Can you admit it, the Evidence for Evolution is made up?

Question

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm

In my last question people said:

'Get an Education'
'Creation is no better off' - a concession about 1/3 made admitting that the evidence that should be there for Evolution is non-existent.

The fact is that the educated people are abandoning Evolution.

Another fact is that people who do not just accept Evolution as fact, keep asking questions. But a new phenomenon has occured.

Now, if someone asks a question that even insiuates that Evolution may be bogus, they are shouted down as being stupid. In history, whose behavior does this most mirror? Those who lived during the Renaissance Period or the Dark Ages?

Since when is questioning commonly held beliefs stupid or unscientific? Is not this the very first job of those interested in science?

Patrick - you asked what is Evolution missing? The link between species.

There is no clear evidence that shows a complex organism evolving.

Evolutionists admit that there is scant data for them to work with.

Evolutionists at the end of the day say, "This is what we think happened". (By the way, I have read the books, articles and films. While they portray confidence and make bold claims, in the end they say, "Maybe")

There truly is no concrete evidence FOR evolution. There is data and conjecture.

Corey D - that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. What are your references for saying that the average height of man during the age of the Roman Empire was 4 feet tall?

John F - prove it. In the 2004 trial when cross examined about the supposed evolution of complex organisms the expert witness admitted it was a problem for evolution but that he "HOPED" that in the future the solution would be found.

The same scientinst while giving a lecture that you can see for yourself on YOU-TUBE says at the end of the 4 1/2 minute video that he, "thinks this may" have happened.

What am I lying about?

Answer 1

Not true. Evolution is a statistically supported theory that can be seen in cancer cells, genetic manipulation of organisms, bacterial resisitance, and much more. Natural selection is very reproducable in the lab.

However, this does not explain origins as the evidence for speciation is significantly lacking. Moreover, one has to always ask "where did matter first come from?" Did the universe have a beginning? An eternal universe does not make sense as logically one cannot get to the "present" if there is no beginning. If logic supports a beginning, then what was the causal factor? Based on the complexity of life and the precision of forces, one can present an abundance of evidence supporting the existence of an intelligent designer.

Could evolution be just a process used by an intelligent designer? Possibly, yes. However, this has serious implications on the timeline of the Bible for those who take it as being the literal word of God. Thus, young-earth creationism has gained popularity offering some fascinationg theories while falling short of explaining others. Personally, I'm excited to critique and examine such evidences for a theory that is gaining much attention.

Furthermore, statistics have repeatedly shown that human origination from random, evolutionary processes as being impossible. Such random processes only flirt with possibility if the universe was trillions of years old. Trillions of years of existence is contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics as energy would have already been used up leaving only chaos, which obviously is not the case as one observes this incredibly organized, complex universe that supports life.

I agree totally that questioning commonly held beliefs is a primary premise for science. Scientists and thinkers who ignorantly dismiss "origin" theories as being stupid or shouting that their views are scientifically factual are showing a lack of intelligence.

Oh yeah.

Answer 2

Do you really believe that respected scientists would be jerking us all around on the issue without evidence? Every documented discovery made is scientific progress.

The trouble with your missing link claim is that we have several links and every time we find another one you creationists add more missing links For example Suppose paleontologists have already found fossil "A" and "C". Creationists complain that there's no "B" to link them together. 50 years later or so fossil "B" is discovered and documented. Creationists now complain that there are TWO gaps now... one between A and B and the other between B and C. Nothing we do is good enough for you and never will be short of giving up on looking for answers and proclaiming that it just had to have been your god.

But none of this matters because the creationist belief will NEVER be accepted or studied by the scientific community. We evolutionists aren't the least bit worried about creationism replacing evolution as an accepted scientific theory. All we are trying to do is raise your consciousness and help you understand your own ignorance. We're actually trying to help you because your beliefs are not held by the majority of the rest of the world.

Answer 3

I read your question, statement really, right until I reached the line, "the fact is that the educated people are abandoning Evolution." This is where you made a false claim and in fact, called it a fact. Right then, I knew you were full of crap. I am currently enrolled in Experimental Evolutionary Ecology at the University of Washington. This is a class where 40 educated people conduct and replicate famous biological experiments in order to view evolution in real time. The weirdest thing though, in the multiple months that I've been in this course, none of these people have abandoned the theory of evolution. The funniest part is, we've even gained a student from Turkey which if you didn't know, is the only country to have a higher amount of people who don't believe in Evolution than the United States. So I might even go as far as saying, I've actually observed more people understanding and supporting the theory of evolution. It's so weird that I used reasoning to make my statement, and I'm the one who supports the theory of evolution, and you didn't use any reasoning in yours, and you're the one who is stereotypically not going to support the theory of evolution.

Answer 4

Hey, do you get the flu vaccine every year?

Have "Creation scientists" ever produced something based on their theory that is even a thousandth as effective as the flu vaccine?

Just because you would like things to be the way some book says they are doesn't entitle you to lie about stuff. Educated people are not abandoning evolution. They overwhelmingly take it as a given, like gravity.

You are right, however. Shouting down someone with a dissenting view too closely resembles what organized religion has been doing for thousands of years.

Answer 5

Smoke and mirrors. I admit it is cleverly done, but smoke and mirrors all the same. Make an unsubstantiated statement as the basis of your proof then go off tangentially attempting to prove something else. It appears you have proven your initial statement but all you have done is taken other statements out of context and loosely connected them to your original statement He proves nothing but that he has an opinion. His opinion being that because some scientists have described evolution in unscientific terms at some point in their career evolution must be a religion, not scientific hypothesis.

Edit: You claim evolution is missing links between species. Do some simple googling. Whales have hip bones. Why? Some fossils of whale species have had the rudimentary remains of hind legs. Intermediate fossils don't. There are many cases of intermediary fossils, but every time they are pointed out creationists demand the fossil that links the intermediary fossils. Considering fossilisation is in itself a rare occurrence, the very fact that so many intermediary fossils have been found supports the fact that evolution happened.

Answer 6

Dear Mr. Creationist (or whatever your handlers tell you to call it this week),

Another 30 board-feet of pasting the same arguments does not change the fact that they are still as wrong as when we debunked them all the first time.

You have absolutely zero ability to comprehend what you paste, and as such, when you come across the same argument already shredded here at a later date it appears brand new to you. It is a truly sad state, and you need to grasp that you only highlight your own mental deficiency by persisting with the cut and paste marathon.

Were you able, on even the simplest level, to grasp the concepts involved, you would recognize the repetitive nature of your posts. As it is, you do not even have that elementary comprehension of the topic at hand.

Sadly, this is how creationism works, they rely on the vehement and vociferous response of their most ignorant and uneducated of followers to speak for them. They pot up the article, fully knowing the lies, distortions, and misleading nature of them and wait for people like you to cry them from the mountaintops.

We know the creationist movement to be dishonest to it's core, because the articles they produce requires a pretty decent knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, geology, anthropology, and a variety of other sciences... yet it is deliberately twisted and distorted in to outright lies. And this is not the type of misunderstanding that comes from a bad grasp of the topic, it required in-depth lies and trickery to produce.

So climb that mountain again, Rainman, and tell us again how wrong we are.

Answer 7

Questioning commonly held beliefs is not wrong - Those beliefs are all Theories (not proven as fact, but still plausible). Just using a website devoted to the Christian point of view and their trying to get everyone on their bandwagon regardless of if there is truth there is what commonly gets people going on these forums. Diversify the thought process and look up things on why Evolution IS true and don't use a website that has "jesus" in the website address and then start questioning yourself as to which is true. Depending on how old you are plan on using it for your final thesis paper in college or something and come back with the results.

Answer 8

Not all of it is made up guy, the fact that the average height for a Roman was just 4 foot, and now it's 6 foot, theres evidence of evolution there, or genetics, which is the reason for evolution, so by you saying evolution is made up, you're discounting genetics, which has been proven to exist. But if you include genetics then you're saying evolution exists. Guess what, it's a vicious cycle.

Answer 9

You're posting within the unsuitable phase. Let me let you know this. There are no less than a thousand billion special environments for the period of the universe and such a lot of them are not able to be recreated in a technological know-how laboratory. However it's certainly existence arose in the world. But it could have originated from someplace else (as proof of amino acids coming from house) including one other 10'000'000'000 years for existence to kind. That time scale is so past our traditional revel in it is rough to phantom. So seem right here on the information: Time for existence to kind: 12'500'000'000 years # Of chemical mixtures for the period of the universe: a million'000'000'000'000 (as a result of our loss of capabilities of the observable universe it may be plenty extra) If you research elaborate approaches concept and use it on biology and abiogenesis you'll get a well know-how of ways that is feasible. But I believe through the massive time scales and mixtures you must already detect it. Also figuring out this we believe existence could also be very typical for the period of the universe as there may be an estimate of round 500'000'000 liveable planets within the milky manner simplest summing it as much as approximately five'000'000'000'000'000'000 liveable planets for the period of the universe. I believe we might quite simply get rid of part of the ones planets although as plenty of stars are too near in combination and others torn aside through interstellar radiation, pulsars, black holes, and so on. You get the factor nevertheless. The numbers are too massive to believe we are on my own. However sure we do want one other instance of existence and sure we do want extra proof to help abiogenesis however we predict to discover it quickly. That is that if existence originated in the world or mars. Otherwise it perhaps difficult to get cast proof for it. Don't rule it out although. Logic, purpose, arithmetic, and biology helps it flawlessly great with none contradictions to different sciences.

Answer 10

The Dark Ages were a systemic celebration of Christianity in all its gory glory. The Renaissance was the beginning of the gradual triumph of humanism, a moment by moment critique of Christianity. Yes, you should question things but you should also listen to the answers. Enjoy your highly evolved life and thank the poor stumbling creatures who helped you to get there.