Evolution vs Biblical Creation?

Question

Evolution has no absolute evidence to support it. It looks to rock layers and carbon dating and bla bla bla, but there missing link is still , and they cannot go back in time and show people coming from a ape, or the ape from a (?). Also, the chances (According to Evolutionists) are rare for a thing to evolve, so what would have happened had a man been born from an ape, but no female? or vice versa? do they add that to there timline for a species to come about?

So since the bible can only be accepted threw faith, so evolution is only by faith! So why do athiest scoff our postion?! We can actually point to real charachters in the Bible who acctually existed! they have no link to point to except in their heads.

noone explained how, since a man and woman are noth needed, just how crazy the chances of both of them evovling at smae time, and meeting each other in world so fast, might happen for every single species in the timeframe evolutionists set.

huh, so far the only evidence shown for evolution from some1 was the fact that we have wisdom teeth a tail bone, ect. That is not absolute evidence agaoinst creationism, you are making a link between a tail bone on us and a tail bone on a monkey or somthing, but have you ever seen a nmonkey make a man? a common body part is as much proof as me saying Israel was an acctual nation, so therefore the Bible is true. is that logically true?
Give me some solid proof my "theory" cant disprove.

Answer 1

just outta curiousity, since I am an atheist turned christian after many many years of serious study in evolution, is there anyone out there that instead of saying this guys ignorant and wrong, can any of you prove any lil bitty tidbit of evolution that is honestly true? instead of telling this guy hes a fool can any of you show instead lf just say any source or resource for you theory? the evidence must be shown from any non-bias scientific reasonable human. the reason I am asking this is in todays technology MOST ev. scientist are moving closer and closer to biblical creation and eheem these are the ones that are in the field to show evolution as truth..but they cant...

Answer 2

Talk origins is a very good introduction and provides a good dissection of creationist claims and precisely why they are wrong as well as touching on the evidence for evolution. The problem that you do not realize (and a major factor for many people not accepting evolution) is that it does not fit neatly into the classroom science experiment where you can easily demonstrate the concept, i.e. drop two different sized balls and see that they hit the ground at the same time. Further, there is massive amounts of research that has been done, but most of it tends to be specialized beyond high school levels. Dawkin's recent book "The Great Show on Earth" may be a good reference. The links below should supplement others given to you. Remember, you should check the sources cited and double check claims that are made. Be skeptical and objective and don't accept anything at face value or just because it sounds reasonable.

Answer 3

If you really want to know the answer, study anthropology. Man did not just magically appear. There are several skeletons between man and ape that show the evolution. Evolution is a slow process, and we are still evolving. You can't say the technology man has created over the last two thousand years isn't evolution. We have devoloped better ways to care for ourselves which has made us stronger, smarter, taller and live longer. And, please do not give me the line about Methusala. Your conclusions are completed based on lack of knowledge, and you are accusing scientists of the exact same thing your are doing, making assumptions based on lack of knowledge. Science does require faith as not all hypotheses have been proven. At this time, there is no direct "missing link." But, given that anthropologists have only skeletons at this time to work with, it's understandable. Please do more research prior making accusations.

Answer 4

I agree with the others. It is hard to tell if you really believe what you are saying, or if your are pretending to be a (extremely ignorant) creationists.

If you are pretending, stop. It is not necessary. Creationists make fools of themselves all of the time with out your help.

If you are really this ignorant, stop. You are just making Christians look bad. It's obvious you've never read a book on evolution or biology except for those written by creationists. Even most creationists are not so uninformed to believe what you are saying.

I doubt you are genuine in that you want an answer to this question, or you would have done a little research (it is clear you have not). So people are not likely to give you an entire biology lesson in a simple Q&A format. If you are sincere, you may write to me.

Answer 5

There are no missing links in the evolution of the hominid line from the common ancestor we share with apes all the way through to the modern Homo sapiens sapiens.

There is so much evidence to support Evolution, and none to support Creationism, that your entire question proves you ignorant or intellectually dishonest under the definition of 'theory'. In scientific usage, the word theory means, "a collection of tested hypotheses that describe a larger process with such evidence that to claim it is not true would be the mark of ignorance or intellectual dishonesty."

So. Are you just ignorant or are you intellectually dishonest?


-----

Gary, welcome to the ignorance. The cambrien explosion was an explosion in geological time -- however, the cambrien explosion is a period of 15 million YEARS (a blip, a near-instant in geological time), and yes, there are a few transitional fossils found in the layers from that period. Rather few, fewer than would be expected, but there are some. Kinda blows the whole use of it as disproof out of the water.

Answer 6

Okay, you completely don't understand evolution. Basically all your arguments don't work because they are straw man arguments. Non of what you say actually applies to evolution. For example, evolution in no way says a man was born from an ape. So the idea that a male human and female human would need to be born at the same time isn't a valid argument, because that isn't how evolution works. I would suggest you study evolution a little more.

Answer 7

I agree. For people who are too stupid to understand basic science, the only way to accept evolution is by faith.

It's a good thing that most people are not too stupid to understand basic science.

You're really not trying to gain scientific understanding, otherwise you would have posted in the correct category.

To address just one of your points, I guess we should not try anybody for crimes since we can't go back in time and show the crime being committed. DNA evidence is, of course, useless to you.

As for your 'no one explained' question - I could explain it, but then what? Would you accept science and start looking up the answers yourself, or keep asking questions ad nauseum?

Answer 8

So it is more logical that we "Poofed" from dirt into existence? Explain why we have a tail bone, wisdom teeth, tonsils, and an appendix. Evolution offers a great explanation. What does the bible give us? Hmm, perhaps it is time to really research evolution and not just take the BS you are spoon fed from uneducated Christians.

Answer 9

"Evolution has no absolute evidence to support it."

Bzzt.

When you begin with a lie in the very first sentence, there's really no point in going on with the rest. We scoff at your position because it's a combination of intentional lies and incredible ignorance. If you don't want to be scoffed at, stop behaving so poorly.

Later: These things you're adding only further illustrate your ignorance of the topic. It was a mistake for you to go on the attack when you didn't bother to learn anything about what you're attacking. You're only making a complete fool of yourself.

Answer 10

"Evolution has no absolute evidence to support it."
And your credibility is now in the local water treatment facility in a giant sewage tank. Nothing past this sentence is even worth dignifying with a response, because if this is a lie, then everything else following it is at the very least a half-truth.