Why do some scientists reject evolution?

[rusra02]

Exactly, of kind

I have never seen an invisible life creating a visible one, so there is no evidence of an invisible creator. (Or a living being being created without visible creator for that manner)

For now, the origin of the species is a mystery.

I am reminded of what the Bible says about this: "for his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceive by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
(Romans 1:20) A reasonable person, upon seeing an intricate carving or just someone 's name carved in a tree, does not say "I never saw this happen, so there is no evidence it did." It is rather the case, I think, that what is obviously the work of an intelligent person proves that someone intelligent and creative did, in fact, exist and did,in fact, create. (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[McBell]

I am reminded of what the Bible says about this: "for his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceive by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
(Romans 1:20) A reasonable person, upon seeing an intricate carving or just someone 's name carved in a tree, does not say "I never saw this happen, so there is no evidence it did." It is rather the case, I think, that what is obviously the work of an intelligent person proves that someone intelligent and creative did, in fact, exist and did,in fact, create. (Hebrews 3:4)

Really?
The Watchmaker Argument... ...again?

 

[McBell]

Evolution scientists have difficulty explaining the "cambrian explosion." At the base of the grand canyon, there are layers upon layers of sediment as we all know. When investigating, researchers found a sudden entrance of dozens of very different life forms in the same layers. Sea shells up on the highest layers can be explained by the river's slow erosion should you choose that theory. But if all of these layers were laid down over a vast amount of time and the river slowly eroded down into the archives of time, how is it that we find such complex life forms in the same layers as the "simple" ones?

I put simple in quotations because some creatures that we call simple are really more biologically complex than we are. Strawberries have 8 sets of each chromosome whereas we only have 2. Frogs have 4 I believe. Simple bacteria have complex motors to run their flagellum that are structured amazingly like an outboard motor. In comes the concept of irreducible complexity; the idea that certain mechanisms in nature can only work with so many pieces minimum. Like a mouse trap, take one of the 5 pieces and nothing works. This is a simple idea until you consider that fact that all the pieces must be present at the same time, in the correct place, or nothing will work. Should a motorless bacteria develop a mutation in its DNA that gives it one of these 26 flagellar motor pieces, we would think it on its way to a motor. But with only one piece, even if it took 10 years to form the second piece, the bacteria has a unnecessary piece and natural selection may eliminate that bacteria for its extra weight.

There are many others, but I hate writing books :/

You really need to learn about evolution from sources that are not 10 plus years out dated.

 

[Ouroboros]

Irreducible Complex genetic mutations have been observed. Lenski's E-Coli experiment is one example.

 

[rusra02]

Really?
The Watchmaker Argument... ...again?

Funny how truth keeps rearing its head above the propaganda, is it not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Funny how truth keeps rearing its head above the propaganda, is it not?

It is. Which is why evolution is an accepted scientific fact, and creationism is relegated to the world of pseudo-science and not taken seriously by almost anyone who actually knows anything about biology.

 

[McBell]

Funny how truth keeps rearing its head above the propaganda, is it not?

Obviously not.
I mean, here you are with nothing but propaganda, lies, and half truths...

 

[Me Myself]

I am reminded of what the Bible says about this: "for his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceive by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
(Romans 1:20) A reasonable person, upon seeing an intricate carving or just someone 's name carved in a tree, does not say "I never saw this happen, so there is no evidence it did." It is rather the case, I think, that what is obviously the work of an intelligent person proves that someone intelligent and creative did, in fact, exist and did,in fact, create. (Hebrews 3:4)

In other words, you admit that your proposal of e origin of life is also different from what is observable.

Then the real answer to the origin of life comes again:

We dont currently know.