Debunk Evolution Thread

[UKPat02]

Genesis 1:1..."Debunked" completed.

 

Next question.

 

Tough to end your argument there if you're talking to someone who doesn't believe in the Bible.

[halfback20]

So did you close your participation to the thread or searching for the proof I requested?

 

Creationists admit that we cannot prove God created man but accept it on faith.

Evolutionists say evolution is a proven fact. I would like to know the proof of ape to man, puddle of goo to ape to man.

 

I do find it very interesing that the scientific community is so scared and angered by the thought of creationism being researched to see if it can be proven.

 

Creationism is studied by some people out there. But there is no hard evidence thus far to prove creationism and there is really no way to prove it.

[Alabama Larry]

Pat...what if I'm right and they are wrong? What have I lost if they are right? I'm the same as them, dead as a bug in the road? Now, what if I'm right and they are wrong and they didn't believe. I'm in paradise for eternity, and they are burning for the same time period.

 

Jeus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

 

Anyone want to know how I have this peace? I'll gladly tell you or ask me to start a new thread. I don't want to jack this one.

[AcesFull]

:thumb:

 

I believe God wanted humans to grow and learn and develop.

:thumb: There is way too much evidence contradicting a literal reading of Genesis to believe that it tells the complete story.

 

We first measured the speed of light decades ago and the techniques developed to measure the distances to distant stars and galaxies prove that the earth must be far older than 5,000 years. I also find it difficult to believe that God would have deposited a comprehensive fossil record that indicates a much older earth just to test our faith. The story of Creation was told as people living 2,500 years ago could understand it.

[Hearsay]

I'm having fun reading, but would just posit that you evolutionists who are upset that the creationists are always oversimplifying by saying "man from ape and puddle of goo," are the same folks who keep oversimplifying creationists by referring to the planet being "6,000 years old." Both oversimplifications are just as hackneyed.

[halfback20]

I'm having fun reading, but would just posit that you evolutionists who are upset that the creationists are always oversimplifying by saying "man from ape and puddle of goo," are the same folks who keep oversimplifying creationists by referring to the planet being "6,000 years old." Both oversimplifications are just as hackneyed.

 

I have never accused all creationists of believing that the planet is 6,000 years old.

[AcesFull]

I'm having fun reading, but would just posit that you evolutionists who are upset that the creationists are always oversimplifying by saying "man from ape and puddle of goo," are the same folks who keep oversimplifying creationists by referring to the planet being "6,000 years old." Both oversimplifications are just as hackneyed.

I generally stay out of the creation vs. evolution debates but I meant no disrespect by incorrectly using the 5,000 year figure. I agree with creationists who argue that it takes a lot of faith to believe in the Big Bang theory and the chain of unlikely events that resulted in our being. Science will neverprove or disprove the existence of God, but what I have learned of their discoveries has left me with more faith in His existence, not less.

[Hearsay]

I have never accused all creationists of believing that the planet is 6,000 years old.

 

I cannot specifically remember whether you personally have or not. Others on this board consistently have.

[Jumper_Dad]

If species evolve from one distinct species to another new distinct species why is there no fossilized record of the intermediate species, the so called work in progress?

 

Charles Darwin knew this was a problem within his theory. He wrote in "The Origin of Species":

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

Darwin himself debunked evolution in his famous book.

 

As far as proving Creation as in Genesis or by Intelligent Design, I fall back on the absolutely best church sign I have ever read. "Faith is not believing in what you see, but believing in what will be" The fact that there is not proof that you can hold in your hand or see with your eyes does not mean that it did not happen.

[halfback20]

If species evolve from one distinct species to another new distinct species why is there no fossilized record of the intermediate species, the so called work in progress?

 

Charles Darwin knew this was a problem within his theory. He wrote in "The Origin of Species":

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

Darwin himself debunked evolution in his famous book.

 

As far as proving Creation as in Genesis or by Intelligent Design, I fall back on the absolutely best church sign I have ever read. "Faith is not believing in what you see, but believing in what will be" The fact that there is not proof that you can hold in your hand or see with your eyes does not mean that it did not happen.

 

Then couldn't the same be said about the so called "work in progress" of evolution?

[Hearsay]

Then couldn't the same be said about the so called "work in progress" of evolution?

 

Probably, HB20, but if you concede it, you're going to have an awfully tough time arguing with any credibility that both should not have an equal chance of presentation in the schools.

[True blue (and gold)]

Could we PLEASE separate evolution from the Big Bang Theory? They are two completely separate ideas, though I do understand that some of you believe in neither.

[True blue (and gold)]

I generally stay out of the creation vs. evolution debates but I meant no disrespect by incorrectly using the 5,000 year figure. I agree with creationists who argue that it takes a lot of faith to believe in the Big Bang theory and the chain of unlikely events that resulted in our being. Science will neverprove or disprove the existence of God, but what I have learned of their discoveries has left me with more faith in His existence, not less.

 

Aces, we have found common ground in this thread. :thumb:

[Jumper_Dad]

Then couldn't the same be said about the so called "work in progress" of evolution?

 

Not really because evolution says that each species evolved a complete different species. Frogs from fish...reptiles from frogs....and mammals from reptiles. At some point between each step of that progress there would be 1/2 fish 1/2 frog animals or there would be 1/2 frogs and 1/2 reptiles yet these have never been found. If step one is there (fish) and step 10,999 (a complete frog) is there reason would state that at least a few of the mutations in between would be found.

 

You are missing what Darwin himself said. My faith is how I explain it, Darwin himself knew there were many holes in his theory, the biggest being his quoted line from his book in my previous post.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Not good enough for those who don't believe in the bible.

 

That isn't evidence though IMO, as you can not prove anything in Genesis 1:1.

 

Why can you not prove anything in Gen 1:1?

 

Of course, if scientists never let any research occur regarding creationsism, than I guess, technically, you are correct that you cannot prove what you don't allow to be researched.