Compelling Arguments Against Evolution and Big Bang


 I'd love to get your interaction on this blog. Send in your ideas about why evolution couldn't possibly work. The more I learn, think, reason, analyze, and observe, the more reasons why I know it couldn't work. Understand though, I am not a scientist, nor a trained professional, nor an expert. But I do have a brain, and I'm about to impose it on you.

 Rational arguments against total evolution:

  • There are very few "examples" of transitional species in the fossil record. Look, if life had been evolving for millions of years, there should be more transitional fossils on record than the resulting species.

  • There should still be transitional species in the evolving process. Ape-people, fish-lizards. There are none. Zero. Zilch.

  • There are too many examples of organisms or parts of our bodies that the whole is needed in order for it to work properly. Without even one part of that item, it would not work, and therefore "natural selection" would have omitted it before it had a chance. For instance, the eye. No part of your eye can do what it does without all of it working together at the same time.

  • There is no reason in evolutionary theory for much of the color and beauty in our world. Sure, these are nice to look at. But in many cases, they serve no purpose, save aesthetics, and therefore according to evolution should be obsolete.

  • How did the earth "just happen" to end up at exactly 23.44 degrees when a slight tilt off that angle would make the earth uninhabitable? How did the earth "happen" to get exactly the right distance from the sun to sustain life?

  • If Big Bang happened and all the planets were spun off that, ending up in their current spinning orbits, how come Venus spins the opposite direction of all the others?

  • Where do feelings come from? Why have them if we are nothing more than advanced bacteria?

  • Where do morals, conscience, and justice come from? We should all be murders like Hitler, or territorial killers like so many animals who only act on instinct and "survival of the fittest," with no conscience about inflicting harm to others, whether human or animal.

  • In Darwin's day, scientists did not understand the complexities of the cell, which is practially a small universe of its own. Now that they do, many really smart molecular biology experts reject the notion that the cell evolved and instead accept the necessity of "Intelligent Design."

  • Where did life come from? If you saw the movie, "Expelled ," (which I highly recommend), you will hear world-reknown atheist, Richard Dawkins, give a heroic attempt to describe the origin of life as beginning on the backs of crystals. But when asked about that, he can't say exactly how. I have yet to hear an atheist or evolutionist give a rational explanation for the origin of life.


Arguments against partial (hybrid) evolution (combining creation with evolution by saying the event was not a seven-day literal creation as written in Genesis, but rather set in motion by God following a process over millions of years).

  •  God was very literal and specific throughout the Old Testament, from the prophecies fulfilled in exact detail, to genealogies mentioned by exact names, to the minute specifications for the ark, the Temple, and the priestly garments. Why would He be so literal and exacting on one hand, and then totally confuse us by being vague, elusive, and mysterious somewhere else?

  • Why would He say, "evening and morning were the first day"? An evening and a morning leaves little wiggle room for understanding it was a 24 hour sun setting, sun rising day.

  • Just how could the plants hang out for millions of years without sun? (check it out–they were created the day before the sun)

  • If God could create the world in 6 days, why would He choose to do it in millions/billions? Not very smart or efficient if you ask me. Isn't this a Superior, Intelligent Being we're talking about?

  • Death came into the world through sin, not before (Romans 5:12). This hybrid theory of creation-evolution suggests that things were evolving long before Adam and Eve came on the scene.

Think about this. If you can't believe God on the first page of the Bible, why believe anything else God says? Either you believe Him from the start, or you don't believe Him at all.

Alrighty then. That's a few of my more compelling arguments. Let's hear from you. And really, I'd be happy to entertain your ideas if you want to take the opposing side. But if Richard Dawkins is the best they've got (for evolution and atheism), and for him it all started "on the backs of crystals," you're going to have to do better than that to get my attention.

Similar Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Posted in category: Bible for Dummies