Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Other gods

2012-08-15T19:59:03Z

Jukkajujju:

'''Other gods''' describes deities other than the Abrahamic [[God]] of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. <s>The term comes from the [[Ten Commandments]], where God said, "You shall have no other gods before me"</s>({{Bible ref|Exodus|20|3}}). The term and concept is older than the bible.

While the word "god" refers, in a general sense, to any deity that is or has been [[worship|worshipped]] as part of a theistic belief system, when spelled with an upper-case "G," the term is normally referring to the God of the [[Abrahamic religions]].




== Other gods in the Bible ==
The [[Old Testament|Jewish]] and [[New Testament|Christian Bible]]s contain references to more than just the Jewish and Christian God, but these gods are seen as false and having no real power, whether it be the [[golden calf]] or the images of [[Baal]].

=== Genesis ===
God in the [[Garden of Eden]] often uses the plural when referring to Himself:
*'And God said, let us make man in our image.', ([[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] 1:26)
*'And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.' (Genesis 3:22)
*'Let us go down, and there confound their language.'. (Genesis 11:7)
This is explained as use of the 'Royal We' in [[Judaism]] or foreshadowing of [[The Trinity]] in [[Christianity]].

=== Exodus ===
The Bible refers to Egyptian gods several times, but they are never presented as having real form or power. For instance, no god is ever discussed taking an action, having a thought, speaking, etc. There are references to collective worship of other gods, but God always takes out His wrath on the Egyptian people themselves and the consequences of that wrath are seen, since they are real and exist.
*'And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.' ([[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 12:12)
*'Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?' (Exodus 15:11)
*'Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.' (Exodus 18:11).
* The Magi of Egypt are able to produce plagues of their own, but it is never stated this is due to the power of a god.

The [[Ten Commandments|First Commandment]] makes it clear that God will not tolerate the worship of these other deities:
*'Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.' (Exodus 20:3, 5)

=== Deuteronomy ===
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death. (Deuteronomy 13:6)

Other biblical laws express the same idea:
*'He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.' (Exodus 22:20)
*'Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.' (Exodus 23:13)
*'Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.' (Exodus 23:24)
*'Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.' (Exodus 23:32)
*'For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.' (Exodus 34:14)

There is also this section on multiple gods: 'Thou shalt not revile the gods.' (Exodus 22:28) This follows from simple logic - how can one revile that which does not exist?

=== Psalms ===
*'God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.' (Psalm 82:1)
*'Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord.' ([[Psalms|Psalm]] 86:8)
*'For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods.' (Psalm 96:4)
*'Worship him, all ye gods.' (Psalm 97:7)

The Psalms are considered to be the poetic writings of [[King David|David]]. In the Near East culture of the time, kings and other men of renown could be called "gods." There is no Biblical indication in any of the discussions of David or Israel's kings over almost 500 years where any god was ever considered to be real. For instance, no other god was ever said to have caused a storm or shown any other sign of actually existing.

=== The rest of the Bible ===
None of the 66 Biblical books written over 1500 years of history have any mention of any other gods at all in any form that would grant them living qualities.

==Short Story==
Horror writer [[H.P. Lovecraft]] once wrote a short story called "The Other Gods."

==Historical==
Other gods worshiped historically include the [[Greek mythology|Greek gods]], the [[Norse mythology|Norse gods]], the [[Egyptian mythology|Egyptian gods]], [[Aztec mythology|Aztec gods]] and the [[Sumerian mythology|Sumerian gods]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Abrahamic Religions]]

Creation

2012-08-15T19:52:40Z

Jukkajujju: /* Famous Creationists */

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|alt=Young earth creationism|thumb|250px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Creation''' refers to either that which has been created, e.g. Mark 16:15, “Preach the Gospel to the whole creation,” or to the moment or process by which [[God]] created, e.g. [[Genesis]] is the creation account. This article deals with the second meaning, according to [[Christian]] faith.

[[Creation science]] investigates how God brought the [[earth]] and [[universe]] into being. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationism]] demonstrates though multiple lines of evidence that the earth is [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|approximately 6,000 years old]]. [[Old Earth Creationism]], like [[atheism|atheistic]] [[pseudoscience|evolutionary pseudoscience]], claims that the earth and universe are billions of years old.

[[Creation science|Creation scientists]] also demonstrate that the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] is in [[Counterexamples to Evolution|conflict with the evidence]] provided by the physical sciences and often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[evolution|theory of evolution]]).<ref>http://www.creation.com/content/view/21</ref> [[Theistic evolution]]ists accept an old Earth and believe that evolution occurred, but that it was God’s means of creation.

==Famous Creationists==

The late "Dr." [[Henry Morris]] was the founder of the [[Institute for Creation Research]] (ICR), who coined the term “[[creation science]]” and began the modern creation science movement. He was a scientist and held a master's degree and a [[PhD]][[Category:Creationism]][[Category:Christianity]] in hydraulic engineering from the [[University of Minnesota]].

[[Image:Duanegishpic.jpg|thumb|175px|right|Dr. Duane Gish]]
"Dr." [[Duane Gish]], now retired, was a scientist ([[chemistry]]), a member of ICR, and a prolific debater for the Young Earth creationist cause.
"Dr." [[Henry Morris]] said of Gish, “at least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”

"Dr." [[Jonathan Sarfati]] is a scientist (chemistry), [[chess]] champion, and Young Earth creationist, who works for [[Creation Ministries International]] in [[Australia]].
He has written a number of books refuting evolutionary arguments and various theological arguments that try and accommodate evolution or an old Earth.

[[Ken Ham]] is a Young Earth creationist, a founder of the American branch of [[Answers in Genesis]], and prime mover of the Petersburg, Kentucky [[Creation Museum]].

"Dr." [[Hugh Ross]] is a scientist (astronomy), a progressive creationist, and founder of [[Reasons to Believe]].
He considers nature to be the 67th book of the Bible.

"Dr." [[Kent Hovind]], also known as "Dr. Dino," is a prominent and controversial young Earth creationist. He founded the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry.

==Creation in Non-Christian Religions==
Most [[religion]]s of the world have their own versions of creation, some of which are similar to Christian beliefs and some of which are very different. The teachings of [[Judaism]] are based on Genesis, as in Christianity; however, significant Jewish authorities also believe in the [[theory of evolution]], and that this theory is not incompatible with biblical accounts of creation.<ref>"Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design." Rabbinical Council of America. December 27, 2005. http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635</ref> [[Muslims]] attribute creation of the universe to [[Allah]]. The [[Qur'an]] does not have one cohesive story of creation, but the sacred book does say that the Earth and the rest of the universe were created over six "days," which may not be the same length of time as a modern day.<ref>"The Origin of Life - an Islamic Perspective. Islam for Today. Accessed March 6, 2011." http://www.islamfortoday.com/emerick16.htm</ref> "Young-Earth creationism is wholly absent in the Muslim world."<ref>Hameed, Salman. "Bracing for Islamic Creationism." December 12, 2008. Science Magazine, Vol. 322 pp. 1637-1638. http://helios.hampshire.edu/~sahCS/Hameed-Science-Creationism.pdf</ref> [[Hindus]] believe that [[Brahma]], one of their three principal gods, created the universe, while [[Vishnu]] is the preserver of the universe.<ref>"Beliefs (Hinduism)." BBC. July 31, 2003. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml</ref> Hinduism has its own form of evolution, and is generally considered to be compatible with the current "scientific" theory of evolution.<ref>Moorty, J.S.R.L.Narayana. "Science and Spirituality: Any Points of Contact?" 1995. http://www.well.com/user/jct/science.html</ref>

Versions of creation in ancient, indigenous, Eastern, and relatively obscure religions are often referred to as "creation stories" or "creation myths." (Note: in this usage, the word "myth" does not necessarily imply that the story is untrue, but that it is a traditional or legendary story.<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth</ref>) Here are some examples:<ref>"Creation Myths" http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html</ref><ref>"Creation Stories from around the World" http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html</ref>

*[[Babylonians]] believed that the heavens, Earth, and non-human life were created by Marduk, the four-eared, four-eyed giant who became ruler of the gods after defeating an army of [[dragon]]s and [[monster]]s. These things were created from the body of Tiamat, who was a descendent of the water gods like Marduk, and who ruled the defeated army of dragons and monsters. Human life was created by Ea, god of the rivers, and Nintu, the birth-goddess, out of [[clay]] from the Earth and [[blood]] and spittle from other gods.
*According to [[Hopi]] [[Native Americans]], the Creator, Taiowa, and his "nephew," Sotuknang, created the finite with four separate acts of creaton. 1) Gathering [[matter]] to create nine solid worlds. 2) Gathering [[water]]s to create seas. 3) Gathering [[air]] to make winds and breezes. 4) Creating life, starting with Spider Woman, who created all other life forms.
*Native [[Hawaii]]ans believe that life forms of the sea, air, and land were created from the unions of various entites of darkness and half-darkness. Humanity came about through the union of La'ila'i (the first woman), Ki'i (the first man), and Kane (a god).
*The [[Mayans]] believed that everything was created by Tepu and Gucamatz. Whatever they thought about came into being. Advanced beings were created so that the creators could be [[praise]]d. Advanced beings were first made of clay, then wood, but these did not work so they were wiped out in a [[flood]]. New beings were formed with the help of Mountain Lion, [[Coyote]], [[Parrot]], and Crow.

There are many other creation stories that are much longer and more complex.

==Creationists in the world==

As described in a 2011 IPSOS <ref>http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10670</ref> study.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! Creationist
! Evolutionist
! Not sure
|-
| [[Saudi Arabia]]
| 75%
| 7%
| 18%
|-
| [[Turkey]]
| 60%
| 19%
| 20%
|-
| [[Indonesia]]
| 57%
| 11%
| 32%
|-
| [[South Africa]]
| 56%
| 18%
| 26%
|-
| [[Brazil]]
| 47%
| 22%
| 31%
|-
| '''[[USA]]'''
| '''40%'''
| '''28%'''
| '''32%'''
|-
| [[Russia]]
| 34%
| 26%
| 40%
|-
| [[India]]
| 33%
| 39%
| 28%
|-
| [[Mexico]]
| 32%
| 34%
| 34%
|-
| [[Argentina]]
| 26%
| 37%
| 38%
|-
| [[Poland]]
| 25%
| 38%
| 37%
|-
| [[South Korea]]
| 24%
| 41%
| 35%
|-
| [[Canada]]
| 22%
| 45%
| 33%
|-
| [[Italy]]
| 21%
| 40%
| 39%
|-
| [[Australia]]
| 15%
| 51%
| 34%
|-
| [[Hungary]]
| 13%
| 55%
| 33%
|-
| [[Germany]]
| 12%
| 65%
| 23%
|-
| [[United Kingdom]]
| 12%
| 55%
| 34%
|-
| [[China]]
| 11%
| 64%
| 25%
|-
| [[Spain]]
| 11%
| 53%
| 37%
|-
| [[Japan]]
| 10%
| 60%
| 30%
|-
| [[Sweden]]
| 10%
| 68%
| 21%
|-
| [[France]]
| 09%
| 55%
| 36%
|-
| [[Belgium]]
| 08%
| 61%
| 31%
|-
| '''Total'''
| '''28%'''
| '''41%'''
| '''31%'''
|}

That may explain why Europe is such a mess at this time; however, this does not explain why Middle Eastern countries are in such poor conditions. Perhaps Christian creationism has a positive effect while Islamic creationism has a negative one.

== Biblical creation magazines and journals ==

''See also:'' [[Biblical creation journals]]

Some prominent biblical creation magazines and journals are given below:

*[[Creation magazine]]

*[[Journal of Creation]] - Peer reviewed

*[[Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]] - peer reviewed

== See also ==
*[[Creationism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet]]

==External Links==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creationrevolution.com/ Creation Revolution]
{{Creation vs. evolution}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Creation]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-08-15T19:50:11Z

Jukkajujju:

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 47 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps - not resulting in inbreeding rest assured southerners!). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East. Or Africa, yes, from a small group in africa makes more sense.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>'''This is of course, ruling out the variety within eyes found in nature, and animals that have never evolved eye sight altogether.'''
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects. '''This theory ignores that beneficial mutations have been proven to happen on an observable daily basis.''' <ref>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref> [http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref> '''Although they have been found to have existed on reptiles serving beneficial functions other than flight.'''<ref>http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved. However, evolution resulting in the creation of new species generally takes place over long time periods, far longer than the human lifespan, so this is not surprising.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity. '''Fortunately, god made damn sure the world is full of psychopaths and poverty, to warn us all of the temptations of satan.'''
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one extant species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality in humans, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist. '''Note that homosexuality is also prevalent in several animal species, making evolution even harder to understand.'''
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that matter in the universe becomes more disordered over time when in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, bringing to mind the impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that the average of independent and identically distributed random variables tends to revert to their average over time. Since this does not happen, this indicates that the population is, in fact, changing over time, as evolution suggests it ought to.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.
#Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no simmilar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574.400-reptile-grew-featherlike-structures-before-dinosaurs.html</ref>

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
The existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-08-15T19:48:05Z

Jukkajujju:

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 47 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps - not resulting in inbreeding rest assured southerners!). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East. Or Africa, yes, from a small group in africa makes more sense.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>'''This is of course, ruling out the variety within eyes found in nature, and animals that have never evolved eye sight altogether.'''
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects. '''This theory ignores that beneficial mutations have been proven to happen on an observable daily basis.''' <ref>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref> [http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref> '''Although they have been found to have existed on reptiles serving beneficial functions other than flight.'''<ref>http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved. However, evolution resulting in the creation of new species generally takes place over long time periods, far longer than the human lifespan, so this is not surprising.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity. '''Fortunately, good made sure the world is full of psychopaths and poverty, to warn us all of the devil.'''
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one extant species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality in humans, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist. '''Note that homosexuality is also prevalent in several animal species, making evolution even harder to understand.'''
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that matter in the universe becomes more disordered over time when in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, bringing to mind the impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that the average of independent and identically distributed random variables tends to revert to their average over time. Since this does not happen, this indicates that the population is, in fact, changing over time, as evolution suggests it ought to.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.
#Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no simmilar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574.400-reptile-grew-featherlike-structures-before-dinosaurs.html</ref>

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
The existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-08-15T19:46:42Z

Jukkajujju:

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 47 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps - not resulting in inbreeding rest assured southerners!). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East. Or Africa, yes, from a small group in africa makes more sense.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>'''This is of course, ruling out the variety within eyes found in nature, and animals that have never evolved eye sight altogether.'''
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects. '''This theory ignores that beneficial mutations have been proven to happen on an observable daily basis.''' <ref>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref> [http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref> '''Although they have been found to have existed on reptiles serving beneficial functions other than flight.'''<ref>http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved. However, evolution resulting in the creation of new species generally takes place over long time periods, far longer than the human lifespan, so this is not surprising.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity. '''Bold text''' Fortunately, good made sure the world is full of psychopaths and poverty, to warn us all of the devil.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one extant species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality in humans, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist. '''Bold text''' Note that homosexuality is also prevalent in several animal species, making evolution even harder to understand.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that matter in the universe becomes more disordered over time when in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, bringing to mind the impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that the average of independent and identically distributed random variables tends to revert to their average over time. Since this does not happen, this indicates that the population is, in fact, changing over time, as evolution suggests it ought to.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.
#Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no simmilar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>
# Evolutionary scientists claim that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.''Longisquama insignis'' is a feathered reptile which allegedly lived before the dinosaurs.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328574.400-reptile-grew-featherlike-structures-before-dinosaurs.html</ref>

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
The existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]