There are a few simple questions for proponents of evolution. First of all how do you explain evolution with regard to the second law of thermodynamics? If closed systems always head toward entropy, how is it that evolutionary systems always progress toward improvements? If you allow any system to exist, it will tend to break down without external input or energy. Scientists have gone to great extremes trying to create an environment that would emulate original creation of life. To my knowledge these experiments have been a dismal failure. If scientists can't carefully create the conditions, how are we supposed to believe that this process occurred frequently and naturally around the world?
Although, it is obvious that micro evolution occurs on a frequent basis, what incidents of macro evolution have we ever seen? Micro evolution (or more simply minor change) is when a being adapts or changes to stimulus in the environment. Animals change color or bacteria become more resistant. Have we ever seen an animal halfway into the process of turning into another species? Macro evolution is when something evolves into another species all together. Surely, if this process was so natural and prevalent, we would see it happening all around us. In our oceans, jungles, caves and forests, we should easily observe continuing macro evolution. Instead what we get is explanation (theory) how the species evolved after the fact.
Please explain to me how evolution can so consistently beat the tremendous odds against meaningful positive changes within a species. With computers we can now calculate the odds of even simple things like one amino acid being formed by chance. I read the odds of that is 10 to the 123 power. It's ridiculous to assume that all the stuff needed fo life just happened. The odds are laughable. Darwin had no knowledge of what electron microscopes reveal. He had a simplistic view of cells.
Where is the evidence of transitional fossils? If evolution was true, then we would find a preponderance of fossils showing species changing into another species but not surviving. We should see them everywhere. Last I read not even one transitional fossil has been found and accepted as a true transition. We do find fossils of extinct species in many places and time periods. Why don't we see weird fossils all over the place?
How do you understand the complexity of the interconnectedness of life? For example, take the honey bee. A bee by itself, either worker of queen, cannot exist by itself, so the whole colony had to have evolved complete. This is true for quite a number of species. Not to mention that many colony species are dependent on certain plant life existing. Bees need certain flowers to make honey and feed. In turn the flowers need bees to propagate. Evolution must believe that the bees and flowers just happened to have evolved all at the same time. That's too far fetched for me.
We hear lots of rhetoric on how evolution happened, but evolution theory itself has changed quite a bit. Accepted theories of the past have been abandoned. Certain aspects of evolution have been faked to promote the theory. Examples are the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and Java man. My objection is at what point are we to accept evolution? Since they are arguing among themselves, how is the common person supposed to know exactly what they believe?
To me it takes much more faith to believe in macro evolution and believe that pure undirected chance created the universe, our solar system, the earth and the life on it. If our sun was only about 50 degrees hotter or colder, life here could not exist. So, no, I don't have faith that the whole system just blew up from nowhere and gradually all the amazing "coincidences" that make up our universe and the complexities of life just happened. Where the intelligence came from is up to you to decide.