Can anyone disprove Evolution?

Question

(without using the Bible)

Answer 1

Where are the millions of transitional fossils that we should be tripping over?

Answer 2

There's been no presented evidence to date that disproves evolution.

And for those of you that don't know anything about evolution, it's not like you're gonna see people growing gills and tails and ape-men running around all over the place. It's a process that takes thousands to millions of years (which is why it's unfeasible to test it and expect results during one lifetime... it doesn't happen that quickly). Read up on it (and while you're at it, learn the meaning of "natural selection." It will help your understanding of evolution.).

And Joa5... since when was the Bible a theory? Last time I checked, it was the book with the most printed copies in the world. That's no theory.

Answer 3

no, but you can not prove it either.

It has been a subject that has been debated for a very long time. It has been a back and forth battle. Evolutionists find proof and then it is discredited. The anti Evolutionists find proof then it to is discredited.

Yes, I could show you proof at this time. However, this physical proof will get discredited within a month or 2, so why bother.

The truth is that there will always be proof on both sides. I mean think about it. If creationism wins then churches will have to much power and would you like to find out that everything you was doing was for nothing. I could say more, but I'l stop there. So the evolutionists will keep on fighting.

However if the Evolutionists win then the Church will be destroyed. No matter how you say it if evolutionists win they will be able to discredit all of religion. So of course the antievolutionist will keep on fighting.

So the real truth can not be found until we are able to time travel or we all die. because until one of these two things happen there will always be a debate.

Answer 4

Why does this question have to be answered without using the Bible? Doesn't that mean you are not really looking for an answer? All I know is that the Bible says in Genesis (the book of beginnings) that everything will bring forth fruit after "it's own" kind. It doesn't say that a single cell organism will turn into a fish, and a fish will turn into a turtle, and a turtle will turn into a ----------. It says "after it's own kind"...trees, animals, people, etc. etc. It's funny how when my wife planted her tomato plants a couple months ago we didn't get cucumbers. And, oh yeah, if you use the seed of a tomato, guess what you get...a tomato. If you breed a horse with a horse, do you know what you get then? A horse. "After it's own kind." Think about it.

Answer 5

"Everyone concedes that evolution is true to some extent. Undeniably, there are variations within species of animals and plants, which explains why there are more than two hundred different varieties of dogs... and bacteria can adapt and develop immunity to antibiotics. This is called 'micro-evolution'."

"But Darwin's theory goes much further than that, claiming that life began millions of years ago with simple single-cell creatures and then developed through mutation and natural selection into the ast array of plant and animal life that populate the planet..."

"What the fossil record does show is that in rocks dated back some five hundred and seventy million years, there is the sudden appearance of nearly all the animal phyla, and they appear fully formed, 'without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require.' It's a phenomenon that points more readily toward a Creator than Darwinism."

"Darwin also admitted: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then my theory would absolutely break down.'"

^_^ ><>

Answer 6

The fundamental difference between evolutionists and creationists is the debate over the Bible, so it is difficult to disprove but not impossible. For one, why haven't humans evolved any more in the past 6,000 years of modern history? We still look the same as we did as far back as we have ANY record of. Also, plants and animals around us haven't evolved any either. Nobody can PROVE evolution either without theories and conjecture, so it comes down to your faith.

Answer 7

You can't disprove evolution with the Bible.

Answer 8

As a philosopher of science, and someone who is actually trained in a respectable university (UCSB) to talk about the application of scientific theories to data, and vice-versa, I find the debate on evolution largely insincere on both sides. Ideally, science does not involve presumptuous, pompous, arrogant name-calling, inuendo, and poisoning of the well. But points of etiquette aside, "proof" is an user-dependent, indexical term; i.e., it means different things to different people at different times, since different people have different standards, and you have not made yours explicit. Therefore, your question is really too vague to count as a serious inquiry. Nonetheless, I can respond to a general equivalent of what your question may be trying to get at.

I have personally been considering both sides of the issue for nearly a decade, and am convinced that evolution is true in important but non-absolute ways (Micro-evolution has been "observed" on innumerable occasions). Whatever sectarian religious communities may have to say about their version of the story, divine principles are definitely involved, as I have been able to discern from my analysis of traditional cosmogonies. The principles pertaining to the emergence of consciousness, or what is sometimes referred to as the cosmotheandric phenomena, are intrinsic and irreducible principles that guide the 'spiritual evolution' of individual consciousness. Further, neodarwinian evolution is of such a sort, that it would be entirely impotent without the emergence of consciousness (mind you, my definition of consciousness is more broad than rational/logical creatures). Consider as an example, what life would be like on earth, if all creatures from the beginning of time to now were zombies.

The real question is: does current neodarwinian evolutionary theory encompass the whole range of natural/divine events leading to the modification or determinatization of individual races? My response is, no. Does it give part of the picture? Very likely, yes. Has it been overextended? Without a doubt.

Answer 9

Annihilate every form of horse except one, and eventually you would come to have several "species" of horse again. Annihilate every variety of human, save one, and you would eventually have all the races of mankind back again.

However, your horse will never produce a human.

This is what the bible teaches, and unfortunately, we would need an isolated test group, and up to a thousand or so years, to test the theory. Neither of us have the patience for that :-)

Although, why have there been no "missing links" discovered when there are an abundance of fossils. Lack of evidence equals lack of evolution.

Answer 10

A man is sitting on an island, looking at a bunch of birds. The same man goes to another island not to far away. And see's the same birds but a different color,and thinks they must have changed for their environment. The man is Darwin, the island is the Galapagos islands. That is the birth of evolution.

Answer 11

I love the folks that expect there to be a human and ape cross running around as proof of a transition animal. What is so hard to imagine that the common ancestor between man and ape died off a long time ago. And scientists have found dozens of transitional fossils to prove the point, how many do creationist need.

You can't just conveniently dig up a million fossils somewhere, because fossil preservation is a one in a million shot...smart creationist love this fact...because they know it allows them to keep spout off crap to their flock, because time is cruel animal that eventually erases all evidence.