For those of you who believe in evolution.....?

Question

If you really want to know the truth about how life got here....

Don't you think it's biased to discard the idea of a Creator?
An unbiased person seeking to find the truth about life would consider ALL the evidence before deciding - therefore making an informed choice.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

Does the fossil record support the bible?
Evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event.19 Many have argued that this event was the Flood.

What we have to remember is – that evolution is a THEORY which is yet to be proved.
When Darwin publicized those views on evolution he also added that in the future there would be found proof to back up his THEORIES, that what he expected.
Has time proved him right? - NO

If Darwin was alive today he would retract his views because of lack of proof.

Evolutionists – are you unbiased & open-minded enough to examine ALL the evidence – therefore making an informed choice?

i have many more quotes but there is only so much you can post on here you know

I have considered evolution but when there's no actual proof for it - then it has to be discarded as the THEORY it is

Have any of you actually read the bible?
Where it touches on scientific matters - it proves accurate.
You are being biased by not even considering it - can't you see that?

Irreducible Complexity—Evolution’s Stumbling Block?

When Darwin developed his theory, scientists had little or no knowledge of the amazing complexity of the living cell. Modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, has revealed some of that intricacy. It has also raised serious questions and doubts about Darwin’s theory.

The components of cells are made up of molecules. Cells are the building blocks of all living creatures. Professor Behe is Roman Catholic and believes in evolution to explain the later development of animals. However, he raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that “haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process.

Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.”

Now, all of this activity is taking place on what scale? A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.”

Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap.

Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms “irreducible complexity.”

This presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics. Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

The irreducibly complex cell is a major stumbling block to belief in Darwin’s theory. In the first place, evolution cannot explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter.

Then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit. In other words, the cell (or, the mousetrap) must appear out of nowhere, assembled and functioning!

Many scientists are coming to the conclusion that there must be a Creator.
For example: - The Brazilian magazine Veja asked Carlo Rubbia, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, “Do you believe in God?” While not acknowledging a personal God, he did admit: “The more you observe nature, the more you perceive that there is tremendous organization in all things. It is an intelligence so great that just by observing natural phenomena I come to the conclusion that a Creator exists.”

Creationism isn't just based on blind faith. It's based on the belief that the bible is inspired of a higher source, God. That belief is not just empty faith.
Tha bible proves itself inspired by being true on such things as scientific matters even though it was written at a time before we understood such things. It proves true by showing prophecy written down, sometimes hundreds of years, before the fufillment.
If you don't at least examine that for youself, then how narrow-minded is that?

Don't judge the bible by those who claim to represent it.
It IS the word of God - as you would see if you examined the evidence.

Answer 1

I've seen alot of comments on here from people that say "evolution is a fact." Where are the facts?? I don't see any.
If you believe in the Bible, you must discount evolution as a fact. Here's why.
Based on preserved tablets and scrolls, the Bible has been proven to be real, and true. That being said, the very first book tells about how God created the heavens and the earth...and every living creature moving upon the earth. It goes on to say, "God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." Forgive me, I didn't see where it said that God blew into a monkey's nostrils. Did I miss that? Did an ape build the ark? After the Flood, (which, by the way, has actually been proven to have happened...just as the Bible says it did) God told Noah and the limited number of survivors to "become many and fill the earth." (Genesis 9:1) If that isn't enough, then consider this...

Something can't come from nothing. Look at all the intelligent human beings on the earth today...they're trying to re-create what's already been created and they can't even do that! So if we as an intelligent human society can't even COPY this grand design, then what makes anyone think that an earth full of soup could make it in the first place? How can asteroids and/or meteors create anything? If a meteor was to hit the earth tomorrow what would happen? Wouldn't it result in a massive fire?? Ok, (hypothetically) now the earth is on fire...don't fires usually destroy things instead of create them? That (to me) just doesn't make any sense. I would rather believe in something real, and true. Who's better qualified? The creation or the Creator? Think about it.

Answer 2

You could listen to the Jehovah's witness, whose organization writes their own bible, or you could listen to the catholic biochemist. Either way, I at least wouldn't look down on you if you listen to her rant about the validity of Genesis, the most loosely written book of the bible that both Pope John Paul II and Benedict have said not to take literally (you learn that in Catholic school).

Is the evolution theory created with the intention of proving the bible wrong? No, but it was created to find a scientific explanation for the formation of life as we know it. The Darwinian theory of evolution is a little bit different than the modern theory of evolution which is based more on the scientific understanding of evolution that has "evolved" using modern technology, rather than the reliance on just the fossil record as you seem to think it does.

First of all, you act as if evolution is out to prove that God doesn't exist. There is always room for God to exist with evolution. Look at us for example. Never has a organism on this planet developed the intelligence and spiritual consciousness of comparable degree of homo sapiens. Psychology tells us that, for our intelligence, it must be stimulated in order for it to develop, otherwise we would be pretty much vegetables. What is my point? Where did our intelligence come from? Scientists cannot explain where or how the homo sapiens diverged from neanderthals and came into existance. Only that they began to develop larger brains enabling higher intelligence. Was it God that did this? Evolution doesn't prove or disprove an almighty being might have influenced this or evolution itself for that matter.

I find it interesting that you tell evolutionists to open our minds when yet, you have such a narrowed view of the science behind evolution. There is no malevolent intent made by evolution to show that there is no God. In fact, there is no intent to show whether there is a God either. It's completely neutral. I think that's the funny thing about individuals who are all for creationism being taught in schools since creationism is completely biased towards religious beliefs and evolution is completely neutral with the subject. Of course that's because creationism is NOT BASED ON SCIENCE. Philosophical phenomenons such as the existance of a "creator" are matters not to be confused with scientific phenomenons like evolutionary changes of DNA and the genetic code.

The bible is not a scientific text book. It is not to be regarded as such. Not now, not ever. Evolution isn't a religion, it's a science. If you reject evolution, then you have no reason not to reject all other sciences since evolution is direct derivation of them.

Answer 3

The sad thing is that believing in evolutionary processes seems to many to exclude the idea of a creator. In my opinion the two are not mutually exclusive. The separation from the dogma of the church began hundreds of years ago, and men of faith realised that the answers they sought for the miracle of life were not forthcoming from the religious authorities - the evidence conflicted with the rhetoric of the day. Galileo's imprisonment and house arrest attest to the inability of the church to accept physical evidence and assimilate that into their limited interpretation of the biblical texts.
As time goes on, and molecular biology, physics, astronomy and earth science continues to elucidate further understanding of the processes of the universe and the life within it, my view is that eventually faith (not necessarily any particular religion which is a manmade phenomenon and they are all essentially corrupt) and science will reconcile and realise that from the outset they sought the same truths.

Answer 4

The worldwide event you are speaking of is considered to probably be a strike by an asteroid or meteor. This has nothing to do with evidence for or against evolution. The fossil record is not an accurate account of anything. There are giant holes in it because at most the fossil record accounts for 1% of species. And after 150 years of searching all evidence still points towards evolution. There has yet to be one shred that proves otherwise.

Answer 5

I think what you consider "evidence" and what I consider "evidence" are different. And what article are you quoting from? Do you have a link? What "geologic record" is it refering to? Who wrote it? Are they credible? Are they reputable?

And as for your "it's just a THEORY" assertion, please read:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But >>>in scientific terms<<<, a >>>theory<<< implies that something has been >>>proven<<< and is generally >>>accepted as being true<<<.

Answer 6

All the so-called proof for evolution (missing links etc) have been later exposed as fakes (do your research!)
Evolutionists discard the idea of a God before they examine the evidence, so I agree with you that they are biased. There's a lot of talk about "proof" of evolution on here. Well, where is this "proof" eh?

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creation

Answer 7

I believe in Evolution, and I believe in a Creator, although I do not follow any Earthly Religion, as the God of Religion is Money...

I also have a Sports Science Degree.

The two ideas of Evolution & Creator can and should co-exist.

Most Scientists have to much Pride - Most Religions have to much Pride...

Pride = The Sin of the Angels.

Only when Science & Sprituality merge can we truly enter the
Third Age of mankind...

"MY GOD, IT'S FULL OF STARS!" A. C. Clarke - He Worked it out.

Answer 8

Charles Darwin Camp!!!
The Big Bang theory Camp!!!
Professor Stephen Hawkins Camp!!!

We are a product of chemical, physical, biological and environmental reactions

Answer 9

simple way of looking at it, is that in however many years of finding dinosaurs and other fossil remains which are said to predate humans, they have found trillions of fossils. only about 0.5% of those are said to be humanoid or precursurs of humans.
people disregard creation as they do not understand the contex of the word 'days' used in genesis. they beleive it points to literal 24 hour days, not undefined periods of time as the original hebrew word meant. they also don't look and see that animals never had everlasting life as humans did. that is why there are fossils which can be millions of years old.
fossils of homosapiens as we are now, have only been acurately dated back to around 6500 years ago which ties in with bible chronology. inacurate dates have been given based on assumptions over the concentration of carbon 14 in the atmosphere. it is likely the flood of Noah's day altered concentrations in the atmosphere.
of the remains considered humanoid in origin, there are not only very few, but they are also drastically different to homo sapiens in many ways. and there is the massive problem of the very missing 'missing links'. they are so missing, they have'nt been found by all those archaeologists scraping away for years trying to find them. if the previous level of evolution existed in large numbers, why does their evolutionary advancement appear to absent in such large numbers? its a load of balony. evolution isn't even a theory, it is a dream which is as unacheivable as stopping the sun and stars from shining.
an acurate understanding of creation cannot be disbelieved by anyone humble. and soon, the purpose of our creation will be returned to us, everlasting life on a perfect earth.

Answer 10

Two things:

1) you don't "believe" in evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. You don't "believe" in gravity, do you?

2) It isn't biased to discard the idea of a creator, if you come to that conclusion after you've been looking for evidence for 2000 years, and still it isn't anywhere to be found.