Day 3, For anyone that believes evolution is false?

Question

(Reposted since no one has yet. With the exception of the guy who was playing pokemon. No one has provided anything that isn't easily refutable yet.)

Please provide your evidence. I wish to know. Yes I will research it. Yes I will listen.

However, if your answer is thermodynamics then please move along you don't understand thermodynamics. If your answer is something about god said X then please move along as that is not evidence. If your answer is statistically unlikely hood then please explain why people win the lottery. Lastly, the magnetic field does not indicate it is permanently decaying. It goes through ups and downs and that is evident by the newly created sea floor. Covered under Oceanography.

I request kindly that anyone who believes doesn't answer this. I want the silence to be deafening

Longwank:

Thanks, but I said I would listen and research.

Agellus:

Evolution has already been proven true. Hence why it was accepted as a scientific theory in 1930. It already has been proven. The rest of your statement is just not fully thinking anything out. What are 10 microevolutionary changes? Would that not be a large change? Except for the argument on how exactly to define species, most scientists would agree that would indicate a new species.

Obi wan's legacy:

So you believe in evolution then because humans are animals.

Max W:

Oh you are easy to refute. Radiometric dating isn't the only way to date things. Besides that, radiometric dating is and has been proven extremely accurate. This also has nothing to do with evolution.

The flood never occured. The polar ice caps go back millions of years. Your understanding of fossils leaves much to be desired.

There are no transitional fossils is an argument of the people who know nothing of fossils.

Again, just because someone happened to map out the number and it seems small does not mean it didn't occur. That's your non-understanding of statistics.

You are also a young earth person and there is zero evidence on that, in fact all of it has been refuted already. So you might want to wake up to the world.

Martin S:

You are easy to refute also. Since i have spoken with you many occasions before I know you believe in microevolution. So again I will state, what are 10 microevolutionary changes? Aren't they a big change? welcome to macroevolution.

triple dot aka ...:

1. Abiogenesis is not evolution. That would be one of your issues. Evolution only deals with life to life. Abiogenesis deals with life from non-life. Google "Miller Urey" for more information on Abiogensis.

2. Again, you too are entirely not understanding. Fossils are hard to find and also very unlikely to be created. But here is one:
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature6/index.html

You can also google the word "Lucy" and much information about her comes up.

3. No clue AT ALL what it is you were trying to say. How can I show you a half formed skeleton?

Bama_ijd:

Evolution isn't false. It accepted as fact. Other people try to claim it's false but can never actually support their claims as you will see by my respective corrections to their attempts.

Unlike the rest, I shall take immense glee in exposing your lies. I know they are lies because you linked apologetics sites.

"Unlike what you have said, the evolution of any species into another species has not been proven."

AIDS.

"In addition to this, evolutionist only look at and consider evidence that seems to support their view. Anything else is rejected."

I see no evidence presented. Hell, I even specifically asked for it.

Paraphrased: "Because men had drawings of dead things there is no way evolution could have occured."

So apparently our science fiction books prove the exitsance of aliens. I did not know that. Or the pictures prove dragons.

For a real education bama_ljd:

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/evolution/facts.html

KAL:

You are correct and I am dumb.

Oh Agellius, I put "believes" to be politically correct and there isn't a better word to substitute there.

Answer 1

This is pretty much common sense. If evolution happened back then, how come it isnt happening today. I dont see any monkeys turning into humans at the zoos today.

Answer 2

Since you have not given an explanation as to why it is false, it is difficult to give a reply. I can not refute, or support, an argument that has not been made.

I can, however, give general observations.

Unlike what you have said, the evolution of any species into another species has not been proven.

Much of the theory of evolution is based on assumptions based on incomplete, misunderstood or even forged data.

Part of the forged "evidence" was "Piltdown Man". This was taught as fact and proof of evolution for more than 40 years, until it was proven to be a hoax.

In addition to this, evolutionist only look at and consider evidence that seems to support their view. Anything else is rejected.

Evidence against evolution includes very detailed drawings and sculptures of dinosaurs in ancient art that show dinosaurs.

If men have never seen a dinosaur, then how did ancient men know what they looked like.

---edit---

You said if men have drawn pictures of "aliens" are we to assume they have seen them. There is one BIG difference! The drawings I have linked to are not of imaginary things, but of things that are proven to exist. These dinosaurs are drawn in great detail (especially the ones on the Inca stones) and they match known dinosaurs.

How did the men know what these creatures looked like? The fossils of many of these creatures were not discovered when this art was formed.

Also, just because some of the sites I referenced are apologetics sites, that does not automatically mean they are false. Many of the articles I have referenced, for example, are by Dr. Bert Thompson whose PhD is in microbiology (Texas A & M) and Dr. Brad Harrub, MD. Dr. Harrub has a PhD from University of Tennessee in neurobiology.

These men are well qualified to discuss these matters in an educated manner, both having an education in related scientific fields.

Answer 3

Consider this argument. An archaeologist digs up a triangular stone that appears to have regular marks on it and they conclude that it is an arrowhead that a human being constructed. They base this conclusion on the facts that the markings are consistent with arrowheads made by primitive tribes today, that they know of no natural phenomenon that would account for the regularity and the shaping and sharpened edges. Perhaps they have seen cave drawings or something like that which have pictures of primitive people using bows and arrows to bolster their contention. The type of rock, maybe flint or obsidian, is a type that has been historically used to make arrowheads. So they see this stone and have a high degree of certainty that it's purpose was to be the tip of an arrow used with a bow for hunting.

Then an archaeologist digs up a fossilized bone. The bone served a purpose in a living animal. It contains a DNA code so highly sophisticated that in the 21st century we can barely figure out how it works and even then we are only scratching the surface of understanding how a chemical code can contain so much information and cause matter to behave in the way that it does.

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it!

Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

Now let's go back to the arrowhead. Consider the evidence used to determine that it was an object with an intelligent designer responsible for it's coming into being. What's the difference between the arrowhead and a single cell in a fossil?

1. We don't see mankind creating life so we don't have a current example to compare the fossil with.

2. Life is so common that even though a thorough study of the complexities of it elicit such remarks as "miraculous" we just shrug it off.

3. We have a competing theory that seems to be reasonable and have some evidence to support it to explain the origin of life in all of it's complex and interdepedent forms.

But when we go back to the coded information contained in the design somehow there is a logical disconnect because in order to accept that idea as a competing theory we would have to postulate an intelligence and technology far greater than our own or a supernatural being and since we don't have one on display the evidence is discounted even though when fairly considered it is overwhelming in pointing to this conclusion.

It's like finding a babies toy rattle and recognizing that an intelligence designed it and finding the space shuttle and atributing it to chance, only the space shuttle is more like a toy rattle in comparison to the design of a single living cell.

Answer 4

Old Earth theory has round robin proofs. They say, "This rock is x years old, and it has x amount of daughter molecules, so therefore rocks x old have x amount of daughter molecules. Then, this rock has x amount of daughter molecules, so it must be x years old.
Really, the whole thing doesn't work, because in order to count the amount of daughter molecules, no water could have ever come into, or gone out of, the rock being studied.
There are rocks supposedly a billion years old, on top of rocks supposedly a million years old. The evolutionists response is that the billion year rock slid on top of the million year rock. But neither is fractured.
Main evidence for evolution comes from the layers of fossils. Simple fossils on the bottom, complex towards top. Really, the fossil record proves the Genesis flood. Dead animals get torn apart by scavengers. Dead fish rot, and fall apart as they drop below. Most all fossils are complete, as they would be if suddenly covered by massive mud slides. The simple ones are on the bottom because as simpler organisms, they had less chance to avoid the mud flows.
The oceans have a certain amount of sediment in them. We can measure the amount of sediment going into them. None comes out. Max age for oceans is some 50K years. Around there. There are other young earth proofs. I will give a web site at the bottom.
There are no transitional fossils. Instead, from the fossil record, we see sudden appearance of certain organisms, and sudden departure. Then, oddly, organisms that shouldn't be around for millions of years are in lower levels, and ones that supposedly died out long ago are in later rocks. Again, fossils prove the flood.
The famous one is "how could an eye develop?" Without all the parts, an eye would not work. Scientists found a fish thing with a simple eye that only measures levels of light. They look at that as proof of evolving eye. Not really, but fine. Then let's look at the heart/lung combo. A heart doesn't work without a lung, and vice versa. Both are too complicated to work on a simpler scale.
Because there are no transitional fossils, some scientists have come up with the "hopeful monster theory." That is that a dinosaur gave birth to a chicken. Ridiculous. But also ridiculous is that two chickens would have had to have been born at the same time, in order to reproduce.
No statistics? People win the lottery? Yes, they do. But in order for a horse to make one evolutionary leap, it has been figured to be the same odds as if one person won the lottery 370 times in a row. Miss one? Start back at the beginning.
You are willing to do more research? Great. An awesome book is The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, by Henry M Morris. Another one, which shows how the heavens can look thousands of billions of years old, but still only be 6-10 thousand, is Starlight and Time, by D Russell Humphreys. Both are available from www.answersingenesis.org a site devoted to proving young earth theory. Most all of what is in those books is on the site as well.

Answer 5

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/examined.htm

I've studied evolution some.Just like most religion there are things that don't add up.

1:From my understanding you can't get life from non life.So the living cells we supposedly evolved from had a 0% chance to be there in the first place , without someone putting them there.All theories I've studied on how the first cells came to be contradict themselves.They all use something ( Like RNA) mixing with other things to explain how the first living cells came to be.However RNA and the other examples they use only come from living things to begin with.

2:Where are all the fossils of half breeds?Evolutionist will show you fossils of a dinosaur and a bird.They'll point out similarities,but where are the half breeds.If evolution takes millions of years there should be billions and billions of half breed fossils.They can find the dinosaur fossils and the bird fossils that the dinosaur supposedly evolved into,but they can't find one definite half breed?

3:How come the oldest bones ever found are of ''fully evolved'' animals.Evolution takes millions of years right?So the bones supposedly slowly evolved in.Why is it that all the oldest bones ever found seem to belong to a ''fully evolved'' creature.

These are just a few things that makes me believe evolution is false.Maybe I'm wrong if anyone is willing to give me a link with 'PROOF' not opinion that explain things like this I'd be happy to read it.

Answer 6

Your question is phrased invalidly. You are asking us to prove that evolution is false. You want us to assume it's true unless we can prove otherwise. I submit that the burden is on you and other proponents of the theory to prove that it's true. Which is what scientists are working night and day to do, obviously. More power to them. And you.

A question I am willing to answer is, why do I not accept the theory of evolution? My answer: Because I have doubts about it. I am a skeptic. I don't believe things just because people tell me to.

The information I have been given that purports to support the theory, I find inconclusive.

For one thing, and I'm sure you have heard this, although there is much evidence of evolution within species, such as finch beaks getting longer, there is no proof of one species evolving into another, such as a finch evolving into a lizard or something. Yes, there are ancient horses that resemble modern horses. But being a logical thinker, I know that the fact that one thing precedes another, does not prove that the one caused the other. And I'm too much of a skeptic to make the leap of faith and just assume that it did. In order to do that, you've got to have a preconceived idea that it's true, because it supports what you want to believe.

Furthermore, to the extent that unguided material evolution purports to explain the origin of all life -- not just the evolution of life once it began, but the origin of life itself -- the evidence is *extremely* weak. Again, you've got to have a preconceived inclination to believe it, in order to accept or assume that all life began from purely material causes, considering the utter paucity of evidence -- as opposed to guesses and hypotheses -- to support it.

If I wasn't already a Christian, I think that in order to be a true skeptic, I would have to be an agnostic when it came to the origins of life. It's fine to assume that it arose from purely material causes, as a paradigm within which to conduct research. But as to my personal belief in it, I would find the evidence inconclusive. I suspect that a lot of scientists and other believers in evolutionism give so much credence to it mainly because it gives them a stick with which to beat Christianity.

You write, "I request kindly that anyone who believes doesn't answer this." I think it's very appropriate that you use the word "believes" in this sentence.

Answer 7

The first answers has said it all.



You will not get intelligent responses debating the validity of evolution. You are dealing with people that think evolution postulates that chimps give birth to fully formed humans.

These are also the same people that think man was magically created from dirt, and women from a rib.

Answer 8

I believe in the evolution of animals,plants, organisms. I do not believe in the evolution of animal to man. How can a creature that does not have opposable thumbs evolve into one that does?

Answer 9

I can't find your question...you gave me a list of answers you would reject, but no link to the original question or hint to help figure it out from this message.

Answer 10

you get silence because you sound like an a**

i believe in evolution. if i didn't i wouldn't respond to you anyway because you are in 'attack mode' which doesn't help anyone