First I will start with problems in the evolutionary tree. There are thousands of missing links in this tree, and by that I mean gaps between two animals such as the fish and the frog. Logically, evolution does not make sense because of a major lack of evidence. No one has discovered the fossil that is made up of half of one animal and half of another. The few fossils which have surfaced that could be considered half of one animal and half of another are either fake, such as the Piltdown man, or hotly debated upon by scientists, such as the archaeopteryx.
In this case, you must look further back in the tree and you must also look at the fasct that organisms of this size are typically comprised of millions, billions, trillions and more cells. If you picture 2 cells interacting, then one hundred, they can work in conjunction with each other. A few thousand can start to form a tissue, millions can form organs with specific functions, and billions can form sophisticated organisms. Evolution never says that there is precisely a "half and half" state in evolution. That would be ridiculous XD
The halfway stage for most animals couldn’t survive.
That is probably true in most cases, but again, that isn't how evolution works.
A “bat” with a changing diet and stubs for wings couldn’t survive to evolve or reproduce to create the “wooden bat”.
Remember, evolution of such a large organism as a bat will take quite a while. The diet of an animal might change due to its environment, in which case the best suited will survive, the ill suited will die. Eventually, the diet of successive generations will be much more adapted to the new environment, and likewise the organism may develop slightly altered digestive organs. As to the addition, removal, or reduction of appendages, that can be chalked up to a survival trait as well. You might ask how the removal of appendages or reduction can be an advantage, but think of this: If a bunch of bugs that are used to the daylight get trapped very deep in a cave where there is no light, what purpose will their eyes serve except to consume energy that could be better used elsewhere in their body? This does not mean that they will lose their eyes over time, that would be flat out ignorant and could only be an assumption made by somebody not familiar with biology. However, if their is a mutation in one of the bugs that causes it to be born without eyes, it will not be weeded out of the gene pool as it might have on the surface where light and sight were necessary. You can see, then, how a simple mutation could survive in the species and make its way through the species.
Also, why hasn’t anything evolved in man’s six thousand years of recorded history?
There have been plenty of things that have evolved, even in the past hndred years. Typically, though, these are very simple organisms or viruses (which aren't actually living, which is why I distinguish the two). Many bacteria reproduce so rapidly, that beneficial mutations crop up in almost any environment. Manipulating the environment, scientists can observe the process of evolution. Often, though, they simply get stronger bacteria of the same species, as opposed to new bacteria.
And, if fish had “millions of years” to evolve, why are there still thousands of fish today that haven’t evolved?
There is a simple explanation. You are assuming that the theory of evolution implies that everything must evolve. But ask yourself, what does the theory of evolution state? In basic terms, it says that the best adapted survive, and the ill adapted will die out. As more advantageous mutations crop up, the species may become much more different than its ancestors, effectively becoming a new species altogether. In this case, the fish must have something right if they have survived for millions of years, so why would they need to evolve?
There are also problems with the “Big Bang” theory. Only an intelligent designer can make a code, language, or being. Only intelligence can create intelligence. Therefore, a mindless fireball, such as the big bang, cannot create something as complex as DNA codes. So how can an evolutionist think the same mindless fireball could make all of mankind?
That isn't exactly true, actually. The philosophical implications of Conway's Game of Life (a mathematical system at its core) is one of many, many examples where intelligence can be formed without intelligence. This in no way disproves your statement, though. However, many/most/(all?) reactions are chaotic. Chaos is not randomness, don't make that mistake! Because they are chaotic, they will have what are called attractors or basins of attraction where predictable, non-chaotic events occur. Sometimes, these lead to stability in the system, and this in no way requires intelligence behind it. The only intelligence comes from the observer. If we did not observe the system, it would still have these properties.
Now I will discuss some faulty evolutionary arguments. Evolutionists believe there are no absolutes. By believing there are no absolutes, you are saying an absolute. This is a popular principal taught by Atheistic Evolutionists. They say that the claims of Christianity are preposterous because we believe that God has always been. I would like to ask them “who do they think created the Big-Bang’s energy particles?”
I am not sure if this is in fact an Evolutionist argument, but you are completely correct in finding this absurd. From a logical standpoint, the statement contradicts itself. To say it is a popular principle is a bit of a stretch, probably (hopefully XD). Maybe some uneducated atheists would think it preposterous that something could always have been, but really, it makes sense. The more popular view is that existence has always existed and that our universe is but a small sample. In the case where god is believed to have always exist, a theistic argument is:
- Every event has a cause (this is the causality principle and is not unique to theology)
- Stepping back through every event, there was a predecessor until we reach the beginning.
- The original "Cause" is what we know as God.
- God is not caused by anything else since God was the first cause.
- God then created the universe and everything
However, the atheist version is:
- The universe has always existed
It is a bit more concise.
The similarities that scientists have discovered between the DNA of an ape and the DNA of a man don’t mean anything to me. Evolutionists still try to say though, that a man’s DNA is 99% the same as that of an ape, but, DNA of a man is also 75% similar to the DNA of a banana.
I think you are quoting uneducated people. I wish they would stop arguing their misguided points >.> Most DNA is unused. Only a very tiny portion is used. (Wow, I just thought of something: If God is perfect and all knowing, why do we have so much excess and clutter? Nature is pretty unoptimised at times…) Anyways, it is more important to look at how similar the active code is.
Evolutionists believe there is no right and wrong. This is a faulty belief because if there is not right and wrong, why do people across multiple cultures seem to “know” (from their conscience) that murder is wrong? Obviously, there has to be someone who established a moral right and wrong. Could this be because there is in fact a moral law-giver?
I think that a refined evolutionist thought was probably not read properly and has been misinterpreted. I think the evolutionist would say that "right" and "wrong" are not innate and that actions aren't "right" or "wrong." Instead, actions can be advantageous to survival of the species, disadvantageous, or they might not have enough of an affect to cause much. in the case of murder, it is clearly not an advantage for survival! If a society was comprised of individuals who all murdered, that gene pool would not last very long and would be quickly lost. We would be left instead with people that would value life as those would be the people still alive to pass on their genes.
Science teaches us that cells can’t go from simple to complex. If cells don’t have all the correct parts they can’t function. Molecular biologist, Michael Behe uses a mousetrap as an analogy to illustrate this point. “A mousetrap has several parts, all of which are necessary for it to work, that must be present in a particular fashion to catch a mouse. A mousetrap with one or two of these parts is not a simple mousetrap capable of becoming a more efficient, complex mousetrap- it is no mousetrap at all. So is it with cells….They either come together all at one or don’t. Darwinism has no answer here. Rocks can’t turn into people. Something has to be always living or never living: abiotic or biotic. Cells are too complex to simply develop by chance. One has over a trillion bits of information in it (more letters than exists in the world’s largest library!) Nearly everyone admits that there appears to be an orderly and intelligent design in the appearance of our universe. Even Richard Dawkins confesses, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of being designed for a purpose.”
Your last quote is in the wrong context, but I will address that later if I have a chance.
Clearly, the science teachers in question are not familiar with a concept I learned of in middle school and was posited and simulated a few decades ago called the Heterotroph Hypothesis (note that "theory" means it is proven, "hypothesis" means simply that it hasn't been proven). It was once believed that cells cannot be formed from anything but other cells, so this leads to the question, "Where do the first cells come from?" Naturally, one answer is "God." The other answer is that cells can form from simple organic compounds. The next challenge is trying to figure out how the organic compounds were formed. simulating what the beginnings of earth would have been like (after it had sufficiently cooled), it was shown that organic compounds could have been created and given that there were millions (billions, actually) of years to do this and we could do it in a much shorter simulation, it is reasonable to form the hypothesis that cells formed from groupings of organic matter.
It is statistically extremely improbable that life cold evolve by mere chance. The statistical probability of evolution happening by chance has been found to be unlikely. It would take 8 trillion tries per second. At this speed it would take 10 to the 147 power years just to make one stable gene!
I am not sure where that statistic came from, but in the whole universe, the statistics are much, much better. First, what was the sample space? Was it just a small cluster of molecules, or were they using the entire universe? Plus, there are many orders of magnitude more tries per second at any given point in the universe. Every Planck unit is one step, and there are about 1.85492*1043 of these units every second. That cuts it down to about 4.312854463*10^115 seconds, and that is on some unknown scale. The universe has been around. Interestingly, the age of the universe in seconds is very close to the same decimal part. I wouldn't be surprised if the arbitrary figure of "1 in 10^98 chance of life occurring" had been used or maybe 1 in a Gogol and they did their math wrong. It seems eerily precise XD
I am tired .__. I hope I have clarified a few things? I would rather you be well informed about what you think opposes you. An educated argument is often better than one that is based on assumption and preconceived notion.
EDIT: Several posts were made during my long response. From a theological standpoint (not necessarily from the perspective of the lay person), "God" is not a human because God does not have a form. Likewise, God is not an ape :P