The reason you've heard the same rant from people time and again is probably because you've brought up the same arguments you brought up here time and again, even though they are the most common arguments from Creationists that are very easy to prove wrong... and in fact there are tons of resources online with answers to exactly these arguments. It's like if someone told you that Creationists like to eat babies, and you tell them otherwise. But they refuse to listen to you, and then you hear the same thing, again, and again. And, every time you go into a discussion someone is there talking about how Creationists like to eat babies. Eventually you're going to get really tired of it and lose your patience.
As of right now no one has ever proved anything on evolution (Even after reading your post and looking at the sites you provided). I get just as worked up with evolutionists who arent listening to anything i say and go on a speel (Very much how you did) about how i have no understanding of the science behind evolution and that im obviously ignorant because i dont agree with them.Bias cuts both ways bud
1) Are you aware that evolution is defined as changes in allele frequencies? So, your argument here is malformed because it is based off an incomplete understanding of what evolution is defined as which is highly important here.
2) Yes, changes in alleles frequencies have been recorded quite extensively, so evolution has been observed in nature.
- Evolution is not impossible to prove, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. There is fossil evidence, morphological, genetic, and other types. Any one of those, like say the genetic evidence, is enough on its own to show the evolution of all life on Earth. Put together they all point to exactly the same process of evolution working on the same time frames, in the same places, and giving the same results. You can find more specific information here and here if you want, or maybe browse through the National Academies site on evolution.
Im not sure if youve noticed this but every ounce of evidence they have collected pertaining to macro evolution (Not micro i dont care if you like the term or not) is circumstantial. What if i saw two kids with blonde hair and blue eyes.Neither have ever met each other before but my conclusion because of these similarities they share is that they are long lost cousins.Thats the same fallacy that evolutionists use so by your logic my theory that they are brothers is correct because i have circumstantial evidence of it.
The best way to find evidence for something is to look for it.Often times if your determined, youll find evidence to support you where there really isnt any
- Making wild overreaching, unsupported claims will get you nowhere. Actually, proof is not only possible, there's so much of it that basically all biologists in the world agree that evolution is a fact.
If they have proven it beyond all shadow of doubt then why do people still disagree?Theres no logical reason they should.On a side note what makes biology such a special field that they dont have to prove there claims when every other branch of science does?And FTR i mean prove to the point where every fact is accounted for and the outcome has been shown via tests
- Simply not true. Firstly, the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution is a made up one that Creationists use. Evolution is just evolution, whether we're talking about small changes inside DNA to speciation. Speciation has actually been observed. Also, because of the abundance of fossil and DNA evidence (among other types) we can tell as a fact that speciation has occurred in the past.
The difference between Micro and Macro evolution is that one is observable and testable the other is not.The link you provided is an example of the former which as iv said i have no problem with.Do you have a link testing evolution over say 1000 generations?It just so happens i do http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1879964/ Oddly enough this is the exact same trichinella spiralic we have nowadays.Odd that over some 20,000 generations the changes are minimal.According to evolution theory it should have been a different species by now or at least changed some extent.
1) False, both are quite testable through DNA analysis, while I was participating in a research program at the college I go to, we used a method called PCR which utilizes DNA Polymerase to make copies of the genetic sequence of a phytoplankton called nanonchloropsis and used a website that compares the genetic sequences of each sample to form a phylogeny tree.
2) It took roughly over a billion years for the first prokaryotic organisms to make the transition into microscopic eukaryotic organism, so expecting a petri dish of bacteria to somehow evolve in a complex multicellular organism over night is quite silly and shows that you don't have the insight or knowledge to try to disprove a theory that is heavily supported by large quantities of scientific data from multiple scientific disciplines.
- Wrong on 2 counts. First, evolution is a scientific theory, which does not mean it's a guess, someone's favorite idea, or some kind of speculation. A scientific "theory" is as close to a fact as can be. A theory is an explanation for how something works with so much evidence behind it that there is no doubt that it is true. Heleocentrism is a theory, quantum mechanics is a theory, gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory, the germ theory of disease is a theory, the atom theory of matter is a theory. Second, there is no "missing link". We have a very good record of fossils for human evolution, and even wikipedia knows this.
And as iv stated over and over again as close to fact as can be is not fact and is not proven which is why its a theory.Bringing other theories into the mix isnt going to prove evolution any more than it is now.Also gravity is a law.What causes it is up for debate but gravity in and of itself is a law.
Wikipedia is not a good source for anything.If you can provide something more concrete than that id appreciate it.
Its a bird.Not a dino bird a bird pure and simple.IMO the only reason people think its a lizard bird is because of how artists depicted it
You still did not address my point about about when a species is no longer the same species that it once was.Its an unavoidable fact if you have a timeline or an ape and a man on either ends.At one point in this timeline a single generation will not be the same thing its parents were.If you can get around that without sidestepping the question id love to hear it.As of now that is the only way evolution can work on this scale and since its common knowledge that mutants dont reproduce so well its highly improbable.
1) Due to very recent DNA analyses and keen observations of homologous structures birds are classified into the class Reptilia, so Archaeopteryx is in fact a reptile. Evolution works through speciation which means that a certain group of that particular population will eventually branch off and become a separate species due to reproduction barriers or isolation from the parent population.
You can easily change my opinion by making an argument with evidence or logical reasoning behind it. If you're going to be making claims and arguments that basically call all biologists in the world idiots, then you should start by showing some basic knowledge of the field that you are criticizing.
You cant prove a negative first of all so my proving to you that evolution is not true is not possible.If nothing else my argument is built off of logic.Im not calling anyone an idiot im saying they have no proof for their claim.TBH it makes no difference to me if we were created or evolved.Evolution theory just has no concrete evidence to back it.That annoys me so i disagree with it.
Finally iv studied evolution for years and disagree with it because they dont have anything concrete to prove that its true
1) It's clearly obvious that you have never intensely studied evolution or biology for that matter, so my advice to you would be for you to pick up a Introductory level Biology textbook to clear up some of these misconceptions that you have.
Origin of the Species was written by a man who made faulty assumptions, whereas the Bible was written by honest men and women who were here since the beginning of time. Who would you trust, a racist male-supremacist (who wasn't there to see evolution occur, therefore it never happened) or people who were actually there that wrote about what they saw and felt?
We do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, nor did I say we evolved from each other. No one ever said evolution happened until Darwin did, and he never saw it happen, so he had/has no proof.
There was never an "Allopatric Speciation". No one saw evolution occur, as I've said plenty of times, so "Allopatric Speciation" never happened. Each organism was created individually, and although some may look similar to another (e.g. finches) each are unique.
Well first of all The Bible was Never Written... it was compiled together from religious stories that was in circulation during the 3rd and 4th century before then you had no real Bible and there was no King James Bible till the 17th century. Also, these people who wrote these books was not here from the beginning of time... the Earth had been here for over 4.498 billion years before anyone decided to write these stories that we have in the compiled books that make up the Bible and technically even that is not the beginning of time since the Universe itself is over 13 billion years old.
King James Version was a translation from Hebrew, and these "religious stories" are historical accounts of what people actually experienced. The Earth is not 4.498 billion years old, and the Universe is not 13 billion years old. The truth's in the rock.
Sedimentary rock was created by Noah's Flood and another succession of floods after that. This is proof that sedimentary rock can form very quickly. More proof: After the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's, 15 inches of sedimentary rock was formed in just six hours.
my personal opinion is that we have to keep an open mind. i donth think that we actually need a god to pursue a greater good:the human life has a value on its own,justice has a value on its own and peace has a value on its own indipendently from everything. but nevertheless faith CAN help a man: if something bad happens to you or to someone who is close to you,it can provide a new point of view to see the things,it can make you feel safer and stronger at the same time,and how could it don't do it? if GOD himself loves you so much to die for you,why in the world should i be afraid of..anything?
It COULD make you feel better when something bad happens, or someone you care for dies, or it could make you feel miserable and depressed the rest of your life. You know, like if your unbaptized baby dies and you're told he/she's going to Limbo. How does that make you feel? It's God's law, it's infallible and you have to accept it, there's no chance it's wrong. Oh, wait, until the Church changes it's mind and the infallible, never-changing word of God changes and now unbaptized babies go to Heaven. Woohoo! Yeah, great except for all those people who were miserable their entire lives thinking that their loved baby went to Limbo. Or how about someone else you love dies, but they're not Christian... maybe they believe in another religion, or are atheists... I guess they're going to Hell. Yeah, that must make you feel really great. I mean, why not, it's God's will and by definition God's will is good, right?
See, the problem with believing whatever you're fed without question is that it MIGHT help you, it MIGHT make you feel better, or it might also make you feel horrible, it might make you want to fly a plane into a building, or it might make you want to kill yourself in a mass suicide because the guy who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus told you to. When you believe in the supernatural, when logic and reason mean little to you, then there's no way anyone can tell you otherwise or give you evidence to change your opinion. At that point, you're basically just relying on pure luck as to whether things turn out well or badly for you. Congrats, you were born in a Christian nation and therefore you believe in THE ONE TRUE GOD, you're saved! Or, sucks for you, you were born in a non-Christian nation and you're now going to be tortured horribly forever. God is love, I guess, which is why you're going to Hell.
i know that...and you are absolutely right.
i was just talking about faith if it is used by a man provided with a bit of common sense...who is living in a civil country (and so i am probably escluding a large part of the human race..). for shure religion says a lot ( really a lot) of bullsh@t like the ones that you have mentioned,but i know many guys who believe in god but don't trust in every thing the Church says.
..oh "GOD".... ,this is the 2013 and still peolpe are arguing on this? i don't know why, but Creationism is sooo radicated in to the u.s.a., i mean there is also a museum that pretended to explain it in a "scientific way". (there is even a statue that represents Adam riding a t-rex..)
but this is the point: Evolution is a fact and crationism is nothing more than a child's story.it was good 500 years ago but not now.
now people can choose to ingore that 2+2 is 4...but that is just their problem. ( unless they try to remove the evolution theory from the school or something like that).
besides that,one person can perfectly be aware of the evolution and the big-bang while maintaining his faith on god. Science will never explain everything,there will be always some thing to discover , there will always be space for some important questions as: "what is the meaning of life","what's my purpose?", " why we,our world and our universe exist?", " is there something afther the death?",ecc...and so here we are Faith,and so here we are God.
I have to give it to the evolutionists, they have been lying to us for so long, and they're good at it. I mean, look, evolution as all the qualities that would make evolution "attractive": it devalues human life, it totally insults your intellect, the only pieces of evidence (although not even close to legitimate pieces of evidence) that there were hominids in the past were a bone and a tooth, etc, etc.
Whereas, we have creationism, which totally makes real sense. We have a solid piece of evidence that we were created: look around you! These organisms known as animals, plants, fungi, etc are way too sophisticated for them to have been the result of random mutations and green slime. No matter how much time you give evolution, it will never happen. Never did, never will.
No oxymoron/paradox intended, but there is a difference between being the "same" and being "similar". Chimpanzees may have similar body structures to us, but we're not the same, not even close. Our intellect is much, much lager than any chimp's. We are more conscious of our actions than any other creature. To say that chimps and humans are the same and had a common ancestor is saying flowers and tigers "evolved" from the same creature.
Evolution is a pathetic lie to humanity; evolutionists are no more than liars and the followers of liars. There was no such thing as a Big Bang, nor an "evolution". It's just a bunch of piteous lies put together by idiots desperate for publicity.
who has been lying to the human race is the Church (no matter what church) for more than 2000 years,if they really pretend that Creationism is a fact,if they really pretend that earth is just 6000 years old. i think that they are the good liars..and not the evolutionists. if in the world there were more people like you,we probably still would believe that the earth is the center of the universe,that all the dinosaurs were herbivours and some funny stuff like that.
however you can not accept that,but evolution is a fact.the world knows it except from some crazy guys who think otherwise. evolution doesn't devalues human life or the human intellect and ( of course lol) its evidence is not a single bone or a tooth. we don't have to come really from the monkeys,maybe milions of years ago we were similiar to monkeys in the appearance but that's all. Man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group. This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve.
but the point is not just if man comes form the apes,cause there is evidence of the evolution even for the other species. and evolution is nothing about "publicity" or random mutations and "green slime". =)
for the last time: big-bang and evolution doesn't exclude the possibility that god exists.
i think that the only thing that is really an isnult to our intellect are the people who still believe that god has REALLY created us from the MUD,or that REALLY women comes from the man's rib,that eden was REAL,or that all the dinosurs were herbivorous,or that the univers is just 6000 years old,or that the sun is turning around the earth.. or that at the beginning the were JUST 2 human beings and that we all comes from repeated incests.
however have a god day,and believe in what you want.
Origin of the Species was written by a man who made faulty assumptions, whereas the Bible was written by honest men and women who were here since the beginning of time. Who would you trust, a racist male-supremacist (who wasn't there to see evolution occur, therefore it never happened) or people who were actually there that wrote about what they saw and felt?
We do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, nor did I say we evolved from each other. No one ever said evolution happened until Darwin did, and he never saw it happen, so he had/has no proof.
There was never an "Allopatric Speciation". No one saw evolution occur, as I've said plenty of times, so "Allopatric Speciation" never happened. Each organism was created individually, and although some may look similar to another (e.g. finches) each are unique.
..oh "GOD".... ,this is the 2013 and still peolpe are arguing on this? i don't know why, but Creationism is sooo radicated in to the u.s.a., i mean there is also a museum that pretended to explain it in a "scientific way". (there is even a statue that represents Adam riding a t-rex..)
but this is the point: Evolution is a fact and crationism is nothing more than a child's story.it was good 500 years ago but not now.
now people can choose to ingore that 2+2 is 4...but that is just their problem. ( unless they try to remove the evolution theory from the school or something like that).
besides that,one person can perfectly be aware of the evolution and the big-bang while maintaining his faith on god. Science will never explain everything,there will be always some thing to discover , there will always be space for some important questions as: "what is the meaning of life","what's my purpose?", " why we,our world and our universe exist?", " is there something afther the death?",ecc...and so here we are Faith,and so here we are God.
I have to give it to the evolutionists, they have been lying to us for so long, and they're good at it. I mean, look, evolution as all the qualities that would make evolution "attractive": it devalues human life, it totally insults your intellect, the only pieces of evidence (although not even close to legitimate pieces of evidence) that there were hominids in the past were a bone and a tooth, etc, etc.
Whereas, we have creationism, which totally makes real sense. We have a solid piece of evidence that we were created: look around you! These organisms known as animals, plants, fungi, etc are way too sophisticated for them to have been the result of random mutations and green slime. No matter how much time you give evolution, it will never happen. Never did, never will.
No oxymoron/paradox intended, but there is a difference between being the "same" and being "similar". Chimpanzees may have similar body structures to us, but we're not the same, not even close. Our intellect is much, much lager than any chimp's. We are more conscious of our actions than any other creature. To say that chimps and humans are the same and had a common ancestor is saying flowers and tigers "evolved" from the same creature.
Evolution is a pathetic lie to humanity; evolutionists are no more than liars and the followers of liars. There was no such thing as a Big Bang, nor an "evolution". It's just a bunch of piteous lies put together by idiots desperate for publicity.
@celtic: We can't because evolution never happened. All the "hominids" were frauds, and the Big Bang never happened. God created us, that's it. That's the only logical explanation to our existence.
Yep. Despite fossil evidence and decades of research on the topic by people far more qualified to comment on the topic than anyone in this thread that have yielded results to the contrary, the logical explanation to our existence is that we were created by a magic old man who lives in the clouds, because my daddy said so and his daddy told him it was so and his daddy's daddy said the same thing and are you questioning my daddy's daddy's integrity?
I wish people would read the things they say and listen to how it sounds in their head before posting it.
So you're basically saying what evolution and the Big Bang is, minus the whole "daddy" part.
@celtic: We can't because evolution never happened. All the "hominids" were frauds, and the Big Bang never happened. God created us, that's it. That's the only logical explanation to our existence.
but what about the dinosaurs?
(I do Believe God exists, but there are some pieces missing from Humanities Puzzle Book)
Either died in Noah's Flood or didn't survive afterwards.
@celtic: We can't because evolution never happened. All the "hominids" were frauds, and the Big Bang never happened. God created us, that's it. That's the only logical explanation to our existence.
@willpayton: It's obvious that explosions only cause destruction, not life. I don't need science or "religion" to prove that. There is no way the Big Bang ever happened.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the most blissful person I have ever encountered on CV.
The Big Bang was not an "explosion", it was a rapid expansion of the universe from a very small, dense, and hot region. I could go on, but really, why? You and people like you have your fingers in your ears and your heads in the sand. As stated before, you continue to enjoy the fruits of science while denying its validity and mindlessly following the superstitious bullshit that you've been fed since birth. It's sad.
Where did this "hot region" come from? This whole rant about "oh the Big Bang theory isn't an explosion it's an expansion either way it's true" is pathetic nonsense.
@willpayton: It's obvious that explosions only cause destruction, not life. I don't need science or "religion" to prove that. There is no way the Big Bang ever happened.
Log in to comment