Thoery of Evolution: Factual or just a theory?

So recently I have been having a lot of discussions with my friends about religion and belief or lack of belief, and so I thought it would was time I did a post on why I feel religion makes more sense than atheism.

Atheists/Darwinists claim that there is no Creator, and everything evolved out of nothing, or inanimate matter.


Just by reading this claim, a logical human being would deduce that it is not possible for living things to evolve from non-living matter, simply because of the fact that inanimate matter doesn’t possess the complex features and details that are present in living cells.

In order to prove this claim, American chemist Stanley Miller carried out an experiment in 1953 using gases that he claimed existed in the primitive atmosphere of the earth. He combined these gases and added energy to the mixture to create several amino acids present in the structure of proteins.

Although this did prove slightly the theory of evolution, only a few years later this experiment proved to be invalid, because the gases used by Miller were stated to have been completely different from the real conditions of the earth. After the revelation of this fact, Miller too confessed that the atmosphere he used was unrealistic.

Another reason why the theory of evolution is hooey is because even science today hasn’t been able to create even the simplest of cells by bringing together inanimate matter. The conditions that a cell requires to form are too great to be coincidences. The probability of an average protein made of 500 amino acids being formed coincidentally is 1 in 10950 and in math, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is deemed impossible.  Also, the DNA molecule that stores genetic information has data which is written down would fill a giant library consisting of 900 volumes of encyclopaedia of 500 pages each.

Another interesting fact is that DNA can only multiply with the presence of proteins, however for information to be present in the protein; DNA too has to be present. So this is kind of like the situation of whether the egg came first or the hen. It is highly impossible that both of these complex cells arose coincidentally at the same time in the same place, and it is also impossible for one to exist without the other, which concludes the fact that life couldn’t have originated by chemical means, and therefore had to be created by a higher Creator.

Additionally, another claim by Neo-Darwinists is that living organisms present at this time underwent mutations of sorts from their ancestors’ therefore leading them to create a new species. Yet, scientific facts themselves state that mutations do not cause living beings to develop, on the contrary, they always cause harm to them. This proves that a ‘destructive mechanism’ cannot by any chance be an ‘evolutionary mechanism’ therefore; a process called evolution could not have taken place.

An added evidence is that if a species went under some changes, then there should’ve been billions of fossils of creatures who were in the stages of transformation; i.e. some a half reptile half/half bird creature? But archaeological finding have never come across such fossils which proves that all these different creatures suddenly emerged fully formed without any changes in between, which again proves that they would have HAD to have been created.

It is also claimed that human beings evolved from apes. This is one of the funniest claims I’ve come across, because I refuse to believe that my ancestors were monkeys.


Evolutionists have created a chain which goes as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens implying that each one is the ancestor of the other. However, paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus all lived at the same time in different parts of the world, which indicates the baselessness of their claim since there could’ve been no evolution process if all of them were present at the same time. Moreover, it has been found that Homo erectus have lived up until very recent times and no evolution has taken place among them.

These are only a few of the claims that I will refute in this post, but there are many such baseless claims which I hope to write about in future posts.


The evolution misconception by Harun Yahya

14 thoughts on “Thoery of Evolution: Factual or just a theory?

  1. Almost got me with that parody. But when I read “some a half reptile half/half bird creature” (an obvious hint at the Archaeopteryx), I realized it was one. Nice job. But unfortunately, there are really people out there who believe exactly that Creationist bullshit.

    • Urm, well this is funny, but that wasn’t exactly a parody, and I do actually believe in what you call the ‘Creationist bullshit’, I just don’t understand how people can believe in the ‘Evolutionist bullshit’.

      About the Archeopteryx, although yes it does exist, it only existed during the time of the dinosaur, there is no proof that it evolved into anything further. Also, what about the claim that bears evolved into whales; where is the half bear/half whale fossil?

      I mean isn’t it kind of foolish to believe that our great grandparents were apes? And lets say for arguments sake that the theory may be correct, but who created that ape in the first place? Who created the first atom/cell of that ape?

      • Wow, Poe’s Law in Action… Well, in this case let’s discuss the many, many problems of your posting…

        First of all: You don’t get any points for calling evolution “Darwinism”. Nobody calls the people who accept the theory of gravity “Newtonists”. You only want to make it sound like it was some religious belief instead of simply fact, but honestly, it doesn’t work. By calling it that way, you only start by saying something dumb and your chances of been taken seriously crash through the floor.

        Nice picture, but you should never forget, that in s similar way, your belief can be sumarized as “Christianity: The knowledge that a wizard did it.”. Christianity is not a better answer. Yes, everything from nothing sounds strange, but something was always there without a beginning also sounds strange. So we have the choice between two strange ideas. And scientists say: “We don’t know (yet?).” That is simply honesty.

        Who cares what a human would think as a first shot? The first shot on how the world looks is “It’s flat, because we would fall from a round earth.”. An argument that starts with “I can’t imagine…” is not really a good one. It’s like an argument from ignorance: “You don’t know, thus god.” And that’s complete nonsense. Same thing with the how life developed: We don’t know – and that’s not part of the theory of evolution, but a completely different field. But from “We don’t know” does not follow “Can’t be naturally.”. Every time in history, when someone

        For your claim that mutations always harm, simply google Lenski. Or look at how breeding works, especially the technique called mutation breeding.

        As for the fossils: It’s not “normal” for a body to fossilize, it only happens very rarely and even more rarely does a fossil survive that long that we will find it. I have already shown you the half reptile / half bird and I will NOT play “moving the goal posts” with you, where you will always ask for another fossible between the last one I have shown you and the current animal. There is more than enough evidence for evolution. You may chose not to see it, ok, but don’t expect being taken seriously then.

        “I refuse to belief” is not an argument, otherwise I could fly. Read up on evolution, please.

        For your comment: I never heard about anyone claiming that bears evolve into whales, honestly. Sounds interesting, though, so if you have a reference there…
        I already mentioned: We don’t know how life developed yet. So what? That doesn’t make any other idea more likely. You cannot take something we don’t know and claim “THERE! GOD!”. That’s nonsense and only embarreses people later when we find out how it really worked – happend enough in the past. Reducing your god to a god of the gaps sounds like blasphemy to me, btw. If I were still a Christian, I would probably admire the way he started everything that it would result in exactly this wonderfull universe instead of thinking that god is a limited as me and thus can’t do that but has to form everything manually.

      • That’s because the theory of gravity did not give rise to a new set of beliefs that claimed gravity created life therefore, yes it would be stupid to call people who believed in gravity Newtonists, and besides that would make all of us “Newtonists”, since nobody disagrees to the theory. People who believe in Darwin’s theory have been long called Darwinists, therefore your point is invalid.

        Alas, but I do not believe that a wizard did it, since a human being that was susceptible to deficiencies and shortcomings could not have created something as flawless as the galaxies and everything in it. Also, if something was always there from the beginning sounds strange, then evolution also began from “the atom of life” which as claimed was always there from the beginning, so where did this atom come from? And if it is believable that this atom was there from the beginning, then why isn’t it believable that there is a God?

        “Mutation breeding is the process of exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation in order to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred with other cultivars.” But doesn’t this explanation in itself refute the claim of natural selection that random mutations cause new species to arise? In Mutation breeding, there are unnatural environments that are created in order to get the desirable results, therefore this wouldn’t be considered random, natural selection.

        How is it that a whole species came and went by but not a single fossil has been found?

        “A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

        “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”

        What would you say to that? Even with the finding of the Archaeopteryx, there is no proof that it gradually changed into something.

        “In the first edition of “The Origin of Species” in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open:

        “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,” he speculated.

        The idea didn’t go over very well with the public. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.”


        I know the rest of the article goes against my view, but then scientists’ late claim that cows and hippos turned into whales, so technically it’s just as stupid as the bear turning into whale theory.

        Again, I never claimed to believe in Christianity, and yes claiming that a man created everything is stupid. Also, even though I don’t believe that Jesus (Isa (AS)) created everything, I still do hold him in high esteem because his birth was indeed a miracle done by God. Even today science cannot just create a whole fetus without the presence of the sperm and the ovaries, so it had to be a miracle of God and not science for Jesus to have been born.

      • Evolution did not create life. That’s a totally different science, it’s called abiogenesis. Evolution does not try to explain how life arises from non-organic material, it just explains how life, once there, started to develop.

        And honestly, you should start coming in the 21. century. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin and Darwin was, of course, not perfect. That’s science. You learn. You only miss that point because you think that science, once established, is as fixed as religion pretends to be. It isn’t. Neither is religion, btw. So, that people were called Darwinists when there was only Darwin’s own version of evolutionary theory doesn’t mean it still makes sense to call them that way – except if you want to refer to people who think that Darwin’s original theory is 100% true and nothing that came after it is correct (I have never heard of such people, but perhaps you can enlighten me?).

        I don’t have any clue where you got the “atom of life” idea from, I don’t share it, but if you got it from a source more than 100 years old, I wouldn’t use it as an argument. So who cares that Darwin had some things that not everyone accepted? That’s science. It get’s better. That’s not a point against it. It’s honest to accept that we can be wrong – but scientists learn from that, while you don’t, because you don’t accept the idea that you might be wrong.
        Anyway, the honest answer to “how did everything start?” is: “We don’t know.” and NOT “God!”.

        And honestly, I don’t care what wondrous attributes you give your wizard, really. It’s still magic you believe in.

        And look around. One of the things you don’t see is radiation. It’s all around us, sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker and it has been proven to start mutations. Slower, as the intensity of natural radiation is (normally) slower than the one used for mutation breeding, but doing so nonetheless. The radiation is stronger in mutation breeding, but not “unnatural”. In nature, the process is only slower and less drastic (normally).

        And please stop trying to move the goal posts. It’s a stupid tactic and it doesn’t work. “Oh, yeah? Show me the link between bird and reptile!” “No problem, here.” “Oh, yeah? Show me the link between reptile and that!” etc. With that, you will NEVER be satisfied, making this an inherently dishonest tactic. You only want to cling to your belief and thus you will accept NOTHING.

        And you don’t see the problem with your Jesus theory? IT’S A STORY. There is NO PROOF AT ALL that Mary was a virgin. NONE AT ALL. It’s a claim and thus science doesn’t need to explain anything. Science also doesn’t need to explain how Zeus transformed into a bull.

      • Okay, hold on a sec’, so you’re saying that the theory of evolution does not claim that life was created out of nothing? Well, then the majority of the problem is in a way solved, since for the creation of things, something had to be created first, and thereafter God comes in the picture. If evolutionists believe that there was already something and then things evolved, then where’s the debate in believing that it was God that created that something? Then why don’t evolutionists accpet that the first source of life was created by God? After that however the it evolved is another issue, but if the fundamental belief is there that the first source of life was created by God, then that’s the foundation is it not?

      • The theory of evolution claims nothing about how life emerged. It makes claims about how life develops once it’s there, but does not make any assumptions about how it started. And yes, we ask that question a lot: “Why do believers always think that the theory of evolution has something to do with how life started? It hasn’t.”

        So, if we ask the question “How did life start?” then there is, at the moment, only one honest answer: “We don’t know.”
        But “We don’t know” does not imply “God did it!”. You are free to believe otherwise, but that doesn’t make it true. You can continue to press your god into every gap of our knowledge, but let me assure you: These gaps are getting smaller all the time, so it’s not a good place for any god.

      • It’s because most evolutionists do make claims about how life started, so basically there are two types of evolutionists out there; ones who deduce how life began and ones who deduce how it evolved.
        As for pressing my God into every gap, yes I will continue to do so because as a believer it is my duty. So, you continue doing what you do, and I shall continue with what I do.
        Have a good day!

      • What are “evolutionists”? Scientists who study evolution? Why shouldn’t they make claims about how life started? The only thing they probably can”t claim is, that evolution is the process that started life. But otherwise, why shouldn’t they offer theories on how it started?

        Evolution is a science. It’s defined. It does not make any claims about how life started. End of story.

        The fact that scientists sometimes not only have one field in which they are competent and/or which they study may surprise you, but it doesn’t magically transform one field into another, just because a scientists studies both.

        Or are we simply talking about people who accept the fact that evolution happens? Why shouldn’t these people also talk about how life started? And why should that these people do that somehow have any influence on how evolution is defined?

  2. It is sad that you claim a fossil doesn’t exist that you (judging from the comments) already knew existed. Interestingly enough darwin used his theory to predict that an early bird fossil would be found with separate digits 2 years before the first archeopteryx was discovered.

    I generally reply to posts like these to try to inform people of the inaccuracies and outright lies in them, assuming that they may be simply mislead by fundamentalist websites and other materials, but in this case as I said before you obviously know the information is not accurate and simply don’t care, so why should anyone bother?

    • I’m sorry, it was my bad that my comment led you to believe that I already knew of the fossil, when in fact i didn’t know about it until Atomic Mutant pointed it out to me. Needless to say, I have learned to triple check my information henceforth.
      As for the fact that I don’t care, you couldn’t be further away from the truth, fact is I do care, since we are all here to learn from each other, so go ahead and inform me about my misinforms.

      • There were many known transitional fossils in darwin’s time, and darwin specifically predicted several using his theory, some of which were proven correct over a century later. A transitional form is one that has some characteristics unique to two modern groups and therefore could have been a common ancestor (or more likely a cousin to a common ancestor) of both groups. If a fossil species has A, B and C characteristics diagnostic of one group of species and X, Y and Z characteristics diagnostic of another group of species, it is by definition a transitional fossil. The beauty of taxonomy is that it is objective, you group species according to their characteristics (ie these animals have legs, those animals have hair etc) and then when you’re done put all those groups within their parent groups (because for instance animals with hair also have legs) and it automatically produces a family tree pattern. That pattern can also be confirmed by turning back the pages of the fossil record, ie species with legs appear before species with hair or scales or any sub-set.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s