On the Theory of evolution. Can you make a reasonable settlement?

Question

I say you have your Theory of Creation and your Theory of Jesus as God and your Bible of Theories and we have our Theory of Evolution and a lot of physical evidence. Now, if you'll settle for that, so will I and I am being quite reasonable as I'm accepting 3 of your theories as theories and you only have to accept one theory.

Answer 1

Well evidence for Evolution for fossil evidence is hard to come by due to the very specific needs for a fossil. For example how many humans today get buried by a mudslide where it will be undisturbed for years to come?

But we have found complete pre "human" skeletons which everyone can find a picture of. While Evidence for god and creationism through fossils is what?

Answer 2

There is no evidence at all for evolution, just a bunch of wild assumptions that have never been proven and a load of theories, the hypothesis of which cannot be tested in a lab and has never been re-created in a lab. There are also no examples and never have been of evolution occurring today, the geologic column is a joke and the whole idea of the column and index fossils are based on circular reasoning which just doesn't stand up and really isn't compelling evidence at all for evolution. So called dating methods are unreliable and just don't work with several parts of the same fossils being dated millions of years apart and an assumption that elements like Carbon14 are and have always been universal and uniform throughout history despite geological events such as the erruption of Mt St Helens having effects on the amounts of carbon14 in the atmosphere and even ingested by living creatures which would seriously throw off any carbon dating for a start. Yes I know there are other methods are dating but they are all just as eronneous...

I have looked into both evolution and creation and simply found that there is more in the world today that supports creation.....

At best evolution is just another religion which requires much more blind faith than christianity does which has been the crux of many arguments aimed at Christianity......

Answer 3

I can make a reasonable settlement but not to your proposition because it is not reasonable. Creation from just a Biblical view is not really a scientific theory but scientific creationism which incorporates real science and the Bible can be said to be a creation theory from a scientific viewpoint. Jesus is not so much in a scientific category but rather a historical one. Some of the Bible is also subject to historical verification as well as scientific evidence as in the archeological areas.

The theory of evolution is really not supported by a lot of evidence. Think about it; no one has ever seen any kind of primordial soup-it's a made up idea, no one has ever witnessed a big bang-it's a made up idea, no one has ever seen a cell grow into anything other than what it's DNA dictates- that is an idea some artists try to proof by drawing creative art showing that, and no one has ever seen an animal or organism grow into any other kind of creature ( a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly because it's DNA programs it to and that doesn't happen in millions of years). Are we really to believe that the super complicated dNA language which even the world's most advanced computers cannot totally decipher, came about by itself? The whole premise for Darwinism is scientifically disproven because randomness does not lead to complex order especially not a series of it. Only small changes in a species or microevolution is observable but the larger changes that make up macroevolution which is Darwinism is not. Some scientists are jumping to conclusions based on biased views and calling it science and expect the general public to give up their reasoning powers and believe them just because they wear a lab coat. Some of these same labcoats are the ones telling us one week to take this or that medicine and then tell us another week to not take it after all because it is harming us. enough said.

Answer 4

I don't believe in either theory. If the darwinist are right why can't they recreate the beginning of life from the primodal ooze? The theory has no starting point at all. Why do things continue to evolve if the whole reason for evolution was to make it better? When is it good enough? When will that viscious cicle end? Why do most things have a butthole. Think about how complex something like the digestive system is and why does everything have something like it? If evolution takes millions of yeard for rather small changes then how did something that complex evolve in what had to be a short time? I think that the creation people are just the latest animals on earth to be evolve in ostrichs.

Answer 5

There is no Theory of Creation, Theory of Jesus as God, or Bible of Theories. Just assertions.

Answer 6

WHAT? What the hell makes you think creation is a theory?

Look, it's very simple:

Hypothesis: Something used to explain new data

Theory: Once something is tried and tested on it's predictions, it is called a theory.

Law: Once the theory talks to the other laws, it is a law.

And what, for example, was some of the data that needed explaining? What experiment was carried out?

Stop calling everything a dratted theory! This is used by creationists to say "it's only a theory" and make it sound like it has no real evidence.

Gah!

Answer 7

Maybe this will help you:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'the-&-re, 'thi(-&)r-e
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

Answer 8

You are incorrectly using "theory" the same way that anti-evolutionists do; that it is nothing more than a guess, or a hunch.

The ToE is as much a theory as theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, the theory of continental drift, and the germ theory of disease. That is to say, it is supported by overwhelming objective unbiased EVIDENCE that needs an explanation. ToE provides an explanation and a MECHANISM (cumulative natural selection of beneficial traits), and after 150 years of refinement, nobody has managed to come up with a better theory.

The Belief of Creation or the Belief of Jesus have no objective evidence to support them, and are articles of religious faith, not scientific theories. The mechanism: "god did it" is not an explanation.

Answer 9

Heres a really good one:
Evolutionists attempt to exclude the possiibility of the existence of God by proclaiming that life occured randomly, and that new species developed by gradual changes through mutation.The discovery of a rapid explosion of new cratures during the Cambrian period has become an insurmountable problem for evolutionists theorizing gradual development. Even Darwin recognized this problem in his book On The Origin of Species indicating that his evolutionary theory precluded such rapid development of new varieties. The Cambrian fossil beds reveal the abrupt appearance of all of the existing known animal phylea except two-- All in a space of time considered far too short for evolution to operate. Other analysis of the fossil record reveals many other major problems with theories that species evolved, most notably the "gaps". In addition to the Cambrian problem, Darwin was also troubled by these. He theorized, however, that eventually fossils would be uncovered to fill in these gaps. In Darwin's day there were relatively few fossils available, which perhaps justifies his theorizing. Today though, it is estimated that virtually all of the known fossil species have been uncovered-- And we still find missing links throughout all species' chains. Even many leading evolutionists reluctantly acknowledge the problem of the fossil record. Noted evolutionist Steven J. Gould stated,

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed are inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

There is one very logical and viable explanation for the gaps in the fossil record and the sudden appearance of a wide diversity of life in the Cambrian period: That the fossil record is actually evidence of creation according to the account in the Bible.

Answer 10

If there is sooooooooooo much evidence for evolution, why is it still a theory?

I believe that you only have a small amount of knowledge about both faith and evolution and are trying to make a case from that.

There is evidence in nature that Darwin was wrong in many ideas.

Darwin himself said if even a small part of his writings were found to be untrue, to throw out the entire thing.