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

Creationism is a crutch for small minded spiritual people who think their faith can't stand the onslaught of the idea that we evolved over time rather than the notion that God created humans from nothing in one day. Who can deny the existance of full sceletal ramains of a T-Rex and thousands of other dinos? You can make an argument that carbon dating isn't exact, but that isn't how most of these finds were dated. Many of the timelines were established very accurately by verifying the sediment layer the fossilized bones were found. You can't argue that these creatures were alive in the last 6000 years because there would be other records of their existence. So they are much older, millions of years older. The original argument (post) was completely lacking in logic, which is a symption of "I don't want to believe" syndrom. Carbon dating is not as accurate for recent history <50k years or something like that, but is more accurate for older materials.

You can't argue the genetic evidence isn't completely supportive of evolution. It is clearly evident that (as other posters have mentioned) we share significant DNA code with all other life on the planet, even Trees! This clearly supports the idea that we share common ancestors and are the product of divergence at some point in the evolutionary timeline.

I have really no belief one way or another as to how we arrived here. Creationism just doesn`t do it for me. But, also evolution is missing more than a few pieces as well. I always have wondered this. Ok, we evolved from apes and went through a few different transitions into modern man. Now, why did apes stay apes and yet, why are there no people stuck at different evolutionary stages like the apes are stuck there? Did they all die out? Did they ALL evolve and just leave the apes behind. I think when talking about evolution, there would be a few that are at different evolutionary paths adn we would see some apes possessing more of the early human qualities. hmmm. There is nothing in between man and the apes. That is a big flaw in the evolution theory for me.

Of all the evolution threads so far, I found this to be the most powerful on both sides:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Check it out!

God Bless.

A very reasonable question. in fact, there is no reason in general for why there is one species of man running around today. Other groups of animals have 'primitive' and 'advanced' representatives coexisting. However, i would caution that man, as an ape, does co exist iwht other more primitve apes, and more primitive primates and more primitive mammals for that matter.

However, at one time, there were multiple different species and even genus' of man coexisting. Even outside of the recent discovery of Homo florensis in indonesia, sapiens and neandertal coexisted and probably for a time co-existed with erectus. even further back there were radically different types of australpithecines (robustus, boisiei and others) sharing the same overall environment with things like habilis and at for a time Kenyathropus platyops. Infact there are lots of other species of Homo that are recognized, and presumably there might've been others co-existing in more primitive times. If you think about it too, if Pan, the chimp, was extinct now, one would probably group it with the early and primitive man 'kind'.

There is nothing in between man and the apes.

Keep in mind that there isn't much difference between modern man and apes in the first place.
www.talkorigins.org...
is a good place to get an overview of human fossil evolution especially in teh context of the creationism/evolution controversy. I think that the australpithecines are excellent candidates for one of the 'links' between modern man and the modern apes.

I have an old saying that might interest everyone:

given enough time, would a pocket watch naturally form in a desert

The pocket watch represents life, and the desert represent earth

The odds for the starting of life are amazing, proberly somewhere near infinite to one, but life did occur and my favourite is the evolution theory

What does that matter? Pocket watches are not subject to evolution. They don't reproduce, pass on traits, or do of the things that biological organisms do.

So basically this is an arguement against abiogenesis, not evolution proper?


It might actually not be so improbable. It seems to have started almost immediately once conditions on the planet became at all hospitable.

There is definetely proof of evolution otherwise there would not be a theory. However evolution is full of glaring holes that would kill most scientific theories but evolution continues to live and scientists make things "fit" into it because evolution is the backbone of biology. I am not going to go into long drawn out responces unless I must but if you want to review my previous arguments please take a look.

Mutations cannot be the mechanism of Evolution.
What they won't say about Evolution.

So I have rather simple question to ask the group, and all humans that 'know' how life started.

Who actually saw with their own two eyes what happend? Who was around 2 millions of years ago!?! Who experienced the big bang?

Well, until anyone can answer 'yes' to any one of these questions, the stoy of evolution is nothing more than that. A nice mythical story.

(We would also need at least need 5 eye witness accounts with the same story for it to be even a little bit believable!)

I dont really like beliveing in the scientifically impossible, which evolution is.
in evolution, everything left at its natural state will go from chaos to order.
in the second law of thermo dynamics, everything left at its natural state will go from order to chaos.

in nursery school we were taught that the story of the toad turning into a prince was false

in high school we were taught the story was actually true.
"see that building over there" it was built by a creator.

we would only assume the world was made by a creator, but we can somehow come up with reason to belive it was all chance, the scientifically impossible became possible, the chances are slim to none and most likely couldnt happen. but hey, some people like beliveing the unbeliveable. lot of faith, not enough fossils.
ive heard of two white people's baby bein black, cause they obviously have black people genes in them, so theirs a VERY VERY small chance two whites can produce a black.
so wouldnt there also be a VERY VERY small chance of 2 humans poppin out a less than human type monkey dude since we supposively came from them?

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Slicky1313]

Just to clarify then, you beleive in creationism since we can all see the scientific basis of that, correct?

Some says I belive in God and i ask why? they say I have faith .I ask what ? They say I beleve because I belive.
I say I have lots of evadence that all life evolved . They say its not enough .I go out and get MORE and they say its not enough.
they expect me to belive in god because they belive . and if I ask for proff they say no way you must have faith >belive because you belive .
well talk about the blind leading the blind . You belive what you want Ill STUDY and find real answers to my questions . Even God .
Tomas once said I dont belive its you God prove it. and it wasent enough so tomas said again I Still dont belive its you God and God showed him once again .And still it wasent enough so Tomas asked God a third time to prove he was GOD. and he did alest to tomas.
Its your book this came out of . so ill PROVE my science and you PROVE your God.

Whats the point of this arguement?

Those that believe in creationalism are just refusing to accept any evidence put them.

It's the Christian way. If you find somebody who doesn't believe the same way you do, just pound them with senseless rhetoric until they are so sick of you they will agree with anything you say just to get them to go away.

I wouldnt say that. I would say that nobody should accept that evolution is a fact when it clearly is not. I do not know why this is so hard for some people to swallow.

it is so hard for peopel to swallow that its not a fact because they dont want to suck up to da facts that there may be a God, cause as long as evolution isnt a fact, God is still an option. and as long as God isnt a fact, evo is still an option, and evolution can never be fact, God can be if God exist, by simply showing himself

"Creationism is a crutch for small minded spiritual people"
I disagree, I no quite a few creationist who arent religious at all.
you dont need any form of religion to belive in God. its WHOS God to belive in u need religion, in most cases

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Slicky1313]

What if neither can be proven?

Ok, so there are holes in the THEORY of evolution. What scientific alternatives can you offer? Evolution is just a theory, a possibility based on scientific evidence. Is it a perfect answer? Probably not, which is why it is alway evolving, as most theories will as new discoveries are made. Is it the most scientific answer that we have right now? I'd have to give it a yes on that one....

ehhh, I dont really no if its the most scientific theory or not, and yes, there are MANY holes in it, that arent very easily explained. I once read a saying by somone about religious scientist beliving in the Bible,or their religions, and they stated that even if they ran up against scientific evidence that strongly supported that a part of their religion was false, they would discard it immediately and not change it.

the same is true to evolution. we dont really have much to go on for answers of an ape like creature evolving to man. where are the trillions of fossils without having to be molded and filled in, where is the in between living, do the genetics connect, are the fossils there, considering it would take MANY MANY monkey men to turn to men. what if the evidence did support man didnt evolve from a monkey like animal, that would contradict their whole theory, leaving the whole thing under fire. so is not the same for evolutionist scientist also, and cratonist scientist dont nescesarily have a religion.

Ok, let me put this to you.

Evolution attempts to address 'what' happened, not what will happen. A christian can argue that the Bible does both.

If there are only 2 alternatives one could argue that creation (the bible) has equal weight as it is an evolving theories as well. Why?

One could argue that prophecies that the Bible talks about have in the past been fulfilled and there are more that are waiting to be fulfilled. So where would you stand if Biblical prophecies were fulfilled ? Would you still believe in evolution because you could not accept the Bibles take on things? Would you still admit there is no God?

creationismt doesnt concern the Bible. your mixed up there, son.

yes, it is true, that a good majority of creationist, that would referr to a religious text such as the Bible.

But creationist dont all have religions or follow a certain God, some of them, a good many, just belive God made earth and make no assumptions, that it wasnt evolved, and dont belive in religious text