Counterpoint to evolution, part 1


To counter all your counterpoints...
1: That's because school is a place for facts and learning. And the only way to discover the truth is to look at all the evidence, not make up a story then cling to it regardless. And every piece of evidence points to evolution from multiple fields of study, but you know that. And not a single points to creation unless one declares various scientific methods to not work or twists them into conclusions that 99% of people using those methods would disagree with.
Evolution fits all 4 of those requirements for a good theory- it could have been shown false by fossils found from an unexpected era of time but when they check all the fossils they are where predicted, same with all the 'missing link' fossils which aren't missing anymore and were found to be from the time period that was predicted by the model of evolution.
And Dr Brown seems to have forgotten that children are like their parents but still different, which is where the different genes and the passing on of specific genes happens.
2: It is observable, though mostly though looking at history. When people say evolution is not observable they seem to be saying that just because it takes a long time and they don't want to admit that, it can't be true. It's the same as planting an acorn, starting at the ground for 20 seconds and then saying 'You lied! Acorns don't turn into oak trees!' and then stomping off. If we can take wolves and in a few hundred years turn them into both great Danes and chihuahuas then it makes sense that the offspring of a mammal could branch off into cats and dogs and horses after 100,000,000 years.
And there are hairless varieties of cats and dogs - that is not a trait that is part of cats and dogs, that is a new trait for those specific varieties.
If the ark and flood just had the two of every animal 'kind' and evolution only accounts for the species in each 'kind'... One you are completely ignoring how they got to different parts of the world, and also saying that a few thousand years is enough for evolution to cause the difference between species in a 'kind' like lets say horses, donkeys and zebras, but a billion years is not long enough for bigger changes to occur. Its like saying 'you can walk 10 miles in a day easy. But there is no way you could walk 200 miles in a year!'.
3: The answer to your question, according to the more educated people on the planet is yes.
Granted catastrophic events can create many things that look like they took a long time, and may have fooled people before, but not everything is created by volcanoes or 1 flood that would have had to contain more water than exists on earth.
4: Agreed that survival of the fittest does not equate with evolution. It is the description of how in certain populations, certain traits can be selected for. Like for example, in siberia the wild cats that survive are the ones with thick extra warm fur.
New genes are caused by mutations. Our genes mutate all the time - its just that the vast majority of the time these mutations do not really make a difference. Which is why changes in a population takes many many generations. But sometimes they do cause a difference. There is a family in italy that is immune to heart disease due to a new gene that is unique to them. There is a family in the USA with super dense and hard bones that are nigh unbreakable. That is a new gene.
5: Well yeah, DNA testing and gene sequencing is complicated and not easy to explain to a layperson.
And they have recently found how the compounds and chemicals that existed on early earth could have spawned the first replicating cell, in other words, life. And people will never progress if they refuse to move on from outdated stories that make no sense.

Dear Jonathan,
It is usually my policy not to engage in conversation with evolutionists who have always, in my experience, exhibited close-mindedness. Historically, it has been a waste of time, but in your case I will make an exception because you typify the very product of education that I am trying to challenge.
To begin, I appreciate your point of view and understand why you believe what you believe. The psychological manipulations and downright lies that are in our high school textbooks and repeated at the college level allow little room for the critical thinking student, that is required to tear down this illusion. Additionally, you seem annoyed with creationists when you should be annoyed and downright angry with those who have consistently lied to you and led you down this path. I sincerely hope that in the future you will make every effort to examine this subject with an open mind and seek out the evidence that contradicts what you have been indoctrinated into believing.
If you are still with me at this point and can manage to get beyond your anger, I will say that I completely agree with your opening statement in point 1. Schools should be a place where facts (data) are presented. However, THEY SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE WHERE STUDENTS ARE INDOCTRINATED INTO A CONSPIRATORIAL POINT OF VIEW and opposing points of view are censored. If one point of view is more legitimate than the other, time and honest examination will support it. Case in point, the textbook I am evaluating does not allow students to look at the facts and construct their own thoughts; it indoctrinates them.
You go on to say that every piece of evidence points to evolution. Apparently you haven't read the RATE experiment that refutes with impartial data most geology being taught today, and you haven't read the article by a disappointed evolutionist on on the regrettable abandonment of the Miller-Urey experiment.
As far as cosmogony goes, are you aware of the FACT that the Big Bang Theory (basically a misnomer- should be the Big Expansion Theory) actually confirms the biblical statements in the Old Testament (some written in the first five books gathered by Moses over 3800 years ago) that God expanded and continues to expand the universe? Even the mathematically-challenged can appreciate how far ahead of time these verses are. You may be surprised to learn that there are 17 verses in the Old Testament that attest to this. I could write a book on this alone but time constraints simply will not allow that.
Regarding volcanology as being the only catastrophic cause of the geologic structures visible today, if I implied that was the only catastrophic mechanism, I apologize. Actually, the Flood would have been a major factor with volcanology playing a role.
Finally, you have a very convoluted opinion regarding mutations. Mutations do occur. No one is denying that, but mutations cannot produce new genes. Mutations simply mistakenly read the genetic code, which most of the time results in a loss of information. There may be occasions when the mutation results in a benefit to the species, such as for polar bears, but mutations to not add information - new or otherwise, into the genetic pool.
Please forgive me for my passionate response. Ideally I would like to be more diplomatic but the lies and the manipulation that is being foisted on our children strikes me as abominable and does anger me. And although I am sure I have come across as somewhat belligerent, I do sincerely hope that you will take the time to examine this subject with an open mind, which would include looking at the interpretations of the data that contradicts the evolutionary wonderland.
In closing, please consider this my rebuttal to your comments, and due to time constraints, I will not be engaging in further conversation with you.