Correct me if I'm wrong..?

Before you read..let me ask, please...no judgment ;) I know I sound crazy. But I can't help but point things out. Appreciate it!

If you are like me, you were taught evolution in school. You took the tests (maybe cheated :P) passed biology and moved on. So we came from monkeys…no big deal…

Well the big deal is that it doesn't agree with the Bible. If you don’t believe the Bible that’s fine keep reading (might want to skip down to where I begin again with “OK…” :P) because I don’t use the Bible to disprove evolution…but for anyone who thinks evolution and the Bible can “get along” let me tell you why I have come to see they can’t…

- We are made in God’s image – If we are made in His image, we did not evolve from ‘lesser’ beings. He made the animals separate, and fully functioning. He made everything “according to its kind”
- We cannot take manmade data ("evolution", alleged fossil record) and bring it TO the Bible and try to make it make sense. If we are going to say the Bible is the word of God, we either need to accept it in its entirety or stop trying to make it say something it doesn’t.
- It says ‘days’ …six days of creation. There is no hint of metaphor or simile here – if we can accept that GOD made everything and came as a human and died for our sins – why is it so hard to believe that He made everything in a week? The account in Genesis is meant to be taken literally, our holy and righteous God does not need millions/billions of years to create. Nor does anything in the Bible suggest this. So stating otherwise is bringing your own ideas (or someone else’s) TO the text, rather than taking FROM the text.


Here is a great little point about the Bible and Evolution (video): http://www.str.org/videos/greg-koukl---theistic-evolution-and-adam-and-eve#.UpeR7NJDt8E

OK…

After studying (on a cellular level) how reproduction takes place, I can NOT accept evolution as a truth. I will try and explain why, here:

                 
                                                       (click to enlarge)

- Parent organisms DNA is replicated (COPIED) in a germline cell that will then become sperm or egg - regardless of mutations occurring, or how many occurred down one line of organisms, the idea that this resulted in every single living thing on this earth is beyond impossible.That, is a LOT haha - 2011 study suggests 8.7 million different species - and "the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued." 

source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110823180459.htm) 

Genetic mutations (which usually lead to maladies) resulting in every single wonderfully formed and perfectly functioning creature - I just can't see with the evidence we have, that this is true. The creatures are too specifically designed; ALL of their parts had to be there at once in order for them to exist. Some creatures demonstrate this more obviously than others, but ultimately we can observe this with any animal if we wanted to. 

- Mutations are variations of an organism's DNA – definition:  "Changes in the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material (i.e. DNA, or RNA, in the case of viruses), which are usually caused by copying errors during replication that further lead to base substitution, insertion, or deletion of one or more base pairs." Ok, but we cannot assume (yes, ASSUME) a series of mutations can result in a NEW animal (regardless of how many mutations take place) why can't we assume this? I will try to explain next...

- Genetic information isn't ADDED - EVER. It is ONLY taken away and/or rearranged. So we are simply never going to get a fully functioning, entirely different animal from ANOTHER animal. DNA is information that tells us what we are going to be right down to every cell. Shoot, it tells cells what kind of cells they are going to be haha. So DNA for an animal will continue to be just that, DNA for that kind of animal. Genetic traits and such can change and vary (such as color patterns, size, even shape)

But, the process of meiosis (the process that makes sperm/egg cells) is so precise - that if a mutation DID occur that somehow would result in a NEW feature on an animal, it would NOT be able to match up with it's partner (be it sperm or egg) because they must be half of the genetic information for the SAME animal in order to unite and begin developing. They must MATCH.

I wish an evolutionist could explain to me how new creatures were ever born...ever.

If a mutation occurred that would result in a brand new animal in a mother's egg (impossible, but let's pretend...) then the sperm that happened to make it to that egg among the millions - had to have mutated in the same way in order to unite with the mutated egg and begin forming a new creature...and if a new creature was born to that mother, how would the mother know how to care for it? How would the first individual of any kind of "new" animal ever make it past its first week?? Day even?

- Claims are made that the "fossil record" proves evolution. All I have to say here is that when someone shows me a fossil record of where one creature evolved into another creature, I will change my stance. The ONLY evidence we have is for fully formed, fully functional creatures. There is still NO explanation as to how those creatures "evolved" - it is all postulation and assumption. There are, literally, NO transitional fossils in existence. 

- Lastly, evolution has never been observed. Applying what is called microevolution (adaptation) to the idea that is macroevolution does not work because one involves variations of genetic information within a specie and one involves completely new genetic information somehow coming into existence. ("It didn't just come into existence it formed over time" is a completely air-filled statement, because we do NOT see this occurring in nature, ever, so accepting it as FACT results in it being a BELIEF no matter what anyone says) So, microevolution, or adaptation, is basically the only thing that evolutionists claim as evidence - problem is with adaptations we ONLY ever see the SAME kind of animal come out of them. A perfect example is how there are SO many breeds of dogs. Those are ALL genetic mutations. You will never see anything come out of a dog, that isn't a dog. No matter how much breeding you do, you will always...get...dogs.

Oh look! "Quantum Evolution" :P

Quote from an evolutionary website:
"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences."

Really. NO OTHER KNOWN HYPOTHESIS? (hypothesis: is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon - hahaha can't be tested or anything, just proposed) This, my friends, is because the world of science rejects the idea of intelligent design. I suggest you try and check out Expelled - a documentary (a funny one, even, Ben Stein hosts...) exploring how scientists (not "religious" people either) are shunned, fired, and more for even mentioning intelligent design in their work. When the scientific world should be free for everyone to explore whatever idea they want. Not only that, but these scientists are finding that with the preciseness and complexities of what they are studying, intelligent design is the most logical conclusion for decent of life. They also interview opposing views as well. Very good documentary. Anyway, the "hypothesis" that makes the most sense, is intelligent design. It CAN account for "unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life." ...whether someone wants to believe it or not. No reason to exclude it from the hypothesis options altogether.

So back to reproduction, I am about to state a quote from a site describing the process of meiosis...the process in which our DNA is replicated in one cell, doubled then divided twice so that four cells with half the necessary chromosomes for a human are in existence, each being from the same DNA but, the best way I can put this is, not IDENTICAL. These are the cells (chromosomes) that will make up either the mother's egg or the father's sperm cell. Quite literally, how we all came into being.

OK so the quote is: "THIS PROCESS GENERATES THE DIVERSITY OF ALL SEXUALLY REPRODUCING ORGANISMS."

Meiosis does that. It GENERATES the diversity of all sexually reproducing organisms... 

So, how did meiosis start? How did sexually reproducing organisms start being made to sexually reproduce if there were no sexually reproducing organisms to produce them??? How, when there is absolutely no life, no organization, no anything at ALL - can something this complex, perfect, and unchanging - come into being? It cannot. Never mind the creation of the earth itself - because nothing but God explains that either - simply take into consideration this tiny process that no one ever gives two thoughts about...But it is HOW we EXIST.

Below is a link to a short video describing meiosis. Love. Shows just how complex life is and how saying this isn't DESIGNED is crazy...respectively speaking :) And it shows how if something is going to reproduce, there is no room for error if life is going to continue to exist – meaning – saying we evolved from anything else makes no sense when you see how we are made from our parents DNA…we are copies. That is how life is able to continue as it has – by living organisms copying themselves…”Each after its own kind” 

MEIOSIS VIDEO: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/9834092339/student_view0/chapter11/how_meiosis_works.html

And you can check out my YouTube videos for some videos on evolution and such.

(images from Google searches - 'Your Life' image from CustomTractSource.com)