Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by topherman420

The basic fact is this: Creation does not equal evolution. Evolution does not explain origins of first life nor the origins of the universe. Evolution only deals with observable facts which support the theory that life forms can adapt and change over time its not trying to be anything more or less, yet creationists make it more then that then attack it for not being complete. Eventually when more gaps are filled in, and more data collected, we may finally start to answer origins of the first life and the universe but its a long long way off if ever achievable. Would it be satisfactory for a creationist to believe that a creator started life (in any form) and the petri dish called earth developed and evolution was just a by product of his/her/it's experiment? Will it damage their faith for believing in a creator and evolution?

yes sir it will. the bible states "God created man in its image (more specifically the trinity's image)". not monkey man. when you devalue God like that (by our rules) its not worshiping God. its worshiping science for the explanation of our being here. It puts us on an animal level even though we are clearly a whole different thing to the average educated person. some kid said before that "if a dog tried to be human it wouldn't work". no s%$@ Sherlock.. same goes for every sing animal out there. this is the huge hole i find in the evolution of ape to man hypothesis (yes hypothesis). i call it that because there is no proof that this ever occurred. if it was a court case on murder (pretend muder is the explanation of man) you just wouldn't be bringing enough evidence to the table to back your theory. but you'd be frantically grabbing at straws of other murders that are similar in comparison but do not directly relate to the point your proving your case. this is how i hear evolution explaining the idea of "man from ape" you show us other examples of similar things in nature, other cases of micro evolution causing diversity. but you just cant seem to see what wee see which is, there is just no hard proof. If you can find the lost generation of half man half monkey people that you evolutionists believe was there at one point, you might have a little ground to stand on. but in my eyes you people make an awfully huge leap of faith based on little scientific evidence,as much as we do if not more. you can look at apes on a nat geo channel and be like "there's one of my brothers" because you want to believe in your explanation so strongly but the cognitive dissonance in your head wont allow you to see your idea for what it is, ridiculous... at least we address the beginning stages. take eggs for instance. you jump right to telling everyone how an egg came to be and making observations on the science of how eggs are formed while were over here thinking "well about how did the very first chicken get here. would there of needed to of been two chickens to make more eggs at first? why does it lay eggs that are protected like that and also set up as an easy food source as well? then when asked those questions your like "that craps irrelevant"!" the egg mad its way to be like this through an arduous selection processes through nature" ur focusing on the what we have on hand and only what you know based on.. how old are you guys? 20? 30? years of learning about the science of nature? meanwhile, earth has been around for years and years and you which makes you and any opinion so insignificant its not even funny. just tell me though, after all this time why does man have this thought hardwired into our brains of questioning our purpose, and how we got here? i can tell you right now animals do not give a "fu%$" about god, nor critically think about how they arrived there. we are THE ONLY species to do that. (before you try to defend that with i cant read an animals mind, how do you know they dont?" than id ask you when you "whens the last time you saw animals all meeting together for church?" ..man has always wondered about its true origins and there's evidence of that alllllll around the world. as far as im concerned u can chalk evolution up as another slot in the religion wheel. cause its just another belief. everything works so insanely perfectly for something just slapped together from some accident out of slime. you have to almost be blind to not see that. if you think winning the lotto looks impossible you should see the percent chance of life like this just "happening"

reply to post by RebelRouser


You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason and drawing lines here, there and everywhere and saying "do not cross". Also from reading your posts your thoughts are all over the place and not very consistent,trait I see often in "god shaped everything we see" supporters (no not creationism since evolution doesn't explain the origins of all life and therefore shouldn't be compared to creationism). Attacking every poster also rings true of the stereotyped "god shaped everything we see" supporter.

I as a "evolution is very plausible and heavily supported" crowd can still agree to disagree and make a concession that there is nothing to disprove a god started our universe and things in motion and to prove otherwise is folly. Why can't a "god shaped everything we see" supporter make some concessions as well and maybe think that god would allow us the knowledge to view his masterpiece and decipher its long and intricate legacy.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.- Romans 1:25

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God'” Psalm 14:1

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

check this out

this is why i will never change my views. this person explains it pretty perfectly

Originally posted by colin42
This force could be thought of as the sun, the centre of everything. This force has consciousness and its is this that ‘emanates’ all the life we see. A little like the sun emanates light and heat.

That is the same analogy the Greek philosophers use, the sun emanates its rays of light outwards, and subsequently beings take in this light or use this light in some manner to hunt for food and so this light gives them life INDIRECTLY as opposed to a God directly creating things with like a paintbrush.

i got a huge chip btw. I

Originally posted by iterationzero
Can you be a little more explicit in the intermediate steps that take us from “everything emanates from something else” to the variation of life forms?

Everything emanates from its immediate prior, such as a plant emanates from its seed, but the universe itself emanates from one source, and since that source has not emanated from anything, it is the uncaused force, similar to God being the Creator and so not Created, but different in that God creates things instantaneously, like a painter, whereas emanation is a series of indirect causes, in that the sun emanates its rays to create the ecosystem on earth, and that ecosystem in turn creates plants, and those plants in turn give food to insects and food for other animals, etc. The main point here is that a God did not create plants one day, man the next, insects another day like the Old Testament says, but rather all things are created indirectly from the one main source The One, kind of like the Sun gives life to all things, but this principle is the principle of the entire universe and not just the world. So it goes The One, which emanates the nature principle, and the nature principle then gives rise to all things in nature. The main difference between emantionism and evolution is that there is a definite eternal One that is the hub of the entire wheel of life. The difference between emantionism and creationism is there is no God directly creating things in life, but rather a divine principle which indirectly creates all things based upon a series of hierarchial steps, i.e. One, Nature, world, human, society, ideas, etc. in the process of 0,1,1,2,3,5,8... in that each thing is a combination of its prior (just as the golden ratio is the sum of its two prior digits). And so everything has a dependent origination, all things emanated from its prior parent, and in turn it will emanate another being, from Spirit down to spiritless matter. Matter can not emanate any further but can simply reveal its attribute as what it is, i.e. its color, shape, or density, that is all matter can do, as it can not re-create life or reproduce without some type of conscious life force. Matter in this definition is simply the base of all things, not even a color or measurement, but rather the final emanation of life.

reply to post by RebelRouser

So you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

reply to post by RebelRouser

Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists.

Further proving that you know little to nothing about the claims of evolution or the evidence for it. Not that I expect you to actually click that link and read anything, but I have to at least make the effort in good faith.

reply to post by filosophia

What you're describing sounds like common ancestry with a little bit of woo thrown in at the beginning to satisfy some need for a theistic influence. Maybe I'm just not understanding how emanationism speaks to the specifics of biodiversity and is therefore an alternative to evolution and creationism. It seems more like emanationsism is more of an overarching, hand-waving kind of philosophical generalization that things then have to be shoehorned into. Can you tell me what features of biodiversity emanationism predicts that are observable and testable and are also distinct from evolution or creationism?

reply to post by RebelRouser

Yes, and arguments from incredulity seem to be your favorite kind.

Originally posted by micmerci
I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?

And even much Higher if they had been around for 6,000 years too.

Originally posted by Sinny
Well the facts are that we humans share much of the same DNA with apes.

However, some of our DNA is untraceable, and there is the tiny little matter of that missing link still.

I vote aliens meddled with the genetics on this planet.

ALL DNA is essentially the same it is the linking and mutations that make the differences. But DNA is for procreation Where did the DNA come from?

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by colin42

 

OK let me rephrase- math supports the young earth theory in terms of reproduction leading to a world population of 7 billion present day.

Better do your math again if there were no flood as the Bible teaches and people lived longer and procreated longer and had sons and daughters every nine months it would be in the range of 64 billion. But if you start at 4,000 years with three men and wives Shem lived the longest of Noah's three sons (600 years), plus degrading length of age to a maximum of 120 years minimum average if 70 years with a 30 year reproductive ability for males, then plus or minus for plagues and wars 7 billion would fit more accurately.

reply to post by colin42


You can't prove a negative.

Stop asking.

en.wikipedia.org...

pretty much the fail safe argument of an evolutionist is (because we have seen species change through micro evolution,)

we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment.

I have to accept that we somehow came from monkeys... u fail to see that

While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. , and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record.

well thats just a snazzy sounding excuse for "we cant find them" after you pull your head out of your ass that is... u do realize there's about 7 billion people here right? id like to think that whatever transitional period of man u think made us would still be out there, somewhere. esp because the scientist claim to know exactly how man evolved from monkey. Ok... go to that spots that u think it might of happened in and find em. if they claim they know they type of area it would have happened in and why. whats so hard about finding this? wheres the remains of the (beginning of man stage) with their towns and other missing link brother's and sister's"? we have found dinosaurs, ancient civilizations, sabertooth bones, etc... but we just cant find these key fossils that you base your entire theory on.

Scientists have studied the supposed "flaws" that anti-evolution groups claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These "flaws" are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of the evidence. As scientists gather new evidence and as new perspectives emerge, evolutionary theory continues to be refined, but that doesn't mean that the theory is flawed. Science is a competitive endeavor, and scientists would be eager to study and correct "flaws" in evolutionary theory if they existed

this is a load of crap too^, just because you speak like your smart, does not make what your saying smart. this is the same s$&* i keep hearing, no valid reasons why those flaws are flaws. in fact its just me "misunderstanding". what am i misunderstanding? that you cant explain how the evolution process got its start? you keep missing the biggest detail of all. evolution is such a dumb theory a child's mindset can beat it. here it is... "if we came from monkeys, what put the monkeys here". now take your answer and fill it in here ->(so if they came from ________ then what put the ________ here?) now just repeat that a few times to you figure out your a fool..and that this crazy accident you call life is really a lot more thought out than you think. if i could only have an accidents in life that came out as amazing as evolution id be all set..

reply to post by RebelRouser

I have to accept that we somehow came from monkeys... u fail to see that

You’re the one that dismisses any and all evidence out of hand because of your anti-science bias, so who is failing to see what here? Current observations of evolutionary events at both the subspecies and species levels in other species isn’t the evidence for our evolution -- we have evidence from molecular biology, comparative morphology, and the fossil record.

well thats just a snazzy sounding excuse for "we cant find them" after you pull your head out of your ass that is... u do realize there's about 7 billion people here right? id like to think that whatever transitional period of man u think made us would still be out there, somewhere. esp because the scientist claim to know exactly how man evolved from monkey. Ok... go to that spots that u think it might of happened in and find em. if they claim they know they type of area it would have happened in and why. whats so hard about finding this? wheres the remains of the (beginning of man stage) with their towns and other missing link brother's and sister's"? we have found dinosaurs, ancient civilizations, sabertooth bones, etc... but we just cant find these key fossils that you base your entire theory on.

I posted a link to a list of transitional fossils in an earlier post. Fossils from the human evolutionary series were included in that list. So for you to say that we “cant find these key fossils” is either sheer ignorance or a lie.

this is a load of crap too^, just because you speak like your smart, does not make what your saying smart. this is the same s$&* i keep hearing, no valid reasons why those flaws are flaws. in fact its just me "misunderstanding". what am i misunderstanding? that you cant explain how the evolution process got its start? you keep missing the biggest detail of all. evolution is such a dumb theory a child's mindset can beat it. here it is... "if we came from monkeys, what put the monkeys here". now take your answer and fill it in here ->(so if they came from ________ then what put the ________ here?) now just repeat that a few times to you figure out your a fool..and that this crazy accident you call life is really a lot more thought out than you think. if i could only have an accidents in life that came out as amazing as evolution id be all set…

What are you misunderstanding? Plenty. Here’s the most recent example from one of your posts:

Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists.

Except that it’s both observable and testable. Thus, you don’t understand enough about the claims of evolution or the evidence for it to be arguing against it in an intelligent fashion.

Look, it’s one thing if you want to take the time to understand the theory and the century and a half (plus a little) of evidence that supports and then disagree with it by challenging the science, but you made it clear in one of your first posts in this thread that you have no interest in debating the science of a scientific theory. The motto for this site is “Deny Ignorance”, not “Embrace Ignorance”.

reply to post by filosophia


Ok so would cause and effect go along the lines of emanation?

The source emanates the universe which in turn emanates our solar system, sun and planets and inturn the earth emanates the enviroment where life can thrive. Life, early plants algea form and then change or emanate the oxygen levels that allow other life to thrive.

So if I am correct in my attempt to understand I see little conflict with evolution.

I wait with interest for your reply and also thanks for the heads up on emanation even if I may have not grasped it.

reply to post by RebelRouser

"if we came from monkeys, what put the monkeys here". now take your answer and fill it in here ->(so if they came from ________ then what put the ________ here?) now just repeat that a few times to you figure out your a fool..and that this crazy accident you call life is really a lot more thought out than you think. if i could only have an accidents in life that came out as amazing as evolution id be all set..

Well, we have a pretty good understanding how humans evolved...it took longer than a "few times"

LINK

evolution is such a dumb theory a child's mindset can beat it.

Yet you fail at it

Your theory, "PROVE" it's right.

reply to post by Bullcookies


It has 150 years worth of evidence supporting it. I'd say that's pretty good proof. At this point in the time the null hypothesis would be the diversity of life on Earth was due to evolution. Therefore, it is now up to the detractors to produce an experiment with that supports the alternative hypothesis that evolution is not the cause of the diversity of life on Earth.