Why do people think that Evolution is fact and not fiction?

Question

For many years people have been taught a lie which is actually a fairy tale. People have been told the earth is millions of years old and creation is a dumb theory. People think that Evolution has nothing to do with religion but thinking humans came from a rock takes more faith than believing in a God. The Big bang theory is stated that everything came from a spinning dot and was no bigger than a period on a page. Which implies everything came from that dot. Some problems with that theory are if all the matter of the whole universe was spinning from that dot than every planet should be spinning the same direction. Some planets and moons are spinning a different direction from our planet.

Evolutionists say dinosaurs prove the earth is millions of years old but just recently a T-Rex bone was found that had red blood cells which cannot last over a million years.

I think that either Creation should be taught with Evolution or neither of them should be taught in school since everyone is required to pay for it.

Some Creation sites that disprove Evolution are
drdino.com - click on the downloads section and hear the truth.
Answersingenesis.com

You say that I'm crazy for believing what I believe well take a look about what you believe. YOU THINK EVERYONE CAME FROM A ROCK. Stupid

The majority can be wrong. People once believe the sun orbited the earth.

Where’s the proof of Evolution?

Most of your so called facts have been proven years ago and are still in the text books why?

Here are some things wrong with the theory of Evolution.

The population curve
Carbon dating not accurate (Wild dates)
The suns mass- If the earth was millions of years old then if you go back in time than the sun would touch the earth so many million years ago.
Moon dust
Where did matter come from?
Where did our planets laws come from?

Fossil theory ha that’s a laugh because trees are found petrified standing up going through many of those layers. And I'm supposed to believe they are all millions of years apart.

Wow people must really hate the bible.

Sorry if anyone was offended of what I said. Everyone has a choice to what they want to believe. If you are from a country that makes you believe a specific religion then become a Christian so Jesus can set you free.

Answer 1

Hmmm.. this will be a long answer, but I hope to make some good points. I do not claim to be a science expert, I only reason logically. If anyone wants to argue against my points raised do so in a polite and respectful manner, or I at least know that I will not at all listen to it and ignore it. If you people were half as intelligent as you claim to be you would not be throwing out insults and giving people bad ratings. That does not make people pay attention, and it does not make them listen to you. Evolve already.

Anyway, here's a few points: The 'fact' of evolution (something that nobody can agree on whether it is even fact, theory, law, etc. either way I don't think it matters) is a bit misleading. Science has seen that evolution has happened in the labratory and in nature, BUT there is one key fact that people overlook. When they say evolution they mean micro-evolution (variation) and macro-evolution, which for some odd reason includes the umbrella term speciation. By doing so, it does a few things, but first I have to work up to it. What has been proven and that everyone agrees on is that a creature, such as a dog, can produce a different breed of dog. Most even agree that all dogs began with wolves. However, what evolution has failed to 'prove' as part of it being a fact, is what became the wolf? Now there may be some fossil record for the wolf in general, but I am making a simple example. Scientists lack several transistional pieces, and have never witnessed or created an instance where a creature changed anything other than it's species. So when we say evolution is a fact, speciation might be, but as for the rest of it, I would have to say no it isn't. By saying it is a part of macro-evolution however, they jump to the conclusion that macro-evolution is also fact, and that evolution is 100% proven fact. That is not good science.

I have heard a few conflicting arguments over the BBT, so I'll try to look at them all if possible. The first theory, is that everything was compressed into a tiny, swirling dot. The dot spun so fast, it 'exploded,' forming everything that we know of now. If it was spinning in the same direction, and since it is everything that makes up our universe, then by a simple law of physics, everything that broke off from it should be spinning in the same direction, which it is not. Unless you have a full understanding of the theory and the complex physics involved I suggest you don't try saying that this is incorrect, at least without some counterargument and evidence. Another theory states that it was not spinning, but was just compressed, and expanded, cooling off as it did. The website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html goes into more details but it is based on a few assumptions, some of which seem too big to just assume. For ex. the idea that the universe is the same throughout. (oh and don't worry the website is against creationism, so it isn't biased for my benefit).

And if you have an issue with the term evolutionists, how about evolution scientists?
Would you care to cite where the statistic 99.8% of all scientists believe in evolution, I hear it bouncing around all the time. Sounds sort of like 99.7% of all teenagers smoke pot at least once in their life. Everyone knows it's true, but can't find the stupid fact anywhere.
Actually within the theory there is the whole issue about if evolution is a slow gradual process, or if there are big jumps. The big jump idea comes from the lack of transistional fossil evidence, or else it wouldn't be a part of the controversy, so it has some evidence (which you can interpret anyway you want) but no proof (which is undenialable). Least that's how I take the meaning from the two words, please don't hold me to that exactly.
The more intelligent a person.. okay, so I guess a person with an I.Q. of 146 like me is stupid. My bad. I should have converted to evolution instead of Christianity, damn shame I made that mistake. A bit harsh I know, but so is saying that people with religion are stupid .
Actually since the Earth consisted of nothing but molten rock that was cooling off, and life had to start from something (or nothing, which do you prefer?) it began with water combining with rocks. So yeah. Humanity did evolve from bacteria that evolved from rocks. Sorry.
Yes the age of the Earth does matter. If it was very young (6,000 compared to a few billion) then evolution could not have happened as scientists view it. Evolution depends strongly on the age of the planet, which is why I think that when scientists discovered that the original cell was much more complex than they thought, the age of the universe and our planet started growing drastically. I haven't done exact research, but the time frame sounds about right in my head.
There are a few holes/gaps in the theory of evolution. For example how life started from non-life, etc. If this were any other theory, like how the dinosaurs went extinct, we would offer the alternatives to the main theory Heck if somebody threw out the random theory that dinosaurs were killed off by God I think schools would offer the alternative, because it'd make Christians look stupid. I really think they would. However, the biggest alternative to evolution, is Creationism (either as a religion or as a science). It is never mentioned, even though there are a few flaws in evolution. I think that is a sign of something, I won't say what, I'll just let everybody take it the way they will.

Also, since the BBT and evolution are seperate theories I have to ponder one quick thing. How does evolution explain how life started? It is the study of the origin of life, isn't it? Doesn't that involve how we got the planet to begin with, the environment that makes life possible? The two may not cover the exact same ground, (start of universe, start of life) but they depend on each other. Saying they're separate is a half-truth. (I figure it was better than saying half-lie).

The issue with stratigraphy that I have to question is: If the planet is 4.5 billion years old (sorry if I'm wrong, whatever amount of years it is) how could different layers of the same thing be different ages? How can dirt be a different age than other dirt? Where did the new, younger dirt come from?

I like bringing up this neat little fact, just to show you how things can be looked at in two different ways: The Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. This is an undeniable fact. HOWEVER.. there is an even bigger canyon on Mars, that took less than a year to form. Yeah, apparantly a lake spilled over, probably from a great flood or something like that. Carved away at the rock pretty quickly. I just think it's interesting, I don't think it's very relevant, just interesting. *AHEM*

1 last argument, I swear, then I'll stop. Okay, this sounds like an attack on credibility but it's a question, so just wait it out, it'll make sense. Hitler believed very strongly in evolution. He wanted to speed up the process among humans and kill off all inferior races, such as Jews who were mostly apes. We know this is wrong, however what if somebody were to do something like that now? But instead he'd kill off everybody who in fact was genetically inferior? (people with genetic defects, diseases, mentally handicapped, etc.) Would this be wrong? Would man be contributing more to our planet by speeding up evolution and purifying the gene pool?
I'm guessing most of you are thinking, well duh, that's lunacy and you're a monster for thinking that. Okay, well tell me then, if you don't believe in God, and probably any other religion or philosophy other than atheism, then where do you get your morality from? What defines for you what is right and wrong? Individual choice, society (majority opinion in other words), science? Please, if you are going to answer or reply, cover this issue for sure, I would love to know how you come across your decisions for what is immoral, the code that directs it, etc.

Answer 2

Arthur, I think that you're about to be voted off of the round table. First, I should point out that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution have nothing to do with each other...they are mutually exclusive. Second of all, and I'm not sure that you realize that you did this, I found it interesting that you pointed out that you found it hard to believe that people came from "a rock" when the bible itself states that God created man from DUST (yep, ground up rock). As such, how could you dispute this if even the bible states that is the way it is? In fact, if you compare the steps of "God's creation" with the Big Bang Theory you will find a few other suprising similarities...so I am having difficulty in seeing your problem here. The only difference between the two is that one includes God as overseeing the process and the other implies that no God is needed.

Answer 3

* There is no such thing as "evolutionists". Do you "believe in"
gravity? Are you a gravitationist?
* Evolution is every much a fact as the theory of gravity.
* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to
understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places likeTurkey and parts of the united states.

"but thinking humans came from a rock" - this is not evolution.

"Some problems with that theory are if all the matter of the whole universe was spinning from that dot than every planet should be spinning the same direction" - incorrect.

"Evolutionists say dinosaurs prove the earth is millions of years old" - evolution has nothing to do with how old the planet Earth is. Also, refer to the first statement.

"I think that either Creation should be taught with Evolution" - Creationism is RELIGION and not science! This would violate the separation of church and state. Evolution needs to be taught as it is the cornerstone of Biology.

Answer 4

Why do I accept evolution as fact? And why do I accept the age of the Earth as 4 - 5 billion years? (These are, by the way, separate questions.)

Evolution: The fossil record
Stratigraphy
Genetics
Similar structures that cannot be accounted for by parallel evolution
Parallel evolution

Age of the Earth: Physics
Thermodynamics
Radiometric dating
The speed of light
Uncertainties in the cosmological constant
The 3K background
Conservation of angular momentum (although, properly speaking, this should be under physics. It's still pretty compelling)
Tidal locking of Mercury

That's what occurs to me off the top of my head. There are other reasons.

Oh - and none of this contradicts what Scripture actually says. It does, I'll admit, contradict what the "Institute for Creationist Research" says Scripture says.

Edit: Rance; they aren't mutually exclusive. That would mean they couldn't both be true simultaneously. They are independent, though, which is what I think you meant.

Answer 5

Yeah and I'm sure you think your "god poofed everything into being" myth is any more credible.

Honestly... the only reason you deny evolution is because it disproves your already impossible mythology. And evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. They're separate theories, and evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity.

Answer 6

Well, all of your understanding of evolution is completely wrong. So I would assume that it is already not being taught in school, you didn't go to school, or you went to a school which didn't teach 8th grade science. If you were to learn about evolution, you would realize all of your arguments are straw man arguments.

Also, evolution is taught as a theory, which there are currently no alternative theories for.

Answer 7

Evolution is fact.Again I will ask,do you somehow think that it's only a theory"?OK,well then,can you explain to me what happens if a theory is proven?I didn't think so.Theories are DISproven or modified.They NEVER "get a promotion"They may contain "laws"within them,such as the Theory of Gravity contains the LAW of gravity in it,but they are further reaching in their scope.You want to get rid of a theory?That's easy,simply DISprove it.Do not delude yourself into thinking scientists are part of an evil,worldwide conspiracy to promote evolution and disprove God.The fact is,any scientist who could disprove evolution would certainly win a Nobel prize and his name would go down in history.If it could be disproved,they would.That is what science is about.Reality is that TOE is valid.Wouldn't time be better spent either researching TOE with ACTUAL websites(Dr Dino is NOT a credible site)or,if you wish to believe in a god,adjusting your views on the nature of God to fit with what we know to be true?Do you want to find a TRUE god,or are you insistent that the nonsensical entity be proven true,even if it means suppressing the truth and hindering knowledge?Think carefully,would a TRUE god want you to believe a silly story?Or wouldn't a god be pleased you have discovered the intricacies of creation.TOE doesn't diminish God.Quite the opposite.The BB and evolution are WAY cooler than the mundane,blatantly silly way creation is described in the bible

Answer 8

"Dr. Dino" is nothing but a liar and a fraud.
Answers In Genesis is nothing but a propaganda machine.

If you want to know anything about evolution (besides the swill you've been spoon fed by those with an agenda), click on a few of these sites:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[[edit]] These issues: "the suns mass, moon dust, the origins of matter and physical laws"... are COSMOLOGICAL. They have nothing to do with evolution. Why do I even bother answering questions like this when people like you grasp at straws in order to "invalidate" something you don't even understand?

Answer 9

You are right. Evolution is the greatest hoax in history.

People have been hoodwinked into believing it, because they are told it is 'scientific'. However, the opposite is true, the belief in a naturalistic origin of life from sterile chemicals (abiogenesis), violates several natural laws including Information Theory. Any belief that violates natural law cannot possibly be called 'scientific'.
In fact, any naturalistic hypothesis that violates natural law should be declared impossible. The only reason that evolution is excused from this verdict, is for ideological reasons. Evolution is the mainstay of secular philosophy, and therefore has become sacrosanct. It is the only so-called scientific hypothesis that must not be challenged. If you dare to challenge the evolution story, you should be prepared for all sorts of insults, i.e. you are either an ignoramous, a crank, a moron or an unscientific, religious zealot.

Here is a rare, but frank admission of the real philosophical nature of evolution by a leading evolutionist, the geneticist, (Professor) Richard Lewontin:
“We take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomena world, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons”, New York Review, January, 1997 at p.31.
Edit - -
Just look at all those thumbs down, only to be expected. The truth hurts. They just don't want people to know the truth that the evolution story is motivated more by ideology than by genuine scientific endeavour.

Answer 10

The devout Christian scientist who actually discovered the T-Rex blood says that the bones are 68 Million years old, and accuses you of deliberately twisting and distorting her work (bearing false witness). So there.