Debunk Evolution Thread

[EKUAlum05]

Want to know if evolution exists? Think about it the next time you have to go get a flu shot.

[spindoc]

Want to know if evolution exists? Think about it the next time you have to go get a flu shot.

Once again,,,,adaptation, not remotely evolution.

[spindoc]

Show me evidence of evolution being inaccurate.

 

Evolution has evidence supporting it, Creationism does not. End of story. There's nothing left to argue.

 

And I believe in God, and that our earth was created. However, that is based on my faith, not on hard evidence.

You keep spewing this as fact. Isn't the burden of proof on the evolutionist? Not the disproof by someone else, let alone the creationist? Here's where you start HB, to evolve you had to have started out as something, so what was it. You prove that to me and I may come around.

[HHSDad]

Once again,,,,adaptation, not remotely evolution.

Correct. Evolution is based upon adaption where a species can change to adapt to its environment, yet stays basically the same animal. I know of no hard evidence that supports the creation of a new species from an old one.

[EKUAlum05]

Show me evidence of evolution being inaccurate.

 

Evolution has evidence supporting it, Creationism does not. End of story. There's nothing left to argue.

 

And I believe in God, and that our earth was created. However, that is based on my faith, not on hard evidence.

 

Agreed.... I have my b.s. in Biology...needless to say I have seen enough proof to realize that the observation that "evolution" exists, and supercedes the notion of adaptability. Microbiology in general can prove the Theory of Evolution over the span of one night, hard, tangible evidence that cultures can not only adapt to their surroundings, but change accordingly to a different physiological and functional forms. The speed at which this happens can certainly transcend to explaining how many organisms have given rise to others. Those who fail to acknowledge that Evolution exists, are either blinded by pre-conceived notions, OR, ignorant to the definition of what the "Theory of Evolution" actually is. (The Theory itself is not centric on "Mans Rise From Ape", "Mans Rise From Ape" is centric on the The Thoery of Evolution)

 

Yet, I also have faith that the function that allows life to begin and continue, even in the harshest circumstances and against the odds, must be devine in notion. A catalyst had to start life, although the reaction of elements itself may produce a reaction, that reaction does not give way to a sustainable form of energy that remains constant. Furthermore, the idea of the "soul" and cogniscant ability to decipher "wrong" from "right", reaches beyond the realm of physical science.

[EKUAlum05]

Once again,,,,adaptation, not remotely evolution.

 

Incorrect.... new morpohology, new functionality... Evolution

[Hearsay]

Show me evidence of evolution being inaccurate.

 

Evolution has evidence supporting it, Creationism does not. End of story. There's nothing left to argue.

 

And I believe in God, and that our earth was created. However, that is based on my faith, not on hard evidence.

 

There is something left to argue.

 

You and I obviously have very different definitions of what constitutes "evidence." I deal with the question every day, so I do here and now make a claim of some kind on the subject.

 

My statement that "I know God" is, in fact, evidence. It may not be COMPELLING evidence to you, but it is evidence. I can testify in court to it, and will be permitted to testify. Jury may not believe it, but it is a statement of evidence.

 

Similarly, the very existence of the vast heavens and monumental mountain ranges, and how a child learns to speak on his own, and the physiological intricacy of the human veinous system, without any other explanation, are themselves "evidence" of a Creator. How they got there, how they are so incredible, is in and of itself, "evidence" of a Creator.

 

The written record, contained in Genesis, that God created heaven and earth, is "evidence." It may not be hard evidence to you, but all that means is that it has no weight to you, but that doesn't mean it is not "evidence."

 

The failure of any other theory to adequately explain our presence and existence, is itself "evidence." You believe there are other theories that adequately explain it. Fine. Our explanation and evidence is not compelling to you. Again, that goes to the weight of the evidence, not that it doesn't exist.

 

In a court case, when people talk about "evidence," too many people assume that in order to be evidence, you have to have a bloody knife, or a piece of DNA, or a photograph, or a recording. Its not true. A person's testimony is evidence. What is NOT said is sometimes evidence. You cannot limit your understanding of "evidence" to things you can tangibly see or touch.

 

The theory of evolution, by Darwin's own admission, has monstrous holes that have not been filled. Darwin said that himself, that the failure to recover even the slightest "evidence" of intermediate fossilized records posed problems with the theory. There are other holes, too, some that have been discussed. But the fact of the matter is that if presenting a case for the existence of man, evolution would not be able to satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or even in my opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

You don't believe that the book, the statement of faith, the existence of the majesty of creation, or any of those things are "evidence," by your standard. I do. If you believe an incomplete theory such a sevolution deserves the opportunity for hearing in the schools, that is just fine and I am for it. But what we consider evidence and search for Intelligent Design (incomplete also, or everyone would buy into it) deserves at least the same opportunity to be heard, and then students can choose for themselves.

[spindoc]

There is something left to argue.

 

You and I obviously have very different definitions of what constitutes "evidence." I deal with the question every day, so I do here and now make a claim of some kind on the subject.

 

My statement that "I know God" is, in fact, evidence. It may not be COMPELLING evidence to you, but it is evidence. I can testify in court to it, and will be permitted to testify. Jury may not believe it, but it is a statement of evidence.

 

Similarly, the very existence of the vast heavens and monumental mountain ranges, and how a child learns to speak on his own, and the physiological intricacy of the human veinous system, without any other explanation, are themselves "evidence" of a Creator. How they got there, how they are so incredible, is in and of itself, "evidence" of a Creator.

 

The written record, contained in Genesis, that God created heaven and earth, is "evidence." It may not be hard evidence to you, but all that means is that it has no weight to you, but that doesn't mean it is not "evidence."

 

The failure of any other theory to adequately explain our presence and existence, is itself "evidence." You believe there are other theories that adequately explain it. Fine. Our explanation and evidence is not compelling to you. Again, that goes to the weight of the evidence, not that it doesn't exist.

 

In a court case, when people talk about "evidence," too many people assume that in order to be evidence, you have to have a bloody knife, or a piece of DNA, or a photograph, or a recording. Its not true. A person's testimony is evidence. What is NOT said is sometimes evidence. You cannot limit your understanding of "evidence" to things you can tangibly see or touch.

 

The theory of evolution, by Darwin's own admission, has monstrous holes that have not been filled. Darwin said that himself, that the failure to recover even the slightest "evidence" of intermediate fossilized records posed problems with the theory. There are other holes, too, some that have been discussed. But the fact of the matter is that if presenting a case for the existence of man, evolution would not be able to satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or even in my opinion by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

You don't believe that the book, the statement of faith, the existence of the majesty of creation, or any of those things are "evidence," by your standard. I do. If you believe an incomplete theory such a sevolution deserves the opportunity for hearing in the schools, that is just fine and I am for it. But what we consider evidence and search for Intelligent Design (incomplete also, or everyone would buy into it) deserves at least the same opportunity to be heard, and then students can choose for themselves.

Bravo!

[EKUAlum05]

Bravo!

 

They needed Hearsay for the Scope's Monkey Trial...LOL

[spindoc]

Incorrect.... new morpohology, new functionality... Evolution

Well, we'll not get into a spitting contest here. It's the ability to adapt, no more, no less. And for what it's worth, I also have a degree in biology, however mine is somewhat more advanced than yours and as you can tell, it doesn't really have any bearing on what you believe as truth, does it?

[Hearsay]

Agreed.... I have my b.s. in Biology...needless to say I have seen enough proof to realize that the observation that "evolution" exists, and supercedes the notion of adaptability. Microbiology in general can prove the Theory of Evolution over the span of one night, hard, tangible evidence that cultures can not only adapt to their surroundings, but change accordingly to a different physiological and functional forms. The speed at which this happens can certainly transcend to explaining how many organisms have given rise to others. Those who fail to acknowledge that Evolution exists, are either blinded by pre-conceived notions, OR, ignorant to the definition of what the "Theory of Evolution" actually is. (The Theory itself is not centric on "Mans Rise From Ape", "Mans Rise From Ape" is centric on the The Thoery of Evolution)

 

Yet, I also have faith that the function that allows life to begin and continue, even in the harshest circumstances and against the odds, must be devine in notion. A catalyst had to start life, although the reaction of elements itself may produce a reaction, that reaction does not give way to a sustainable form of energy that remains constant. Furthermore, the idea of the "soul" and cogniscant ability to decipher "wrong" from "right", reaches beyond the realm of physical science.

 

Since a catalyst had to start life, based upon your experience, why then is it not conceivable that the catalyst was started by God creating the first human out of clay, and then letting evolution take over from there? Why does the catalyst for human life have to have occurred at the beginning of time, and then God had no more role after that?

[oldrambler]

How many times do we have to tell you that faith is evidence to us, and further that we do not believe that the evidence for evolution is even close to compelling. You are forcing the teaching of a theory for which the so-called "evidence" only gets you about 10% of the picture. That's not compelling, HB20. You keep coming back to "evidence" "evidence" "evidence," but we just don't agree with you. How is that so hard to grasp?

 

:thumb: Great post Hearsay.

My question was always....What evidence? What they found were bones from a dead ape.......period. :lol:

[Hearsay]

In fact, I'm pretty sure, for those of us that believe scripture to have weight, that Hebrews 11:1 says something about "Faith . . . is the evidence of things not seen."

[EKUAlum05]

Well, we'll not get into a spitting contest here. It's the ability to adapt, no more, no less. And for what it's worth, I also have a degree in biology, however mine is somewhat more advanced than yours and as you can tell, it doesn't really have any bearing on what you believe as truth, does it?

 

It has no bearing, in fact, you probably had similar frustrations as myself when every single belief, every single idea, is constantly tried, tested, and debated. Furthermore, every loophole is probed and you typically find yourself porving yourself with what has already been disproved and vice versa...HAHA

 

You cannot change without adapting..and that is where so many gray areas lie...in what is Adaptation and Evolution: FWIW, here is the "definition" of evolution.

 

n.

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form

 

 

When "evolution" is looked at, in a simple sense, throwing all pre-conceived notions and all the "Man from Ape", to the very core of what it is defined to be so, it is undeniable.

 

The question shouldn't necessarily be "Does Evolution Exist?", but does "Evolution Transcend Adaptation"... also Is Evolution truly a "Theory"?

 

Now we have all sorts of new philosophical input we can add....LOL;)

[EKUAlum05]

Since a catalyst had to start life, based upon your experience, why then is it not conceivable that the catalyst was started by God creating the first human out of clay, and then letting evolution take over from there? Why does the catalyst for human life have to have occurred at the beginning of time, and then God had no more role after that?

 

Hearsay.... that was my point LOL

 

I said I believe in evolution but also believe something devine must have been there initially to give rise, that lfife just didn't start with a chemical reaction haha