Point 1: Human footprints have been found beside dinosaur footprints in the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This indicates that humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time. But the theory of evolution shows that the first man evolved tens of millions of years after the last dinosaur died.
Point 2: Scientists have never observed the evolution of one species into another species. Every species on earth produces only copies of itself, never a new species.
Point 3: Evolution claims that early species of giraffes had short necks - some longer than others. Individuals with longer necks were able to better reach the leaves on the trees for food. Neck length had survival value, and so all giraffes eventually ended up with long necks. Using this belief, evolution would predict that all species of land animals would end up with long necks. So, evolution is wrong.
Point 4: The current growth rate among human beings is 2% per year. Assume that the yearly growth rate was only 0.2% in the past. [To use a lower value would benefit the Evolution theory, because it would indicate that humans have been on earth for a longer period.] Assuming 5 billion humans today, a 0.2% annual growth rate would mean that there were 112 million on earth when Jesus was born, 2 million in 2000 BCE, 38,000 in 4000 BCE, 700 in 6000 BCE but only 13 humans in 8000 BCE. That checks out with a Genesis view of the earth's history, but not with the theory of evolution which says that homo sapiens have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
Point 5: S.H. Huse's book "The Collapse of Evolution" talks about many fossils that were believed to be pre-humans, but did not pan out. Heidelberg man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man all were eventually shown to be other than predecessors of homo sapiens.
Point 6: Dr. A.J.E. Cave gave a paper at the International Congress of Zoology in 1958 in which he concluded that a skeleton found in France was not an Neanderthal but was of an elderly human who suffered from arthritis. The implication is that Neanderthals never existed.
Point 7: The Cro-Magnon's brain capacity is at least equal to Homo Sapiens. The implication is that homo-sapiens has not evolved from the Cro-Magnon.
Point 8: If homo-sapiens evolved from extinct proto-humans, then why is it so difficult to find skeletons of these species?
Point 9: Agraptalyte fossils are supposed to be millions of year old index fossils, except that a number of them were found, still alive, in the South Pacific three years ago!
Point 10: If one species were to evolve into another, one would expect that it would do so in many small, incremental steps. Thus, many transition fossils would have been found by now. But, in fact, very few have been discovered.
Point 11: If humans evolved from apes, then one would expect that there would be no apes left on earth; all would have evolved into humans.
Point 12: If our ancestors who lived, say, 80 million years ago were small mammals, then the human genome must be much larger and more complex than the genome of our ancestors, back in the age of the dinosaurs. But William Dembski's book "Intelligent Design" and Phillip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth" both explain that there is no possible mechanism by which the genome can increase in complexity; its total information content is fixed. Thus, natural selection can produce microevolution -- small changes with in a species. But, it cannot produce macroevolution -- major changes from one species to another.
Point 13: A group of scientists proved in 1836 that spontaneous generation does not occur. Spontaneous generation or abiogenesis is an "ancient theory holding that certain lower forms of life, especially the insects, reproduced by physicochemical agencies from inorganic substances." 8 i.e. that living matter came from non-living matter. Since this cannot happen, it is impossible for an elementary life form to appear on a lifeless earth. Thus, evolution of the species cannot even get started.
Point 14: Second law of thermodynamics: Henry Morris wrote: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics." 11 Evolution teaches the opposite: that entropy decreases and complexity and order increases. Evolution is impossible because it violates the universally accepted second law of thermodynamics.

On the Christian Forum where I found this, has long since been locked.  I'm posting this, if you want to put points against it, or just want a really good laugh; I sure did.


Tags: Really...?, The Fourteen Points Against Evolution

Views: 280

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

All I have to say is...derp xD
lol xD

Point 1:   Hoax

Point 2: Wrong.

Point 3: It is most likely that Giraffes have a long neck because of sexual selection as males use their necks to fight one another. This would also explain why the female of the species has a significantly shorter neck. Also, this is not at all what evolution would predict.

Point 4: Statistics? Really? And those statistics are taken out of thin air.

Point 5: Australopethicus Aforensis.

Point 6: So if I proof that a book has no written words in it, that means that all books everywhere are "blank"?

Point 7: Evolution is not about getting bigger, better and smarter. It is about adaptability 

Point 8: It is not, but the problem is that creationist close their eyes and ears when they're presented with evidence. And again, Australopethicus Aforensis

Point 9: Extinct and extant does not say anything about whether or not evolution is true. Crocodiles are on earth for millions of years, what's your point?

Point 10: Every human alive is a transitional species, every animal ever is transitioning (evolving) to become another species. Also Basilosaurus, Ambulocetus, Archeopteryx, 

Point 11: Nope, we wouldn't. Evolution is not a step by step improvement plan.

Point 12: Incorrect, firstly, information content is not fixed and what we would consider to be more complex doesn't have to be more complex on a cellular or even genetic level. 

Point 13:  Proving a negative as this is not science, at all. "we couldn't do it, therefor it didn't happen" is not a proper result from any scientific research. 

Point 14: Earth is not a closed system, have you ever seen that big glowing ball that is sometimes referred to as the sun?


Ergo, same ole creationist bullshit. Seek ignorance and misunderstanding, label it God and mistery and presto another idiot thinks he knows stuff about evolution.

Thanks for sharing.

I'm sure most or all of these are addressed on Talk Origins.org, which is specifically set up to deal with these kind of assertions.

for example:

#1 - Human - Dinosaur tracks - The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy

#10 - TalkOrigins on transitional fossils

#11 - No, they would have evolved into different kinds of apes, each branch adapting to their ecological niche.  Which is exactly what happened. (humans are apes). TalkOrigins: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today? 

#14 is just stupid, and has been refuted over and over. Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism

Piltdown man? Seriously?
So much stupidity.
C'est des conneries ! Je suis sidéré !
LOLwhut? My OCD is trying to compel me to do a dissection of this ... mess ... but I see others have done it very succinctly already. Sometimes I wonder why a repeatedly disproven hoax is still used as a "valid" argument, then I remember: ah yes, gullibility and ignorance are both hallmarks of the evolution denial movement.

I'm always bewildered by the "scientific" findings which creationists claim exist.  Claims such as the discovery of human footprint fossils in the same rock layer as dinosaur remains or claims I've seen that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old would rewrite all conventional knowledge concerning the history of Earth, yet I never see the studies which supposedly uncovered these claims cited.  I assume creationists believe they're telling the truth, but what are the origins of these false claims?  Are the creationists blatantly lying?  Are they relying the claims of someone who is lying?  Where did these "findings" come from if they are not true?


I sense a higher tendancy among creationists to cite facts without observing their background.  If someone makes a claim (however false) that supports creation mythology, it is relyed without being double-checked.  A few minutes of research would have shown the person who posted these that they are incorrect.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service