Debunk Evolution Thread

[HHSDad]

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

I think I can live with that.

[Hearsay]

OK, so God creates the first plants, animals and "creeping things," and their lives/forms evolve from that point. Somewhere along the way, he takes some clay and makes the first humans, and they evolve from that point.

 

Any reason why everyone cannot live with this?

[spindoc]

OK, so God creates the first plants, animals and "creeping things," and their lives/forms evolve from that point. Somewhere along the way, he takes some clay and makes the first humans, and they evolve from that point.

 

Any reason why everyone cannot live with this?

I like it and agree,,,,,but,,,,,,,not all the hardliners have chimed in yet.

[EKUAlum05]

OK, so God creates the first plants, animals and "creeping things," and their lives/forms evolve from that point. Somewhere along the way, he takes some clay and makes the first humans, and they evolve from that point.

 

Any reason why everyone cannot live with this?

 

Based on my faith, I can and do live on this. BUT, for those who do not share a similar faith, it will remain one of the greatest debates to date.

[EKUAlum05]

OK, so God creates the first plants, animals and "creeping things," and their lives/forms evolve from that point. Somewhere along the way, he takes some clay and makes the first humans, and they evolve from that point.

 

Any reason why everyone cannot live with this?

 

I'd also recommend this modificiation:

 

God creates the first LIVING organisms and their lives/forms evolve from that point. Somewhere along the way, he creates the first humans, and they evolve from that point. (So many literal meanings in the Bible and translations such as King James, that it leaves it too open for discussion)

 

..and the above allows for the Theory of Evolution to hold true, yet still implements the devinity of creation.

[Hearsay]

The point being that I believe they can co-exist.

[EKUAlum05]

The point being that I believe they can co-exist.

 

amen!

[HHSDad]

The point being that I believe they can co-exist.

:thumb:

[halfback20]

OK, so God creates the first plants, animals and "creeping things," and their lives/forms evolve from that point. Somewhere along the way, he takes some clay and makes the first humans, and they evolve from that point.

 

Any reason why everyone cannot live with this?

 

I can agree with it somewhat, but people who do not believe in God will not believe in it.

[halfback20]

The point being that I believe they can co-exist.

 

I believe Evolution and Creationism can co-exist, but those who do not believe in God will never accept Creationism. And since Creationism can not be proved by science, it should not be taught as a science in any form of school IMO.

[halfback20]

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?

 

Faith might be evidence to YOU. But unfortunately not everyone in this world shares your beliefs. Facts, and science are the evidence supporting evolution, not faith.

 

10% of the picture according to whom? Scientists who have studied evolution have pretty solid evidence to back it up, otherwise it would have never been taught in the first place.

[halfback20]

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.

 

I'm not exactly sure, as I am not a scientist. Heck, I'm not even good at science. Someone else might be able to answer that question, but it would take some research from me, that I'm not willing to do at this point.

[halfback20]

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.

 

What you claim as evidence is based on your faith. The point I am trying to make is that there are many people who do not share that faith. You are more than welcome to believe what you want to believe, but if anyone's beliefs could be claimed as "evidence" then I could convince some people that since I believe the Giants will win the Super bowl, that is evidence that they will win the super bowl. Does this mean that those who truly believe in more than one God, have evidence that there is more than one God? No, they have their faith and only their faith. They have nothing but their faith, which in science, is not evidence at all.

 

Evolution is backed up by hard evidence found on earth through experimentation. Creationism is not science, because you can not test it through experiment. You can not test whether there is or is not a God.

 

I do not believe you can claim that the fact that a child can learn to talk is evidence of a creator. No one knows that for sure, and it can not be proven through any form of testing or experiment either.

 

I believe in God. I've said that a million times too. The point I have been trying to make is that my beliefs in God are based on my faith. Not on any scientific explanations. I do not need science to tell me whether there is or is not a God. I do not need proof. I have all the proof I need in my faith. However, I also understand that there are others in this world and in this country that do not believe the same things that I believe. And since I can not prove what I believe with facts, I can't say that it should be taught to kids in public schools as a science.

 

Testimony might be evidence in court, but it is not always the best evidence. The best evidence is something you can see with your own eyes. Something that can be proven. Eye witness testimony can not be proven, unless it is caught on tape.

 

There are holes in Darwins theory. No one has denied that. But that does not mean that it is not true. That means that we do not know everything yet. It will be a long time before we know all that there is to know. The thing about Creationism is we can not prove whether it is true or not, because there is no way to know.

 

Darwin proposed a scientific explanation of nature with the theory of evolution and natural selection. Intelligent design and creationism is a religious explanation for nature.

[True blue (and gold)]

What you claim as evidence is based on your faith. The point I am trying to make is that there are many people who do not share that faith. You are more than welcome to believe what you want to believe, but if anyone's beliefs could be claimed as "evidence" then I could convince some people that since I believe the Giants will win the Super bowl, that is evidence that they will win the super bowl. Does this mean that those who truly believe in more than one God, have evidence that there is more than one God? No, they have their faith and only their faith. They have nothing but their faith, which in science, is not evidence at all.

 

Evolution is backed up by hard evidence found on earth through experimentation. Creationism is not science, because you can not test it through experiment. You can not test whether there is or is not a God.

 

I do not believe you can claim that the fact that a child can learn to talk is evidence of a creator. No one knows that for sure, and it can not be proven through any form of testing or experiment either.

 

I believe in God. I've said that a million times too. The point I have been trying to make is that my beliefs in God are based on my faith. Not on any scientific explanations. I do not need science to tell me whether there is or is not a God. I do not need proof. I have all the proof I need in my faith. However, I also understand that there are others in this world and in this country that do not believe the same things that I believe. And since I can not prove what I believe with facts, I can't say that it should be taught to kids in public schools as a science.

 

Testimony might be evidence in court, but it is not always the best evidence. The best evidence is something you can see with your own eyes. Something that can be proven. Eye witness testimony can not be proven, unless it is caught on tape.

 

There are holes in Darwins theory. No one has denied that. But that does not mean that it is not true. That means that we do not know everything yet. It will be a long time before we know all that there is to know. The thing about Creationism is we can not prove whether it is true or not, because there is no way to know.

 

Darwin proposed a scientific explanation of nature with the theory of evolution and natural selection. Intelligent design and creationism is a religious explanation for nature.

 

:thumb:

[spindoc]

I'm not exactly sure, as I am not a scientist. Heck, I'm not even good at science. Someone else might be able to answer that question, but it would take some research from me, that I'm not willing to do at this point.

Well HB, and please take no offense to this because I truly mean none, but when you are as staunch as you seem to be that there are "facts" to back up the evolution theorum, yet you have no clue what they are and are not even inclined to search them out if they did exist makes your point hogwash IMO. You see, from my point of view, most folks I've cared to debate this with seem to have your view, but lack of evidence to support the claim. They're sure that there is some factual evidence, yet cannot find it. Again, if you dig and find what mankind came from then you may have a viable stance in my view. The hole that the evolutionists can't seem to fill for me is the one at the very beginning. We came from somewhere, didn't we? I don't think that Big Bang thing is your answer, is it?

 

As to your claim that it should be taught in schools, would you expect anything else whatsoever to be taught if it wasn't complete? Would you have been able to do Calculus if they left out Algebra 2 or trig? Or would you be able to read if they left out part of the alphabet, say E thru N? or in this case,, A?