Ok. As much fun as it is to always be on the defensive (and believe me it is fun), I've decided to switch things up a bit. Instead of explaining why nothing in nature contradicts the creation theory, let's discuss the many many examples that are contrary to evolution.

1). First off is an interesting gene called Dll. This gene switches on partway through the developement of an insect larvae and causes its legs to grow. Here's the full quote from Discover magazine.

Quote:

---

At some point during the growth of an insect larva, a gene called Dll switches on and helps organize some of its cells into legs. If for some reason Dll is shut off, the insect will produce only stumps. In the early 1990s scientists were surprised to discover that almost identical copies of this gene can be found in mammals and other vertebrates--and that they too switch on as legs form. This was surprising for two reasons. For one thing, insects and vertebrates have radically different limbs: ours have bone inside and muscle outside, while bugs are the reverse--their flesh is protected by an armored exoskeleton. For another thing, insects and vertebrates are only distantly related: our last common ancestor lived perhaps a billion years ago and was assumed to be limbless, like a flatworm. Researchers therefore imagined the two lineages evolved their limbs--and the genes that build them--independently.

---

What a surprise, scientists using imagination to explain how evolution works. I didn't see that one coming...

In other words, an almost identical gene causes leg growth in both insects and vertebrates. Since the common ancestor is assumed to be a flatworm (without legs) that means that almost precisely the same gene was evolved for both insects and vertebrates. Uh, huh. Considering this gene was evolved, without guidance or an end goal, seperately for about a billion years, one might expect that it would be something quite different. Even if it did somehow evolve to be the same gene, we should expect mutations to change it over the course of millions of years including multiple divergences. Mutations happen quite frequently, after all.

It would almost seem a designer was reusing parts where He could instead of letting His creation randomly make its own parts.

By the way, it seems shellfish also contain the same gene.

2). Bees and flowers.

Before I bring up that bees (according to the infallible fossil record) evolved millions of years (about 100 million to be exact) before pollenating plants, how could this pair have possibly even evolved together? Let's assume for a moment that they evolved at the same time, what possible intermediates could even be viable to lead up to their symbiotic relationship?

Furthermore, what were these bees doing for 100 million years? Biding their time?

3).

Quote:

---

One other special feature of creation is so obvious we often fail to notice it: its beauty. I once took my invertebrate zoology class to hear a lecture on marine life by a scientist who had just returned from a collecting trip to the Philippines. Toward the end of his lecture he described the brightly colored fish he had observed at a depth where all wavelengths of light were absorbed except for some blue. In their natural habitat, the fish could not even see their own bright colors, so what possible survival value could the genetic investment in this color have?

---

That's a good question. It would seem that evolution had the intent to create 'useless' beauty in this case. But that sounds more like a design feature to me.

4). How could sex possibly have evolved? We may have answered this one, but refresh my memory.

5). Evolution is the only real 'god of the gaps.' In fact, the entire theory is based on gaps. Animals appear with no ancestor, and then disappear.

Punctuated equilibrium is, pardon my language, intellectual diarrhea. Its no more scientifically valid than saying, "God put fossils in the earth to test our faith." Except this time its, "Evolution put gaps everywhere in the fossil record to test our faith."

You can't call a theory scientific that, if true, should lack evidence. A theory, if true should HAVE evidence. A scientific theory is no longer scientific if you cannot falsify it, its a process of faith at that point.

"Evolution is true if we find intermediate fossils. Oops, there are none after 150 years of looking, so that means evolution would predict there would be no intermediate fossils because it happens too fast."

You're missing the obvious answer to the lack of evidence: Evolution isn't true.

6). Biogenesis. Where's the evidence? Speculation is fun. I'd love to know what its like to be superman...but I don't think I'm going to abuse science to convince everyone that I could be superman.

7). Creative mutations. I've shown you that every known mutation is utterly useless to the theory of evolution. Why haven't we seen an information-increasing mutation yet? Speculation on the possibility of information increasing mutations is great, but should be called speculation. Not science.

Accusing me of believing that mutations can't write information because I don't have the imagination is trying to shift the burden of proof. Science should be devoid of imagination (although that can't happen because that discounts the big bang, as well as magical membranes). I'm simply believing what I see. Mutations cause thousands upon thousands of known diseases (the slightest changes can cause some of the most debilitating problems). The intermediates between two relatively fit animals would be severely hindered, and would have a hard time continuing their 'evolution.'

8). Cambrian explosion. Almost every major phylum of animals appears within the blink of an eye. Evolution never supposedly happens this fast, first of all. Second of all, why are there no intermediates, once again? Is it because evolution happens outside of the observations of science? What would be the point of calling it anything but a fairy tale at that point?

9). I'm going to make an argument from emotion, just like Matt. Evolutionists only believe in evolution because they cannot believe in God. God has performed bigger miracles than evolution before, so it really isn't that hard to believe that God used evolution to create if need be.

However, evolutionists NEED evolution to be true. Because if it isn't then that makes the idea of a supernatural creator right around 100% likely. Although I'm sure you guys could always fall back on panspermia to save you from your creator if need be.

10). Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution. Self sacrifice certainly being a big one. I can't imagine losing for the benefit of others would be selected for quite easily. You can't argue from the fact that love exists. Try arguing for the evolution of love, assuming that love had never existed. Doesn't make sense.

11). Our moon is escaping and our sun is shrinking. Both give much younger ages for the universe.

12). Eye evolution. I know you guys think you answered this with the absured 400,000 year hypothesis. But I don't think we discussed this in depth. You talked about light sensitive patches, and that sounds really great on the surface. But ignores the creation of a useful chain of nerves to tell the brain what's going on, as well as useful changes in the brain to even interpret the stimulation. Without all three things in place, any one of them is useless. Somehow I doubt that this happened even once, let alone the 40-60 times required by the evolutionary tree.

13). Lizards to mammals. When did non-breasts turn into breasts, and how can you explain it in depth without evoking magic (or imagination) of some sort? What good were the breasts before the lizard could drink the milk? What good was the milk before the lizard had breasts?

A full list would take me the rest of my life to write, and I still wouldn't be done. But I think here is good enough. When we settle these, we can move on to more. Good luck.