Quote Originally Posted by luvfightgame
I have a similair background. I swallowed the evolution theory hook line and sinker for most of my life. I was seeking to disprove the creation theory, and suprise, the evolution story is ridiculous. I wasn't too happy with my findings at first, but now I understand that I was indoctrinated to learn that garbage.

There are so many evidences against it, but my favorite is "irreducable complexity". Basically that when you remove certain parts they cease to function all together. It really destroys the whole evolution theory. What good would a half functioning eye be? How about a half functioning digestive system?

The transitional species would die off without being able to reproduce, therefore completely halting "evolution".

The sad thing is people will angrily defend this nonsense idea, ignore all common sense, and label you as a bigot or fanatic for believing it. But once you see it you can never understand how anyone couldn't get it. Kind of like one of those illusion pictures they used to have in the mall, you had to stare at it for awhile, but once you saw it it was so easy, and your trying to show your buddy and no matter how you explain it, they don't see it...
Great analogy, I agree completely.

What finally made me think the whole lot was crap was after reading Dawkins and his neo Darwin theories about tiny incremental changes, gradually occurring over hundreds of thousands of years that would lead to one organism developing into another.

Then I started reading Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, two of the biggest evolutionary proponents in the US. Their theory of 'puncuated equilibriem' states that organisms don't change gradually over millions of years at all, but rather remain unchanged for aeons of time and then in some isolated population somewhere an organism will undergo extreme and rapid mutatations over just a few generations and a new organism will emerge.

They produced this theory to explain why there are no transitional ( in between) fossils in the fossil record at all. They argued (correctly) that gradual evolution was impossible as there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to support it, each creature emerges spontanously in the fossil record, complete and fully formed leaving no trace of any evolutionaryt ancestory.

Then the likes of Dawkins, who are experts in genetics, hit back and said (correctly) that no such rapid change could possibly occur within the genetic structure of an organism in such a small space of time. The processes of even a single cell are so complex that the amount of new informtation required in the genetic structure of an organism's DNA to recode new structures is immense and no satisfactory mechanism relying on chance and mutation alone could possibly account for it.

It's a little known fact in the world at large that these two evolutionary camps radically oppose each other arguing for the impossibility of the other's theory.