Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Heehaw


Thank you for that. It's much appreciated. Your response has given me quite a bit of things to look into. Now for the matter at hand. I do not beleive in the bible or I should say the God of the bible. I believe it's a good story with great intrigue, deceit, murder, love, science fiction....LIke I have said before, It's the greatest story ever told. Now as for the soul, I believe the soul is the energy which our bodies are infused. Our raison d'etre. Our battery if you will. As you well know, energy is eternal. It cannot be destroyes only transformed. So when we die this energy has to go somewhere. I don't believe in heaven/hell thus that energy returns to the atmosphere to be shared and redistributed with saplings, pups, chicks, all new life on this planet.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
The thread title is a little misleading on the face of it but if you read the OP it's obvious what he meant in context. This is a challenge to IDers to prove their case rather than simply punching holes in evolution. Because, ever if evolution is false, that does not mean ID is true.

However, as expected, IDers STILL try to attack evolution. Evolution can cite evidence in its favour that makes no mention of creationism, so, why does every piece of creationist "evidence" start with "well, evolution can't account for...".

Duhhh!!

Can you cite your 'conclusive' evidence in favour of evolution.

In response to the occassional wave of thread jumpers. So far from this thread I see:

Some Evolutionist are closed minded but on the whole most are not.

Suprisingly the same can be said for creationists.

Arguments and not discussion are caused by posters not reading the thread in any other way than a glance at the title and replying to what they think is being discussed. Highlighted by responding to me as if I were a creationist when I am clearly not.

Too many English teachers.

If someone tries to break the cycle of attack evolution/ response/ attack belief, some get very uncomfortable.

Many on ATS only want to argue and point score which is very different from discussion.

reply to post by vedatruth


Here, this will get you started. This should be ample enough evidence/reading for you:

Evolution

Timeline of Evolution

Observed instances of speciation (i.e. evolution)

Some more observed instances of speciation

I should probably add that, although wikipedia is not always reliable, the evolution article is semi-protected, meaning that unregistered users cannot edit it. It also has more than enough sources to back up the claims which you can find by either scrolling to the bottom or clicking directly on the numbers in square brackets, i.e. [1]

Originally posted by vedatruth

Originally posted by humphreysjim
The thread title is a little misleading on the face of it but if you read the OP it's obvious what he meant in context. This is a challenge to IDers to prove their case rather than simply punching holes in evolution. Because, ever if evolution is false, that does not mean ID is true.

However, as expected, IDers STILL try to attack evolution. Evolution can cite evidence in its favour that makes no mention of creationism, so, why does every piece of creationist "evidence" start with "well, evolution can't account for...".

Duhhh!!

Can you cite your 'conclusive' evidence in favour of evolution.

Depends what you mean by "conclusive". I can cite a wealth of evidence that strongly indicates evolution occurred, that would make coming to any other conclusion "unreasonable", due to the law of parsimony.

...but this is not the thread for that. In this thread, the stage is give to the creationists, yes?

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Also, if redshift equals distance and/or speed of retreat from the observer, well, everything we look at has redshift. IN other words, it is all going AWAY from us in every direction. This would indicate that THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. So we just happen to be in the exact position where the 'big bang' took place? Come on. That is so weak.

That's not true. Some galaxies are moving towards us.It's called the blueshift.

the only other thing they can say is god.

not sure anyone will ever really figure this out unless some ETs could come and show us the evidence from their archives or something,

Why do people have such a hard time accepting evolution? In what way does evolution disprove their God? In no way. I personally think there is a God, i have experienced him. But that doesn't lead me into an alley of ignorance. IMO i think evolution is a whole lot more beautiful than just some bearded man in the sky snapping his fingers and poof, fully developed humans. I've never seen God do something magical, nor have i seen God. But i have witnessed his providence over my life. Guiding me closer to him. I think this is what should be applied to evolution. God grew us from the dirt up, and he was there every step of the way.

im pro science which i believe proves intelligent design is a fact far more than any religous stories ive ever heard. when you get a tooth ache do you see a dentist(pro science) or a preist?

two ways for religous people to shoot down the theory of evolution...

1. cause god made it that way (how to answer all science points),the dinasaur bones carbon dating are all creations by god possibly to test our faith, we dont really know why.

2. we are all just brains in vats(for lack of a better term) there is no actual physical world there are no facts just temporary rules/conditions. you mean like the matrix movie? similar but that could be the third argument, just without the whole ai/machine war. we dont know how the creator of the universe creates these illusions we are simply being tested/molded/ here.

anyway the argument is nonsensical when were all pushing a belief noone knows one way or the other and none of us can even remmotely compute the odds of which theory is most correct.

p.s. you cant prove/disprove religious theories with science not when your talking about a being/beings capable of creating a universe nor can you disprove science theories with religious theories though the debates are alot of fun.

Black and White ONLY people!

There's nothing Gray to see here. All you Gray-Gazers move along. You're either with us or against us.

The lines have been clearly drawn. There's Creationism or Evolution. Take your pick, because there's no room for a 3rd or 4th choice.

You can't say that God created the Universe and then created Life that perpetuates and evolves on it's own. That's NOT possible. We won't even entertain the idea! So, be gone!

I'm just going to give a guess, but I would assume it is because human aliens came to Earth millions of years ago, and they settled here taking with them a bunch of species, sort of like Noah's Ark. But over the millions of years this knowledge was lost, so we have to put together the pieces from there.

Kind of like at the end of Battlestar Galactica, when the 12 colonies finally land on Earth, they colonize it and start over.

It would also make sense that they destroyed all their technology because they were just in a war with robot/machines, and they know that technology leads to destruction, but little do they know that even with destroying the technology the way the future goes, it will come back and the cycle will repeat. Only we will destroy planet Earth which is one of the best planets in the Universe, and it will be a long road ahead to look for a new one.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

Your assumptions are based on the implications of evolution. Consciousness is pre-existent. All that we are arises form consciousness. Science proves this more and more each day. In the Bible, God calls unbelief blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is consciousness. In other words, blasphemy is saying that matter was first. Idol worship is representing God as matter and not the other way around. The true idol is self making pride the same as saying God does not exist. Evolution always includes bias against a creator. You will never find one apart from the other. Creationism presupposes consciousness as predating matter. Science proves consciousness comes first.

edit on 21-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

i don't think you really understand what i was saying, but ok.

look up the double slit experiment. if human consiousness is a fluke, why do the laws of the universe change when we observe things?

my point was that the laws of the universe seem written around humans, and other sentient beings. that wouldn't be the case if we're just a fluke like evolution claims.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

look up the double slit experiment. if human consiousness is a fluke, why do the laws of the universe change when we observe things?

my point was that the laws of the universe seem written around humans, and other sentient beings. that wouldn't be the case if we're just a fluke like evolution claims.

Decoherence does not require consciousness, that is a common misconception. Any interaction, even by a measuring tool, can cause a collapse of the wave function. Sentience has nothing to do with it.

If evolution is correct then why are there still apes? And why has man not continued to evolve?

This is one of those subjects where I am open for all kind of theories since we basically can't 100% prove anything yet. I'm still favoring the evolution theory since it's most logical theory, but it wouldn't surprised me if some more advanced species or a godlike being created us.

reply to post by CharlesBronson


Maybe we evolved from just one species of apes... who knows.

Originally posted by CharlesBronson
If evolution is correct then why are there still apes? And why has man not continued to evolve?

Firs, we both evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

Secondly, why wouldn't there still be apes, anyway? The fact you asked that question tells me you don't understand evolutionary theory. You seem to imagine that every single member of a species would spontaneously mutate in exactly the same way at exactly the same time!?

As long as a new species does not prevent the old species from surviving, it will continue to exist, and reproduce.

Also, man HAS continued to evolve.

I find it a little suspect that after reading Darwin’s “Origin of species” that Darwin himself saw this only as a theory and it was his cronies that took it as truth, and later on we are spoon fed this in school as a “Theory” but it is presented as fact. HMMMMMMMM

Originally posted by CharlesBronson
I find it a little suspect that after reading Darwin’s “Origin of species” that Darwin himself saw this only as a theory and it was his cronies that took it as truth, and later on we are spoon fed this in school as a “Theory” but it is presented as fact. HMMMMMMMM

Man, all the common misconceptions are coming out to play right now!

"Theory" does not imply "lack of certainty". Gravity is a "theory", but you don't imagine you can jump out of a window unaided and fail to fall towards the ground, do you?

The term "theory" in this context means:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Evolution is a fact and a theory.

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by vedatruth

 

Here, this will get you started. This should be ample enough evidence/reading for you:

Evolution

Timeline of Evolution

Observed instances of speciation (i.e. evolution)

Some more observed instances of speciation

I should probably add that, although wikipedia is not always reliable, the evolution article is semi-protected, meaning that unregistered users cannot edit it. It also has more than enough sources to back up the claims which you can find by either scrolling to the bottom or clicking directly on the numbers in square brackets, i.e. [1]

edit on 22/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

Thanks for sharing this information.
Darwin's theory is taught in schools and I am familiar with it.
Your links provide a fairly detailed view perhaps incorporating recent advances.

We are discussing a very difficult topic, so dis-agreements are natural.

Man has tried to make sense of the natural world for a long time. Of course religion does not and cannot explain every onservation that a scientist makes.

I request you to quote 2-3 points which you feel are very strong in favour of evolution, since your linked information is very large, and possibly cannot be exhaustively argued here in this thread.