evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

Read your stuff - interesting points of view. Perhap's you should take a closer look into your mirror and look at yourself a little closer inclding where your own family, or any other that you may of , and where they were in evolutionary terms say 75 years ago.

I don't profess to say I know evolution but I'm sure the Human race has evolved and evolved and evolved and may continue too, unless the present or near future of our continued evolution draws super - I mean Stupid Powers into mass-destruction.

Though Mr Cayce in one of his readings indicated those above the Human race will not allow the Human race to destroy itself.

Dallas

Thanks again Rren for keeping this discussion civil, even if only a few of us can.

You bring up some very interesting points, I don't have time to research them all as I'm heading to Reno for the weekend, but when I get back I'll post what I think.

As to what I mean when I say ID is unprovable.

What I mean is that a supernatural designer would be unprovable. ET design would be verifiable at some point, but a being that can do anything, such as creating a universe that looks much older than it really is, is unprovable.

Be back on monday. Enjoy my new avatar thanks to Jak.

This is Great Topic ! I am glad that people are coming together to discuss this in a civil manner, I hope ? all the way through ? I didn't get a chance to read all of the reply's but hope this discussion goes on.

Anyway- I myself am a christian and have been for some time. I have been a member at many churches at different times in my life according to my spiritual growth. I was raised in a Lutheran church and as I grew I wanted to see other religons within the christian faith. The reason was so that I could get a broad scope of christianity and learn as much as possible about every faith. I have been through multiple christian churches-From what I call dead to spiritually kooky ! and everything in between. Babtist, Pentacostal, The Foursquare Church, Assemblies Of God and Non-denomonational which I happen to feel the most comfortable with, at this time of my journey through life.

Throughout this journey, I would like to say that I have met some of the most loving and gracious people ever ! in all of the above churches mentioned. However, this doesn't mean that I agree with everything in every church. But as a whole-All of the churches worship the same God and believe in Jesus Christ the Savior of mankind and understand that works will not get us into heaven. God saved us through Grace and there was nothing we could do on our own to enter heavens gates.

The reason that I am telling you all of this, is that we need to be honest with ourselves and to completley be sure of our faith in either theory, we need to set aside our own ideologies and phylosophies and look at both the evolution theory and then the creation theory.

I have been studying this for some time and have taken with me opinions from different faiths and different people through time. Yet I had to really know for myslef what is true and what is false. This was another journey in my life.

What I have come to find out was that there were a lot of gaps in Darwins theory of evolution ? Many falsehoods and many unexplained answers ? And frankly no real evidence of any kind to this theory ? It took a huge jump in faith to even believe in this theory.

By really being vidual and dedicated, I took myself on a journey to dive into the creation theory. What I have found through many different christian scientists from different faiths was that creation and evolution really go together !

It is by no means the Darwin theory of evolution and creation at all. It is a theory of evolution on a totally different perspective through what is sometimes called hard science. There are a few different angles of perspective of this evolution theory just as is there are a few different angles of perspective of the creation theory.

But through all of their differences they all come to the same conclusion that it is really BOTH evolution and creation. Many people do not know about this fairly new theory supported by science, math and physics.

Anyway- Today through my search and research I have come to the conclusion as well, that it is a combination of both. On top of it all and most importantly it strengthened my faith in my God. I have learned so much on this journey and now feel I have a true realtionship with my Lord.

I invite all of you to take the same journey as I did and be truly vigilent unto yourselves and see what conclusions you come up with after researching.

Next time I reply, I would like to mention some of the most credible sites that I have found supporting this. If you have found any please let me know.

Please forgive me if my spelling is not quit up to par as I have lost a lot of sight throughout the last few years and typing is getting harder all the time.

Take it easy and God Bless !

Read my previous posts.WE were created by E.T's who looked just like us.WE are the 7th creation.Read the lacerta files and then you would know the truth.It's upto you to believe it but imo it's the truth and nothing else but the truth.

Originally posted by warthog911
Read my previous posts.WE were created by E.T's who looked just like us.WE are the 7th creation.Read the lacerta files and then you would know the truth.It's upto you to believe it but imo it's the truth and nothing else but the truth.

www.sabon.org...

That's alot to take in, and Im not sure if anything "Lacerta" said was plausible. Evolution went Fish--> Amphibians---> Reptiles---> Mammals, so I guess their brains could have evolved before ours. It's alot of reading but if anyones up to it, tell me what you think.

I have one problewm with the story though. If they like Sun so much, why do they hide underground?

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

because our creators defeated them in their own planet plus they have artificial sunlight and also spend most of thier time on ground by using mimicary.

do you want proof that evolotion is wrong

www.jalyat.net...

Its an islamic website talking about the relation ship between islam and science

The orgin of human is from the earth itself and the biggest evidence is that
Earth is the only planet that contain Iron and human contial the same element and compound as the earth

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere

The reason that I am telling you all of this, is that we need to be honest with ourselves and to completley be sure of our faith in either theory, we need to set aside our own ideologies and phylosophies and look at both the evolution theory and then the creation theory.

Two questions.

1. Why would disproving darwin prove creation?

2. When you say both evolution and creation, which creation theory do you mean? Should we look at all of them or only the christian one?

Speedy.


I would be interested in your sources on "proof of design".

Hopefully they won't include the false premise of the misappied law of conservation of information.

Irreducible complexity.

Interesting stuff, so please explain how we go from a zygote to a fetus.

If what you are saying is correct, than it would be impossible for a sperm and an egg to make babies.

How about posting some proof for creation/design instead of trying to disprove evolution.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by eazy_mas
do you want proof that evolotion is wrong

www.jalyat.net...

Its an islamic website talking about the relation ship between islam and science

The orgin of human is from the earth itself and the biggest evidence is that
Earth is the only planet that contain Iron and human contial the same element and compound as the earth

As GOD said he made us from the earth ! Good find ! Interesting too !!

Two questions.

1. Why would disproving darwin prove creation?

2. When you say both evolution and creation, which creation theory do you mean? Should we look at all of them or only the christian one?

Speedy.

Let me clarify- We should look at both. I have found great continuity when looking and accepting both theories. (Evolution in the general term ) NOt Darwins theory.

God created it and then we evolved. I know that's said in very simple lamemans term but ?

This doesn't make you a fundementalist or christain because you belive in a creator. Lets all seperate and not confuse the issue here. Lets look at some more research ? Anyone Game ?

Truth

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
God created it and then we evolved. I know that's said in very simple lamemans term but ?

I do not see how creation can coincide with Evolution. If dinosaurs age can be proven with some other than radiometric dating it will prove they are older than the Earth is supposed to be according to creationists about 6-10,000 years old). Creation (I'm assuming from the Bible) states that man was created first, but this is not supported in any way by Evolution.

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
This doesn't make you a fundementalist or christain because you belive in a creator

I think that there might be a creator, but of the Universe and we have not met it. I think it is very arrogant to assume we are the only ones that were created. I seem to have a need to put a physical context to our creator and therefore I lean towards Alien creators, and that maybe we are all a result of the Big Bang somehow that spread life throughout the Universe. There is so much to know, and we know so little. We are very arrogant and that is why I am Agnostic. To me Evolution is like trusting the intelligence of people of today, while creation was the understanding of people of Biblical times.

I hope you can answer how both evolution and creation could both have happend, and explain it to me.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Here's some evidence that the current "Origin of Man" theory is invalid. Not to say that in any way proves ID or creationism, but certain facets of evolutionary theory and IDT are (sometimes) contradictory to one another and those issues need to be settled.

scientists extracted mtDNA from a Neanderthal infant skeleton found in the northern Caucasus near the Black Sea

The analysis of the infant's DNA was extremely important, since it was dated at 29,000 years ago - only 1000 years before the last Neanderthal disappeared. If Neanderthals and humans had interbred, one should have expected to see this in the last remnants of the Neanderthals. In addition, since the two Neanderthal fossils were separated geographically by over 2,500 km, it shows that Neanderthals were a homogeneous species that was distinct from ancient humans. In fact, the differences in mtDNA sequences compared to modern humans were so great that calculations indicated that the last common ancestor between modern humans and Neanderthal must have been at least 365,000-850,000 years ago.

Igor V. Ovchinnikov, I.V., A. Gotherstrom, G. P. Romanovak, V. M. Kharitonov, K. Liden, and W. Goodwin. 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404: 490-493.

LeftBehind
I would be interested in your sources on "proof of design".

You wanted some proof of design LeftBehind, what do you say to this....Chance? Where's your proof?

Design of small proteins

Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein's native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach. For example, for a typical 100 amino acid protein (moderate to small in size) could exist in any of 3200 possible backbone configurations. Using a super fast computer (1015 computations/sec) it would take 1080 seconds, which exceed the age of the universe by a factor of 60 orders of magnitude! This fact alone may give you a better perspective on the mind of God.

That was using a "moderate to small in size" amino acid protein. We, intelligent beings, cannot reproduce these results with our fastest computers (that have been programmed to solve the problem) in less that 13.7 billion years (approximate age of universe) to the 60th power! Takes alot more faith to believe in chance then an intelligent designer(creator) however "scientifically unprovable" that may or may not be, IMO anyway.

And to your comment on Irreducible Complexity:

LeftBehind
hopefully they won't include the false premise of the misappied law of conservation of information.

Irreducible complexity.

"False Premise"? you act as though it has allready been proven to be false(debunked as it were), that could not be further from the truth. Macroevolution has many "untestable" assumptions yet you seem to accept them on faith, why is that?

Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature. The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics. Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle. In addition, this study demonstrates that the ability of organisms to evolve is limited.

Gunter Wagner. February 20, 1998. EVOLUTION: Complexity Matters Science 279:1158
and David Waxman, Joel R. Peck. February 20, 1998. Pleiotropy and the Preservation of Perfection Science 279: 1210.

LeftBehind
1. Why would disproving darwin prove creation?

It wouldn't. In fact some creationists believe evolution is how GOD created life. The Church is not in the business of teaching scientific theories. I (as a believer) have no issue with being the descendant of a Chimpanzee (or off-shoot there of), it does not offend me. I don't accept naturalism or chance as how life was created and subsequently evolved. And i have issues with microevolution(or natural selection) being used as proof of macroevolution. This is based on biological, fossil, anthropological and a plethora of other evidences. And NOT solely based on my faith/beliefs.

Please remember Intelligent Design Theory is (relatively) new, it is by no means allready proven false or unscientific. Any good theory requires time/understanding new "facts", to develop and grow (exactly the same for Evolutionary Theory).

The biological model for ID will stand or fall on the basis of genetics. There is a certain statistical probability for mutations, which is absolutely known. There are also known genetic sequences that differ from one another. Evolution claims that all life is descended from previous life, and the fossil record gives us the approximate time at which species appeared. Statistical calculations can be made on the basis of divergence. Complete genomic sequences are just beginning to be completed. There will always be some unknowns or uncertainties, so the level of ID will have to be pretty good to be accepted by the general scientific community.

Source for all quoted material: www.godandscience.org...

General rebuttal to Theory of Evolution: www.godandscience.org...












[edit on 7-6-2005 by Rren]

YOu people still dont get me
Read the lacerta files
www.sabon.org...
A thread trying to proove the largest cover up in history concerning dinos
www.abovetopsecret.com...
A thread trying to say that the lacerta files are true
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have voted Rren for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Well research, broad-based bibliography. Reasonable, educated and logic approach.

Rren my questions were not posed to you, but the poster saying that it would.

I was saying that applying the law of conservation of information to evolution i.e. Dembski is a false premise, not irreducable complexity.


However more on irreducable complexity.

Do you think it possible for a a computer with several times the power of a human brain to become sentient?

Wouldn't that be evolving despite irreducable complexity.

Also my quote was taken out of context.

If irreducable complexity applies to biology, please explain how a sperm and an egg make a human being.


edit:

BTW you are right ID is new and unproven, which is why they shouldn't teach it in school alongside evolution, until they have a body of evidence that supports it.

Evolution has evidence that doesn't fit, but it has vastly more that does, which is why it is the best theory we have right now. I see ID as something that should be personal belief like religion and not taught in schools.

I'm still waiting for an origin theory that has MORE evidence than evolution.




[edit on 8-6-2005 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Do you think it possible for a a computer with several times the power of a human brain to become sentient?

I honestly don't know the answer(i want to say no, but i can't). After all what is sentient and what is not, how does it occur, what would define it?

Wouldn't that be evolving despite irreducable complexity.

Is a computer not irreducibly complex? I can't just pull my computer apart and expect its' component parts to still function properly or even have any useful function at all. And of course we can agree a computer is intelligently designed.

If irreducable complexity applies to biology, please explain how a sperm and an egg make a human being.

I don't think i quite follow you here, can you please elaborate?

BTW you are right ID is new and unproven, which is why they shouldn't teach it in school alongside evolution, until they have a body of evidence that supports it.

You may be surprised to know that i agree with you here 100%. My only problem is when teacher's refuse to even discuss the theory with their students(which i doubt is a big problem really anyway). IOW i don't support what is going on in Kansas right now.

Evolution has evidence that doesn't fit, but it has vastly more that does, which is why it is the best theory we have right now. I see ID as something that should be personal belief like religion and not taught in schools.

I wouldn't label ID as unworthy for discussion/teaching in public schools(K-12), after all any in depth study of these things is going to take place at the university level. Why not tell the kids what it is, what it's proponets say and what opponents say, i honestly don't see the big deal here and IMO both sides are making too much out of this.

I'm still waiting for an origin theory that has MORE evidence than evolution.

Fair enough, and i can respect that.

With that being said, i think, you should appreciate the fact that other theories are being developed and studied. I seriously doubt we know the origins "family tree" as a scientific fact, way too many holes IMO. ID may be real and at the same time completely untestable, therefore making it virtually useless in science, but we don't know that yet. And remember IDT does NOT disprove evolution. In fact for all we know the design ended at the "abiogenesis event" and evolution theory (whole as we "know it" today) is just a designed mechanism and not just a "happy accident". It's too early IMO, and time will tell.

Irreducible complexity, in the context used in a previous post, was used to say that irreducibly complex things cannot come together from less complex things.

That's what I got out of it.

Basically they were saying that microorganisms could never make complex things because of irreducable complexity, thus disproving evolution.

If this were true, than using regular computers to make a mind that has irreducable complexity would be impossible.

If this was true in biology, then an egg and a sperm, two small uncomplicated parts, could never make a human being, an irreduciblly complex system.

I was refuting the way irreducible complexity was used.

I can actually think of several things, far less ancient than fossils dug out of the ground to point to for proof.

The first is the Average height. Abraham Lincoln is always described and portrayed as very tall. Towering above everyone else of his time. Even without the silly hat. However, he was 6'4". That was truely huge at the time. If you go to museums and look at the beds and such from the colonial period, they are extremely short. The average 20th century person would have their feet hanging over the end. This was because the average height was much smaller than today. As a species we have gotten taller.

The second, in the last few generations, more and more children are being born without wisdom teeth and even the appendix. I myself was born without my wisdom teeth, however no one else in my family was. I remember both my parents having theirs removed. All my aunts, grandparents, etc had theirs. Where did that come from, and why are so many cases of this just now starting to show up? They are useless human body parts that time just seems to be doing away with.

Third, (okay, this isn't really a recent thing) though I am not now a Christian, I used to be a born again, and I know the Bible better than most Christians I know. We are all decendents of Adam and Eve (even though they mention the "other people" not of Eden) simply because Noah was a direct decendant of Adam and Eve. With the flood, only Noah and his family were allowed to live. Hence, we are all direct decendents of Adam and Eve (biblically speaking). In that case, without evolution, how does one explain the immensely different skin tones and body types of the world, from the African black tone, European white tones, and all the skin tones in between.

[edit on 9-6-2005 by Ariande Tau]

Oh goodness. Don't even get me started on evolution. You know, this is how dumb the theroy sounds: A long, long, time ago...There was nothing. Nothing, then attracted a whole bunch of dirt and matter from nowhere, which blew up and distributed bits everywhere to create our solar system. (Uh ooook where did the dirt come from then?) Anyways, the matter did this and that, and pretty soon there was a whole bunch of soup on earth. Then the soup came alive which soon evolved into life.

There's lots of other details, but yeah. Ok, I have a few questions for this Darwin guy. First of all, how did nothing come out of nothing? Explain that garbage to me and I'll give yah a million bucks. Secondly, if you think that carbon dating explains this crap because you think you can tell me how old a rock is in the dirt, think again! Carbon dating DOES NOT WORK! They tested it on a snail one time, and its shell dated to be over ten thousand years old! Plus, they tried it on a mamoth, which resulted in one limb being 100,000 years old and its whole body like, 7,000 years old. But yet, they still want to believe their "carbon dating" works.

Ugh! I'll tell you all why the government wants people to believe this. Because they're trying to prove there is no God, which gives them more controll, bringing them closer to a new world order. Not a good thing!

You really want to know what the Evolution theroy sounds like: Long ago, and far away... Hmm sounds a little like a fairy tale to me, don't you think?

You know, this is how dumb the theroy sounds: A long, long, time ago...There was nothing. Nothing, then attracted a whole bunch of dirt and matter from nowhere, which blew up and distributed bits everywhere to create our solar system. (Uh ooook where did the dirt come from then?) Anyways, the matter did this and that, and pretty soon there was a whole bunch of soup on earth. Then the soup came alive which soon evolved into life.

Before saying a theory is dumb you should understand it first,it's visibly not the case:

Origins of life

The formation of the solar system

Secondly, if you think that carbon dating explains this crap because you think you can tell me how old a rock is in the dirt, think again! Carbon dating DOES NOT WORK! They tested it on a snail one time, and its shell dated to be over ten thousand years old! Plus, they tried it on a mamoth, which resulted in one limb being 100,000 years old and its whole body like, 7,000 years old. But yet, they still want to believe their "carbon dating" works.

There are other dating methods than carbon dating...

Ugh! I'll tell you all why the government wants people to believe this. Because they're trying to prove there is no God, which gives them more controll, bringing them closer to a new world order. Not a good thing!

Paranoia...No seriously there is no God, and science is the only truth.

You really want to know what the Evolution theroy sounds like: Long ago, and far away... Hmm sounds a little like a fairy tale to me, don't you think?

The only fairy tale here is religion,at least there is evidence to support scientific theories whereas there is none to support religion.