The THEORY of Evolution???

Question

OK, since evolutionists love to come into this category anyway, why not answer a question directed toward you.

Some of you who are atheists or agnostics use evolution as your crutch. You even have the audacity to call what you believe The Theory of Evolution when, in actuality, it should be called The Hypothesis of Evolution.

There is no PROOF that man evolved. Yes, we adapted (e.g., we no longer use our appendix, we have grown), but we have NOT evolved. No proof exists that we came from another species. Therefore, to call your concept the Theory of Evolution is incorrect.

How can you say something is a theory when it hasn't been proven? As Webster says, your theory may be "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ," but it hasn't been proven.

Since proving this and proving that seems to be your mantra, shouldn't you focus more on proving YOUR case than trying to disprove ours?

-a Creationist

Answer 1

Another creationisst answering--

Several experiments have taken place trying to prove the theory of evolution. One such experiment proved that if a charge of electricity was applied to water that help the ingredients believed to be in the water at the time life started on earth, amino acids would form. It was then hypothosized that from the amino acids would develop protocells, which would develop into single celled organisms and blah blah blah. The problem I have with evolutionists is the fact that they claim creationists shun science. Science is the study of observable, repeatable occurences, and evolution is neither observable and repeatable, therefore how can it be called science?

Answer 2

While maybe not the exact Proof you are looking for, the fossil record doesn't lie. You should read up on some of the more valid theories before you try and poke holes in them. Here are a couple of good things on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds; even those which do not fly; have wings. Today, there is strong evidence from genetics that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry, because the selection of many of these traits seems arbitrary."

I think the concept most people have difficulty is the actual span of MILLIONS of years. Recorded human history is only a few thousand years old and I think it is very difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around how much time a million years really is. Evolutionist believe that we come from a common ancestor...this took a VERY long time, it wasn't as if an ape-like creature just gave birth to a human one day. The process took hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.

Scientists commonly use terms like "evidence" and "theory" because, contrary to belief in the creationist community, they are not so arrogant to think they know everything about something.

Answer 3

There have been skeletons found in many parts of the world that are human, but with ape-like characteristics.

How do you explain Darwin's work if not evolution? I agree that evidence of the missing link (ex- a half ape, half human skeleton), however, the fossils found of humanoids did have different skull shapes and different body shapes.

Evolution has never been realistically discredited, and so most educated people accept it as truth. I am an atheist, but I have never used anything as a crutch.

Creationism has been disproved and now even Christian leaders accept that. To adapt is to evolve to our circumstances.

Your argument was poorly supported. When you have done the research and looked over secular sources regarding fossilized humanoid skeletons, then email me and we can further discuss evolution. I have researched your religion, now you can research science.

Answer 4

You demand a standard of proof that you are entirely unwilling to be subjected to yourself - that is, you would not be willing to answer the question, "when are theists going to "prove" the existence of God (and obviously, this has to be verifiable, repeatable and unequivocal)?" The question is invalid, because it cannot be applied equally.

A different way of putting it that is fairer to both sides is: How much verifiable, non-speculative, empirical evidence is there for the scientists' view of how the universe was created? How much is there for the theists? Neither side can actually PROVE their argument - look up the definition of "proof", in the philsophical sense - but the field is open for them to set forth their evidence for others to judge. The mountains of such evidence are heaped up on the scientists' side, indeed there is absolutely nothing at all that can be called EVIDENCE on the theists' side. You have faith, and by golly you need it.

But please, believe whatever you wish to believe. It is no-one else's business what keeps you happy. You really shouldn't feel your own integrity as threatened as you obviously do - be nice to yourself. If only people like you could exercise the same tolerance for everyone else in the world.

Answer 5

If that's true, then why does a foetus go through stages where it's anatomically like a fish, amphibian, and reptile before it's a mammal?

I'm neither an agnostic nor an athiest - I know my Gods, and give them the respect and worship they require. However, I do think that the THEORY of Evolution describes the evidence of both the fossil record and the variety of life that exists on the planet now.

There have been critters of the genus homo for over 2 million years. How do you reconcile that with your Bible?

Answer 6

First of all a "theory" means that it is not a proven fact. If it was it would the "fact of evolution." But as a theory, it must have much supporting evidence and must not have been disproven. And it must consistently provide explanation to something. I know you've heard it before from others but evolution in my opinion is the medium of creation. And I believe that sceintists spend a great deal of time researching their theories and a good scientist is after the truth, not after proving anything.

Answer 7

A Theory HASN'T been proven, you are thinking of a LAW. Like the LAW of Gravity (which is more of a force).

Sadly BOTH sides seem to mistake the THEORY of evolution for a law when in fact, it has not been tested and proven accurately enough to be made a law.

While I understand your frustration, it's best to get the definitions correct.

And, why couldn't God use evolution to create Man? Just a thought for all you Creationists.

Answer 8

I'm agnostic and I don't use the Theory of Evolution as my crutch. But you want to know why it is a theory? Using DNA and fossiles they have found obvious connection between different species that can be used to prove that we evolved. Any way why is the belief in God excepted so widely. There's no proof he exsists.

Answer 9

If God himself came down out of the clouds onto that ship you're steering and said 'evolution is a fact', you still wouldn't believe it. Why would I try to enter into a debate with a person like you about it?

Y!A has enough detailed answers to this question from good, intelligent people to fill a library. What you are doing is baiting, not asking. If you really wanted to know, you would look yourself.

Try talkorigins.com - I know you won't, as you're not really looking for the truth, but at least I can say I tried.

Answer 10

This is not the way.

rkrmw, this is not doing what ever cause you think you have much favour by attacking the beliefs of others. Rather careful and intelligent reasoning is the better way of promoting your cause.
There are plenty of people that will knock and slam the Bible so why give them justification when you do the same with other people's beliefs then expect them to embrace what ever brand of creationist beliefs you think you have?
Let them be won over not with hot words but with chaste conduct and deep respect.
What you have posted is not in a true christian spirit but disrespectful and hurtful to those like me that who would like to offer biblical teachings on this matter.