, I think of one species turning into another. This is impossible. It not only has not been observed, but science also tells us of its impossibility. First, there is a law of genetics that almost EVERY evolutionist seems to ignore. The law says that Aquired attributes cannot be inherited. What this means is that when they teach a monkey to use sign language, that monkey might have children and die. However, the children of that monkey cannot learn sing language any easier. The aquired ability to do sign language is never passed on. If an animal has to stretch his neck to get food. His children will always have the same small neck, there will be no genetic mutation. This has been the observation of science 100% of the time. That is why it is a law. Genetic mutations are rarely good if they do happen. Countless fruit fly experiments verify this. Stick them in radiation, and what do you get? Fly's with legs on their forehead. It takes a HUGE jump to go from one species to the next. The fact is that their supposed indisputable evidence that this very intelligent gentleman shared is never one creature changing species, but an adaptation - a small variation within its kind that gives us what we see today - variety. As I am preparing for Med school, I had to read up on evolution principles. I was aghast to see how scientists are defining evolution. One book told me that evolution was simply a change in the gene pool. Another words (this is actually the same example), if the ratio of blue eyes to brown eyes is 70%:30%, and it changes to 71%:29%, it is evolution because there has been a change in the gene pool. This is where it becomes very difficult to argue against evolution, because intelligent individuals like the previous posters buy this hook line and sinker. They are very smart, but this is not macro-evolution, nor does it indicate macro-evolution could be even remotely possible. If we discuss the evidence throwing out micro-evolution, we will see there is absolutely no way macro-evolution is possible. Nor is there any indication that God chose to do it that way. There would be the missing links. I get this same sad response from every evolutionist I talk to. They say, \"We are lucky to have what we have...\" There are whole links missing, not just scattered creatures. We should atleast have one creature of each intermediary for the supposed billions that lived. It is possible for most to be destroyed, but what is the odds of every single bone of every single intermediary creature that supposedly had billions of years of exhistance before becoming extinct to vanish. Atleast one skelaton of each creature as it transitions from one type to the other and I would be intellectually satisfied with that. I believe that the very principles and mechanisms of evolution is faulty science, but what convinces me the most is the lack of creatures in the fossil record. It is not scientifically possible for us to be missing that many creatures. I hear the special pleads on evolutions behalf because of micro-evolution. I am repeating myself, but micro-evolution does not prove nor does it even slightly hint at macro-evolution. They can come out with a million more proofs of micro, and I will not be swayed. Foegive me for the long post, but I have been enjoying descussions on evolution recently. This is not an argument against the intelligent individual that I am replying in response to. Many people take his position. I simply don't think that it has anything to do with macro-evolution.

Also, as I was considering my first post I wanted to apologize. I have been fighting this idea for sometime now. My frustration was at the concept, not at any individuals who believe the concept. I am refering to when I said this: \"Evolution is a severly perverted and unscientific theory.\" I knew their are plenty of christians that believe the theory, I should have considered their feelings even though I disagree on some scientific points. Forgive me.

I also wanted to respond to this. The watch analogy is actually good. Even though we can recognize the difference between organic and inorganic material, I would like to pose the question: what has conviced us that organic material can change on its own? Now we know that a baby builds up to an adult, and this would seem to indicate that the watch is much different. However, what causes the baby to grow into an adult. There is a process called cellular repiration. It is a very complicated arrangment of just the right proteins call enzymes at just the right spots that cause just the right chemical reactions to use glucose to produce what we know as ATP. ATP is chemical energy. When Phosphate is broken off, it creates energy. Fundamently, these processes refute evolution and perhaps I will explain why later. However, my point is to prove and show that the baby is not becoming more complex. The baby is making ATP so that the genetic sequence can be performed and constructed. The DNA is the same in a baby as it is when he is an adult. It is the consumption of energy that is needed to make this process happen. For every energy transfer, it adds to the entropy of the universe. I don't want to get to deep into entropy, but principally, you can't just add energy. As the case of the baby, the genetic design had to be pre-existing. No actual change occurred. All people and anything organic does is produce energy to complete a genetic sequence that was pre-exhisting. So we know that in order to decrease entopy, energy alone is insufficient. You can throw energy at the problem all day and it accomplishes nothing. I could get all the parts of a tv and ad energy to it with a baseball bat or even a large microwave, but the tv will not construct itself. You need a specific kind of energy to go from less complex to more complex. It is called an outside intelligence. Regardless of what we have chemically that makes us organic, there is a reason why a baby stops maturing at a cirtain time and enters adult hood. There is no more intellectual information being provided by DNA. Therefore, our bodies can produce all the energy it wants, but a man will not change into another creature. He stops growning when his DNA provides no more information. To suggest that DNA is going to get more complicated as years go by is to try to throw random energy at a problem that is too complex to be solved by randomness. The tv will not construct itself, nor will erosion produce a city. Entropy increases with the use of energy, and this law is not overcome in organic material as evolutionist pose. It is all the same. A watch or human. Energy can be added to the watch. It's molecular composition may change if you add enough of the right kind of energy, but it will certainly not be more complex. It will degrade and become useless. You would only increase the entropy.

It seems that I was wrong about something after I researched it more. Time dilation would have a very small effect compared to billions of years. It only explains a very small percent of why this universe is young. I still believe in a young earth for other reasons. I need to do more research.