Proving Evolution

[ydoaPs]

Much of the evidence for evolution can be debated.

such as?

 

The evidence for creationism can also be debated, but you can find it in The Bible.

where is this evidence? if you'd look at the links i provide, you'd see a really cool chart showing how the bible says the universe works almost exactly the opposite of the way it actually does.

 

Scientists need to look at both sides to compare the evidence.

again you talk about the evidence, but you provide none.

 

The evidence in The Bible won't be proven unless scientists decide to stop ignoring it.

evidence such as?

 

 

 

Why would the burden of proof be on the creationists? The writers of The Bible claimed that they witnessed certain events happen.

kinda answered yourself there, eh?

 

 

These beliefs were widely accepted long before the theory of evolution.

and your point is?

 

Yes, but it depends on which translation you read.

nope, it doesn't.

 

 

edit: i like how you ignored the link and the actual history

[herme3]

Yourdadonapogos,

 

We keep going through the same thing over and over again. Every time we both post in an evolution or creationist thread, the whole thread turns into a debate between the two of us. There's no sense in us continuing to debate this because there is no way either one of us could win. We are both trying to push beliefs that don't have solid scientific evidence. I'm trying to keep an open mind by saying that both The Bible and evolution need to be fully scientifically tested before one of them can be truly proven scientifically. However, you just seem so convinced that evolution is a fact, and the stories in The Bible are false.

 

The article about Genesis proves nothing because it takes multiple theories as facts. Before you can use that article to say Genesis is incorrect, you will need to prove that the Big Bang and evolution both happened exactly how some scientists think they did. You can't do this, that's why they are called "theories".

 

You don't seem to understand that The Bible was the widely accepted belief before evolution. I'm sure the writers of The Bible would have been happy to give you all the evidence you want, but they are dead. Modern creationists believe The Bible because we have no reason to believe the writers would just lie about everything.

 

Like it or not, The Bible is widely accepted outside of this forum. Before anyone can give us new beliefs, we are going to need to know why we can't believe what our ancestors have told us.

[ydoaPs]

We are both trying to push beliefs that don't have solid scientific evidence.

no, that is what you are doing. i have hard evidence.

 

I'm trying to keep an open mind by saying that both The Bible and evolution need to be fully scientifically tested before one of them can be truly proven scientifically.

evolution is directly observable and the bible has been shown on several occasions to be full of crap.

 

However, you just seem so convinced that evolution is a fact, and the stories in The Bible are false.

it's all about the evidence

 

 

You can't do this, that's why they are called "theories".

so is gravity.

 

You don't seem to understand that The Bible was the widely accepted belief before evolution.

that has no bearing on validity

 

 

Modern creationists believe The Bible because we have no reason to believe the writers would just lie about everything.

that's a false dilemma

 

why do you ignore links and evidence? i address your points and you skip over them and keep on with the same points that i have already addressed.

[herme3]

evolution is directly observable and the bible has been shown on several occasions to be full of crap.

 

You are sounding just like a broken record. Show me something that can be proven incorrect in The Bible that isn't just a result of modern translation issues.

 

it's all about the evidence

 

You claim to have all this great evidence somewhere. Why don't you start listing some of it? I'm sure the evolutionist scientists who have been trying to make this into a scientific law for years would be very interested in reading it. If they could find any solid evidence that can't be debated, evolution wouldn't be a theory anymore.

 

why do you ignore links and evidence? i address your points and you skip over them and keep on with the same points that i have already addressed.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I've replied to everything you've posted.

[Milken]

The whole, "When was Jesus born" has been 100% refuted by yours truly in the philo and religion section. It's also not very relevant, however, Genesis is very much so.

 

The article about about the Evolution/Genesis differences is very interesting, some of those I was completely unware of. One interesting insight is Genesis says there's light before there's a sun which seems completely ridiculous but our physics model is clear, there were a lot of photons present at big bang.

[Dark Photon]

May i remind all and everyone this thread is not to debate the existance of god or to flame other ideologies.

[Dark Photon]

the piont most people cannot get in thier plack volume brains is that evolution doesnt rule out creatonalism

[ydoaPs]

You are sounding just like a broken record. Show me something that can be proven incorrect in The Bible that isn't just a result of modern translation issues.

i have. you ignored it. remember this link?

 

 

btw, the bible says the universe is only 6000 years old. if that were true, we couldn't even see the center of our galaxy.

 

 

 

You claim to have all this great evidence somewhere. Why don't you start listing some of it? I'm sure the evolutionist scientists who have been trying to make this into a scientific law for years would be very interested in reading it. If they could find any solid evidence that can't be debated, evolution wouldn't be a theory anymore.

read this, this, this, and this. when you're done, tell me and i'll give you some more info.

 

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I've replied to everything you've posted.

really? when was jesus born?

 

The whole, "When was Jesus born" has been 100% refuted by yours truly in the philo and religion section. It's also not very relevant, however, Genesis is very much so.

is that what you think you did?

1)you didn't even address the OP

2)a lot of what you said was false, like when you said John was one of the Apostles.

[herme3]

the piont most people cannot get in thier plack volume brains is that evolution doesnt rule out creatonalism

 

The point that evolutionists can't get in their brains is that the concept of humans evolving from apes strongly contradicts Genesis, the first chapter of The Bible. If you follow a religion, you just can't throw out parts of your religion and replace them with contradicting beliefs. If you do, you are creating your own religion instead of practicing the existing religion.

 

btw, the bible says the universe is only 6000 years old. if that were true, we couldn't even see the center of our galaxy.

 

For a possible explanation, go here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

 

Also, read this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html

 

read this, this, this, and this. when you're done, tell me and i'll give you some more info.

 

I'm not an expert of creationism or evolution. I've never even read the whole Bible, so I don't have enough knowledge to lead this debate myself. If you really want scientific evidence against evolution and supporting creationism check out these links:

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c004.html

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

[Dark Photon]

6000 years, thats a joke.

 

if we can see objects 13.7bn light years away it cant be 6000. we harly see ANY stars in the sky.

[ydoaPs]

The point that evolutionists can't get in their brains is that the concept of humans evolving from apes strongly contradicts Genesis, the first chapter of The Bible. If you follow a religion, you just can't throw out parts of your religion and replace them with contradicting beliefs. If you do, you are creating your own religion instead of practicing the existing religion.

are you a Jew? if not, by following Christianity, you are making your own religion. in the bible, Jesus said multiple times that he came only for the Jews. in fact, when he says to go preach to the world, he says not to go into any gentile city! let's assume you are a Jew. Jesus said to follow the OT law until heaven and earth pass away. do you kill homosexuals? do you abstain from shellfish? do you refrain from shaving? to you refuse to wear clothing of more than one fabric? if you said no to any of those, by your definition, you are creating your own religion.

 

 

If you really want scientific evidence against evolution and supporting creationism check out these links:

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

scientific? did you even read it?

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c004.html

this one goes wrong from the first sentence.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

"In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

 

So when Christians claim that the God of the Bible created the entire universe, some will ask what seems a logical question, namely ‘Where did God come from?’

 

The Bible makes it clear in many places that God is outside of time. He is eternal, with no beginning or end — \ He is infinite! He also knows all things, being infinitely intelligent."

 

if god doesn't need a creator, why does the universe?

 

herme3, is that really the best you can come up with? that was pathetic.

 

 

edit: did you ignore my links again?

[Dark Photon]

the world is changing, and religeon is seeming more absurd as facts from scriptures are being disproven by science, which is one hundred percent fact.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The point that evolutionists can't get in their brains is that the concept of humans evolving from apes strongly contradicts Genesis, the first chapter of The Bible. If you follow a religion, you just can't throw out parts of your religion and replace them with contradicting beliefs. If you do, you are creating your own religion instead of practicing the existing religion.

I agree with you there, but you also have to be able to distinguish between metaphorical and literal sections of the Bible.

 

 

For a possible explanation' date=' go here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

 

Also, read this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html[/quote']

Right then, I suggest you read this, which finds many errors in the c-decay proposal. Oh yes, and this.

 

 

I'm not an expert of creationism or evolution. I've never even read the whole Bible' date=' so I don't have enough knowledge to lead this debate myself. If you really want [b']scientific[/b] evidence against evolution and supporting creationism check out these links:

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c004.html

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

If you want scientific evidence, I suggest you go to a credible site such as talkorigins. Mind you, talkorigins tries to avoid sticking to trying to support things like the Bible and such, while instead using facts and not suppositions to support itself. And, of course, it gives references to other credible sources.

[wpenrose]

In the lab I am a scientist' date=' but when I go for a walk in the woods, I am a creature.

Some might even say, a specimen.[/quote']

 

The local forest creatures may think of you as 'food'.

 

Dangerous Bill

[daneeka]

Proving Darwin’s theory of evolution for me is a simple task. However since many do not (and never will) accept this magnificent theory in all of its elegance' date=' we will once again be in conflict where science shall have to fight against religion.

------------------------------------------------------------

One incident that was recorded is the "peppered moth" incident.

 

There were two types of peppered moth in London a while back. Dark and light. These moths were prey to birds that lived nearby. The light peppered moth was MUCH more difficult to see whilst on the bricks of London’s industrial buildings. However, as more and more fossil fuels were burnt, smoke would rise and combine with fog to create a very nasty substance known as smog. The smog colored the bricks of London black, and thus the dark moth was harder to see and the light moth would be seen and hunted much more easily. Later on there was a new law which stated that only "smokeless" coal could be burnt, and so the bricks became lighter, the dark moths disappeared and the light moths rose as a population. The graph to this is very similar to what we see in the above. [/quote']

 

I'm a great believer in Darwinism; this however is not because the theory is simple to prove (if it was simple I think it would have been proven after so many decades of debate) but rather because with what evidence we have currently gathered on the matter it simply makes the most sense. There is really no way to test the theory; we can come up with as many examples of natural selection taking place as we like but they are only examples of a unproven theory. The moth example for instance only really shows that there is a corellation between certain building shades and the abundance of moths of a complementary shade. Yes the building shade is perhaps a selection pressure and this may govern the survival rate of moths of a certain shade but that is not proof that the moth is a distant ancestor to a seasponge.

 

Creationism is only really difficult to accept because many people learn about Darwinism at school or university and we tend to accept it as some kind of dogma. I think people should put down the text books and actually think about it, maybe try and grasp both sides of the argument. Try to remember that many accepted ideas are often rendered obsolete with time. I'm not saying that Creationism is the answer only that Darwinsm makes the most sense with what little technical insight we presently have.

[reyam200]

yourdadonapogos. you also beleave somthing without gathering and analizing proof of it yourself. evolution does not yet have enough proof(that i know of) to be considered fact. yet you beleave anything the scientists tell you, isn't that the same gulablity that you accuse christians of haveing? you beleave in a theory so strongly that you have closed your mind to ANY other knowledge or theories conserning the origin of mankind. Also the creation of new technolohy just makes it easer to MAKE the proof.

 

Try to remember that many accepted ideas are often rendered obsolete with time. I'm not saying that Creationism is the answer only that Darwinsm makes the most sense with what little technical insight we presently have.

 

like ive said, always keep room for new possiblities. because we don't know what we will learn in the future. consider the midevil times, they were convinced that the earth was flat, and some even stated that there was proof. flawed proof, but it wasn't untill they could travel the ocean that they found the earth was round.

the same type of event could happen to disprove evolution, or even proove creation. time will tell.

i beleave that its possible for god to exist, but i don't care weather or not he(or she. it) made us. not because there is no proof, but because its a waste of energy to try to proove somthing that we don't have the technology to proove.

[ydoaPs]

yourdadonapogos. you also beleave somthing without gathering and analizing proof of it yourself. evolution does not yet have enough proof(that i know of) to be considered fact.

look at my links. read them. know them. love them.

[insane_alien]

if evolution doesn't have enough proof then creationism is in the crapper cause it has less evidence than evolution. by less evidence i mean it has none unless you count that 1 2000 year old document that has many factual errors and has underwent numerous political re-edits and censorships, probably so much as to lose whatever origional order may possibly have been there may have been at first.

[Dark Photon]

if evolution doesn't have enough proof then creationism is in the crapper cause it has less evidence than evolution. by less evidence i mean it has none unless you count that 1 2000 year old document that has many factual errors and has underwent numerous political re-edits and censorships, probably so much as to lose whatever origional order may possibly have been there may have been at first.

 

 

nice contribution, the bible has been edited a great deal over time.

[reyam200]

the bible has been edited a great deal over time.

 

yes, thats why i don't beleave everything in it. i "dicect" and analize it and look at every perspective i can, to find if its creditable, i also compare it to different documents of that time(i found them at a musiem and library). i do that with even the most compelling evadence.

and your right, scientists have more evadence to support evolution than creation, but thats not the reason i beleave it. i do because i have studied genetics and how different radiations and environmental changes can effect a species. and have found for myself that evolution is the logical theory.

 

currently, its more plausable than creation. i would like to beleave that we were created by an omnipotent being and were given this earth to take care of it. but there just isn't any facts to support it.

 

 

ive always thought of the bible as a book of princables and wisdom, because some of the storys have a good lessons and morals to learn. it has a clear code of ethics, and some would do this world some good if we followed those ethics

[herme3]

Yourdadonapogos,

 

Go here for all the scientific evidence you could ever need: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=269569

 

I also found an answer for your question regarding when Jesus was born. Go here: http://www.christiananswers.com/q-aiia/census-luke2.html

[ydoaPs]

i'm not even going to bother with the christian answers link. the last ones you gave from there were pathetic.

 

 

edit: i lied: i looked at it. how can he have a census before 6 CE if he didn't even come into power until 6 CE?

[daneeka]

Man all these arguments are so circular: evolution is not possible because there is inadequate proof; no no Creationism is not possible because there is inadequate proof... wow how enlightening.

 

Here's my perspective: evolution by natural selection is not the only way speciation occurs; to the best of my knowledge things don't just appear out of thin air..but I can't think of a way to prove unequivicably that they don't; we have been studying life empirically for far too short a time to accept any theory as absolute; and, finally, the Church has very little to do with intelligent creation - if creationism is fact than it is likely to occur for reasons other than those presented such an acquisitive institution.

 

I like evolution as a theory - it makes a lot of sense - however I'm not willing to deny Creationism simply because I don't really know much about it. Are there any creationsist out there willing to say the same about evolution?

[Dark Photon]

there is NO proof for creationism whatsoever. Evolution is s solid thoery, and there is powerful evidence for it so you wont be able to prove it wrong. perhaps you shoudl pay attention to the details. humans wernt there a billion years ago but they are now.

[daneeka]

there is NO proof for creationism whatsoever. Evolution is s solid thoery, and there is powerful evidence for it so you wont be able to prove it wrong. perhaps you shoudl pay attention to the details. humans wernt there a billion years ago but they are now.

 

Very few organisms present today were around a billion years ago; 5 mass extintion events and and consistant stochastic changes have seen to that. What's your point?

 

What is this powerful evidence? Unless you can test speciation through natural selection, and apply it to all life, then all 'powerfull evidence' is circumstantial at best.

 

Yes I know speciation occurs; and that it can sort of be tested with certain taxa. However I'm not sure all speciation occurs through natural selection. This is not to say that life appeared through some sort of intelligent design ala Creationism.

 

Furthermore, I hardly think that "not being able to prove it wrong" is grounds for accepting the theory as fact.