Evolutionists?

Question

I want proof :) What "over whelming" proof is there of evolution, that all of you speak of?

I want to hear it, because its a theory, and NOT proven, so why are all of you claiming it is?

Woah, you cant even answer the proof to which you so ademently fight for?

I know how the human body works... that didnt just "come to be"... After 2 million years or whatever, things arnt changing anymore, the way evolutions makes them evolve... why has no one ever witnessed anything evolve?! Tell me tell me tell me!!

Hey, I LOVE drdino.com! He is quick with it, and explains things great!! I was wondering if anyone else out there has ever heard of it, nice going!

So far Ive gotten, you do the work, and a bunch of excerts from other people... And, ok well, maybe it is a theory, but it makes more sense, blah blah blah.... woah, no EVIDENCE... and dont try the whole dating thing with me, carbon dating is false every time :)

Woah, the wolf poodle thing is so far fethched and not proved, woah, bad analogy!

BTW, dr dino didnt go to jail for battery or whatever you all were saying, he went for tax evasion which is a well known fact. I believe he owes the taxes, but that doesnt make what he said discredible!

Answer 1

The evidence for evolution is sadly depleting. Vestigal Organs, we have found that we need them. Evolution of the horse, giraffe, man, ape. All proven false. Science itself can date anything past 5,ooo years ago. Anything else is to be guessed. There is plenty more wrog just check out drdino.com

and to the fossil record here is what i have to say

Fossils are the preserved evidence of past life. They are found in every part of the world, including the tops of the highest mountains. They may be as simple as a seashell which has left a permanent impression in sandstone or as grandiose as a giant plesiosaur whose bones have turned to rock after rapid burial. The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history. Many people have been led to believe that the existence of fossils proves that millions of years have passed. In reality, fossils can form quite rapidly. Heat and pressure from rapid burial can accelerate the fossilization process. Geologic conditions following a worldwide flood would have exceeded anything imaginable today and must have led to the rapid fossilization of the plants and animals on a massive scale.

Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions, but it is a rare event today. Yet there are mass burial sites throughout the world that are tightly packed with millions of fossils. Apparently, billions of organisms were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, completely buried, and rapidly fossilized. These massive and extensive fossil graveyards would be the predictable result of a worldwide flood, but would hardly fit the slow accumulation model which continues to be taught as the primary explanation of the fossil record. Something dramatically different must have happened in the past to have caused the wide spread fossilization which we find all over our planet. Noah's flood would have been this event.

Geologists and paleontologists operating from a Christian worldview acknowledge the possibility that a worldwide catastrophe buried unimaginable amounts of plants and animals. This was the disaster documented in the first book of the Bible. It lasted at least one year and had reverberations which lasted for centuries. Sea creatures would have been buried first (the salinity and temperature of the oceans would have changed during the catastrophe, wiping out massive numbers of these sea creatures). Even after the flood, plant and animal extinction would have been common as many types of creatures failed to adapt to dramatically changing conditions.

Although any order of burial in a flood would be possible, the general tendency would be for sea life to be buried in the lower rock layers and land animals to be buried in different rock layers corresponding to their ecological niche. This tendency is generally found.

Creation geologists (and there are many of them) believe that the majority of the geologic record is a result of geologic activity during and subsequent to the year-long worldwide flood. This flood would have been an incredible complex event.

Geologist and paleontologists operating from an evolutionary world view acknowledge local catastrophes, but do not allow consideration of a worldwide flood. This would wipe out the "slow change over eons of time" interpretation of the fossils which is needed to continue believing in evolution.

Only one interpretation of the evidence can be correct and only one interpretation of the evidence agrees with what the Bible claims is the history of our planet.


I have another problem with the people who say creation isnt science


Many evolutionists and atheists alike have - throughout history - shunned Scripture and the lessons learned therein by claiming that Creation Science isn't testable, repeatable, observable, and so forth. As this is true about certain aspects of Creation Science, this is also true about certain aspects of Evolutionary "Science". One cannot deny the overwhelming amounts of assumptions and un-justifiable dedications that materialists demonstrate.

Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.

As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It's important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).

Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them, and also testable aspects about them as well. Creation Science Evangelism wishes not to invite Creation into public schools, but only to have incorrect information extracted from taxpayer-purchased textbooks. Schools have a legal, as well as moral obligation to remain truthful to our students. Unfortunately, many schools today have veered from this path and have accepted voodoo-science as part of their curriculum. Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.

When will America - as well as the rest of the World - wake up and smell the indoctrination. Millions of children everyday are being presented with information that is testable, has been tested, and is now scratched off as untrue in the scientific literature. Even our SAT's are presenting incorrect information to our fervent studiers. Both Creation and Evolutionism are testable in certain areas and un-testable in others, both have been tested, and only one prevails - Creation. We were fearfully and wonderfully created, and we will soon stand before He that creates and give an account for the life we lived. Will you be ready?

Here are some interesting myths and reality about creation

Myth:
Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.

Reality:

This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the "cosmic egg"? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?
Myth:
The fossil record proves evolution.

Reality:
There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.
Myth:
Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.

Reality:
The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer.
Myth:
The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth's history showing million of years of evolutionary progression.

Reality:
The fossil record does not show a clear "simple-to-complex" progression of life forms. Life is complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plans and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.
Myth:
Radiometric dating methods are "absolute." They are accurate and reliable.

Reality:
Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.
Myth:
The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.

Reality:
All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, "Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution." (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.

This is a condensation of an article by Dave Nutting of Alpha Omega Institute. Alpha Omega is a non-profit creation education organization in Colorado and can be reached at www.discovercreation.org.

Prolems with chance
Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself.

One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.

In addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.

These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility.

No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is GOD.

The problem with life

Have you ever squashed a mosquito? Interestingly, the squashing of a mosquito may help us understand what makes life possible and what makes the spontaneous generation of life impossible.

When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously it's shape changes and it dies. But what makes it die? All of the thousands of sophisticated chemicals which make up its body are still there, relatively unaltered. At the moment of impact its cellular components are still intact including the all-important DNA. So why is it now dead?

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Prior to being smashed, the mosquito was highly organized information. But when hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of its body to become jumbled. There arose confusion in the finely tuned co-ordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall breakdown, resulting in death. And you thought you just slapped it!

For another example, lets say you were to take 100 million bacteria and concentrate them in the bottom of a test tube. Now if you were to physically lyse (break open) the membrane of each of the cells, insides would spill out, forming a concentrated mixture of incredibly complex "life-giving" chemicals. Yet, even though all of the right 'stuff' for life is there, not even one of the 100 million critters will come back to life, nor would any new creature arise.

If the already complex chemistry of minuscule bacteria cannot reorganize itself back into a living cell, even when concentrated in the test tube environment under carefully controlled conditions, then how could life have evolved in the first place, from basically uncomplicated chemicals in conditions FAR less appropriate than this experimental situation? It simply could never happen!

As with the mosquito, in order for life to exist the chemistry must be specifically organized and controlled in time and as well as space. For a cell to live, it must be surrounded by a sophisticated membrane that allows only certain chemicals in and out, according to when they are needed, not just at any time. Inside the cell, the proportions of an element or compound must be just right, otherwise the whole system may be thrown off balance and the organism will die. Furthermore, the entire living mechanism must be controlled by the fantastically complex genetic structure of DNA.

All this means that, in order for the chemistry to have come together in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and simultaneously organized by a creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just "coming together".

It is Jesus, the Son of the Living God, who deserves our praise for the awesome things He has accomplished in this creation of His. There is no other plausible explanation for the complex life we find all around us. Yet this plausible explanation is the only explanation that is not allowed to be discussed in our public schools!

Just some questions for evolutionists

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

The Story Of The Magic Rock Apes

Okay, now sit down now, boys and girls - it's story time! Shhhh.... Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock. It was magic rock. Inert and lifeless, but still magical. And then, magically, water formed in the sky above the rock. The waters rained on the rock for, oh, let's say billions of years. Some of the rock broke down into minerals, and these minerals washed into a pool of water.

Then one day some of these minerals magically formed into a kind of goo in the pool of water. Can you say "goo?" I knew you could. Well do you know what happened then? That's right! The goo magically became ALIVE. So anyway, this bit of magic goo magically found something to eat. Then, magically, it found another bit of magic goo to marry, and they had a whole bunch of magical little goos. Eventually - millions of years later - some of this goo grew up into all the plants and animals in the world around us. If it's alive, it came from that first bit of magic goo! Well, more time went on. Finally some of this goo magically evolved - can you say "evolved?" I knew you could - some of this goo magically evolved upwards and upwards, growing ever more advanced, bigger, stronger, smarter, until it became a kind of magical hairless ape with thumbs.

And do you know who those apes are? That's right! They're YOU and ME! We are the magic rock apes! And you know what else? Someday we'll evolve enough that we'll become the God we all know doesn't exist. Now take a nap.

Answer 2

Dr. Dino is also serving long time in jail right now for fraud, assault and battery. How's that?

Anyway, enough character assassination.

"After 2 million years or whatever, things arnt changing anymore"

YES THEY ARE. BECAUSE YOU WITH YOUR MEASLY 70-80 YEARS OF HUMAN LIFE CANNOT SEE THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Life took BILLIONS of years to get where it is today. You're asking for changes in species in a fraction of a fraction of that time.

This, if nothing else, shows how short-sighted you are.

There is literally some 150 years of common research by not one, but legions of scientists ALL CORROBORATING EVOLUTION.

To deny evolution at this point is saying the earth is flat, or that gravity is also just a theory.

Answer 3

The very fact that you said "Evolutionists" shows that you wouldn't believe any proof anyone gave you anyway. Evolutionist isn't a word.

There is proof of evolution but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you do the work, and actually study up on everything you should ALREADY know, you might actually learn something in the process and expecting someone to answer your question on some web board with in depth detail that you could understand in a laymans terms is asking far too much of anyone.

I don't have the next two years to devote to typing out everything you need to know to understand it. You should never have graduated high school without understanding it.

Answer 4

"Proof" is a toughy. Can't give you "proof" (can't prove "gravity", "reproduction", that disease is spread by germs or that we're not just brains in vats being fed stimuli by mad scientists).

The best (single) piece of evidence I can offer is:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M (5 minutes, nothing gory!)

I suspect (I hope not but I do suspect) that you have fallen for the "false dichotomy" line peddled by Dr. Dino et al. They try and make out that:

1. Either evolution is true or creation is true
2. So if evolution is not proven then creation is true!

Both statements are incorrect.

1. Its quite possible for both evolution and creation to be incorrect. Imagine ourselves back in the days of Copernicus arguing whether Copernicus was right in saying that the earth circled the sun or whether Martin Luther was right in saying its the other way round. Neither of us would have any idea that Newton and then Einstein would come along and give us theories we hadn't dreamed of.

2. Even if one or the other are correct it makes no sense to say one must be proved or the other is correct. Flip a coin and hide it before you see whether its heads or tails. Its one or the other isn't it? Nothing false about THAT dichotomy. Now can you prove that its heads? No. Does that mean that its tails? On Dr Dinos basis yes! So we've proved its tails by failing to prove its heads.

So what if we started trying to prove its tails. We'd fail and the Dr-Dino-theorum would therefore say we've proved that its heads!

So whether we prove that its heads or tails depends on which one we try to prove first. The position of the coin depends upon our knowledge? Nonesense - and the same holds for eveolution/creation.

Answer 5

Do you have "overwhelming" proof of creationism? Or God? Or Jesus? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian, but I do understand that attacking evolutionists is not the way to ensure more solid beliefs in Christ and His message. In fact, I believe that evolution was God's mode of creating the Earth and that evolution can be supported with the Bible.

I also understand that there is relatively little HISTORICAL proof of Jesus outside of the canon and other New Testament writings (that are HIGHLY biased towards a Messiah figure.) However, faith will sustain us.

Peace.

Answer 6

You clearly have no understanding of science. The "Theory" part of the Theory of Evolution is the same as the "Theory" part of the Theory of Gravity. You may have heard of Gravity... do you believe it exists?

You wanted proof, this is a link to an article discussing the discovery of a gene that can cause one species to split into two different species.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uor-gsc090706.php

Here's another good link:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/uoc--ned110306.php

Answer 7

If you are so blind to the evidence all around you, so disconnected from the natural world that is gods beautiful gift. If you are so ashamed of what God made you. What could I do to explain it? Try http://www.talkorigins.org/ Type evolution into google. Read a biology text book. Go to the zoo. Go to a museum of natural history. Look at the world God made with open senses. You can not deny evolution if you look at it.

Answer 8

You are in the wrong forum, you do not have an accurate understanding of the word 'theory' and you have an erroneous view of the relationship between religion and evolutionary belief (you obviously think they are mutually exclusive). Ask your question in the science section. If you are intelligent and open minded you will find enough 'evidence' to convince you ten times over. I'm guessing you're not that open minded. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Answer 9

It may be just a theory, but it makes a whole lot more sense than creationism. Evolution has fossil records, empirical observations and testable hypothesis, while creationism has old books and faith. Which do you think is more credible?

Answer 10

I don't have time to write an essay for you. The fossil record speaks for itself. And evolution isn't over. We are evolving right now. We live longer and are generally taller than our ancestors. Nearly everything on the planet is changing very, very slowly.

Answer 11

Set up a system and run it for a few hundred generations of more. If there is any environmental stress, you will see evolution.