Evolutionists.....?

Question

...You all keep saying things like "Evolution has mountains of proof"/"Evolution is based on facts"blah blah blah blah....
OK--So where is the proof for:millions and billions of years old?(dating methods are NOT accurate--nice try),where is the proof we evolved from another animal?Evolution is NOT science.it is science fiction!!!!
http://www.cseblogs.com

Answer 1

As T. Wallace has said, “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Are we the ones with blind faith? Where you there when something popped into existence from nothing and exploded? No, well do you see something pop into existence from nothing today? Were you there when non-living matter gave rise to life? No, well do you see non-living matter giving rise to life today? Where you there when single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, when invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, when ape-like creatures gave rise to man? No, well do you see it happening today? You have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems by blind chance. That is what goes against real science.

As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says, we need to quit calling evolution a theory; that is giving it too much credit. “Goo to you” evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture, not a theory.

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

So why do so many people believe in evolution? It’s simple, most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God. You see, if God created us, then He also owns us. If He owns us, then He has a right to set the rules by which we must live. If He has set the rules by which we must live, then we are accountable to Him. They don’t want to be accountable to God; they don’t want to be controlled. And so, it is their desire to explain the origin of everything without a Creator at all costs; they must believe in evolution. Evolutionism then, is intrinsically an atheistic religion—the religion of secular humanism.

Answer 2

First of all, it's incorrect to refer to someone as an "evolutionist." It's not a religion, although I'm sure it's difficult for you to understand a concept like that.
You also don't quite understand that evolution is not about species suddenly changing into other species. Dating methods are not accurate? Perhaps not down to the minute, but they sure aren't going to be off by billlions of years, which they would have to be to conform with the biblical idea of the earth's being about 6,000 years old.
Perhaps you mean well, but you are woefully ignorant about science and the world around you. Any religion that can only thrive on ignorance isn't worth much. If it forces you to deny facts (and, whether you like it or not, they are FACTS), your religion is not doing you much good. If it were true, it could stand up to the facts and embrace them, rather than deny them.

Answer 3

Amen
I was watching a show on the HIstory Channel last night. I was horrified actually because there is no proof the Earth is Billions of years old yet they rolled all this stuff across the screen as if it is fact and it's not! Not proven fact just some guys' made up theory of what might have been or could have been. But none of it could have been. Where did the oxygen come from and these plants in Australia they actually said is Our "great great grandmother" I"m trying to picture humans just forming out of nowhere ..............nobody can prove the earth is billions of years old.......they were not there to calculate that and none of the dating systems are 100 percent or even 50 % reliable. There is more proof the bible is true yet it's banished from the minds of men. total work of the anti-christ I believe on this earth today. Prophecy being fullfilled before our very eyes. Come, Lord Jesus!

I have studied science extensively. There is no proof of these theories you are absolutely right.

Answer 4

you assert without proof that dating methods are not accurate, so i would feel justified in replying simply by saying that dating methods are accurate (often better than 1% relative error). but i can go one better and provide you with a discussion of the evidence for this, if you will but read it:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

note that it is a christian perspective: totally unnecessary from the viewpoint of science, but perhaps you won't believe anything stated by a non-christian.

the evidence that we have evolved is of several mutually supporting types: structural, behavioural, genetic... you must be extremely ignorant not to have heard of any of these things.

the problem though is that you want PROOF, which science does not provide. this is actually a strength of science, because it is not constrained by the false proofs offered by religion - it is actually possible to discover new things in science and improve the accuracy of our human knowledge. i imagine that you don't like this at all, especially when it conflicts with your sacred 'truths'.

Answer 5

If you think dating methods are innacurate then you need to explain why all the different dating methods agree - whether you are counting tree rings, carbon dating radiometric dating, varves, or one of the many other methods they all agree with each other to avery small margin of error.
If they are innacurate then you would not expect them to agree, you would instead expect wild disagreement between the methods.

Answer 6

my question to you is, are you you too stupid to look it up yourself, or would you rather **** with us than actually learn anything? either way, READ A BOOK!

Answer 7

whatever.. get over it