Creationism v Evolution

[SparrowHawk]

There is no proof that it is wrong. Kind of hard to find something that does not exist.

I know god does not exist. Prove me wrong. Better yet. Prove that all the other gods are not real and I will believe that yours is real. Let me know when you are done.

All the BS aside. One can not prove 'faith'. If you could it would not be faith but a provable fact. The standards that apply for scientific proof cannot be applied to religious beliefs. So you go ahead and continue to believe in Santa, tooth fairy and god. If it floats your boat it's all good. I'll stick with science, the stuff that brought you airplanes, modern medicine, space travel, electronics just to mention a few.

Science has done so well. Found a so called extinct species, turns out they "misplaced" it over 150 years ago.

Then for shites and giggles we have the science of Global Warming. Roundly debunked by all save A; "Carbon Footprint" Gore which rhymes with whore. The veritable poster child for junk science and hypocrisy all rolled into one Tobacco Heir, Imagine that!

I seem to recall the scientific fear of an Ice Age back in the early 1980's. Hmm, wonder when the scientists pulled their heads out on that one?

Yepper, gotta love science.



So somehow, two nearly naked people corrupted by a talking snake seems even more unbelievable then the failures of science?

 

[delldude]

No proof? Try looking at the fossil evidence. Look at the genetic evidence. There is no faith involved. Its a matter of science.

Still waiting for evidence to support your claim.

We have a DNA genetic tie between man and ape?

I find evolution, much like religion is relevant to a certain point. At some juncture, one has to go ahead with some type of faith in the belief of either one....... :blink:

Neither prove existence beyond the shadow of a doubt.

So now what?

Remove all prehistoric exhibits from tax paid museums because in my opinion, they do not jive with my beliefs?

 

[Ms Tree]

Yes, science does make mistakes, That tends to happen when proof is required to substantiate ones theory. It is very easy to be infallible when no proof is required.

The neat thing about science is it is fluid. It seeks to prove it's self wrong so that it can advance. Mistakes will always happen in science. That is part of the beauty of it. I am pretty sure when you look at science, the accomplishments far out way the failures. Clean water, computers, space travel, medicine, communication, plastics, carbon fiber, lasers, food prep, microwaves, glasses, ... Virtually every man made object had science involved in it is some manner with a possible few exceptions.

When a species has not been seen for 150 years I think it would be a logical conclusion to say the species is extinct. The planet is warming. Why it is happening is being debated. Humans are having an effect. How big that effect is is being debated. Reducing out pollution will help. How much it will help is being debated.

None of this has anything to do with the supposition posed by Xut. There is empirical data that man has evolved. The fossil records are there. Those are real. There are tons of fossil records that show various species evolving. Xut claimed there were distortions to further an agenda of some sort. That implies that 1. there were distortions and 2. that the distortions were intentional. If he has proof I would love to read it.

 

[delldude]

None of this has anything to do with the supposition posed by Xut. There is empirical data that man has evolved. The fossil records are there. Those are real. There are tons of fossil records that show various species evolving. Xut claimed there were distortions to further an agenda of some sort. That implies that 1. there were distortions and 2. that the distortions were intentional. If he has proof I would love to read it.

If man evolved from ape to homo sapiens, then according to your view, there is fossil evidence and above that should be DNA to prove evolution up to and including man, right?

Surely you make a bold assertion you can back it up?

I think I can prove the link......

 

[Ms Tree]

Still waiting for you to look for it yourself.

Personally I believe in Santa Claus!! Prove me wrong?

Here is a pretty good web site that gives the break down of the fossil records and gives an over view of evolution. It's the Smithsonian. This is proof that it is true. Now you show some proof that it is not.

Smithsonian

This is one site of thousands. There are countless papers written ion the topic. There are fossil records, there is DNA evidence. Feel free to ignore what ever you choose but do not be surprised when you are put in the same padded room with the flat earth folks and the people who believed the Earth was the center of the universe and lest we forget, the people who think man walked with dinosaurs. After all, they could not have a creation museum if it were not true right?

 

[delldude]

Here is a pretty good web site that gives the break down of the fossil records and gives an over view of evolution. It's the Smithsonian. This is proof that it is true. Now you show some proof that it is not.

Smithsonian

This is one site of thousands. There are countless papers written ion the topic. There are fossil records, there is DNA evidence. Feel free to ignore what ever you choose but do not be surprised when you are put in the same padded room with the flat earth folks and the people who believed the Earth was the center of the universe and lest we forget, the people who think man walked with dinosaurs. After all, they could not have a creation museum if it were not true right?

You make no mention of human/dinosaur fossil discoveries in Mongolia and the Gobi desert in the early twenties.

 

[Seatacus]

Here is a pretty good web site that gives the break down of the fossil records and gives an over view of evolution. It's the Smithsonian. This is proof that it is true. Now you show some proof that it is not.

Smithsonian

This is one site of thousands. There are countless papers written ion the topic. There are fossil records, there is DNA evidence. Feel free to ignore what ever you choose but do not be surprised when you are put in the same padded room with the flat earth folks and the people who believed the Earth was the center of the universe and lest we forget, the people who think man walked with dinosaurs. After all, they could not have a creation museum if it were not true right?

I think all of the fossils got re-arranged during the "The Flood" so they are not valid for use as proof of evolution.

 

[Ms Tree]

I think all of the fossils got re-arranged during the "The Flood" so they are not valid for use as proof of evolution.

I have a hard time telling if people are joking or not.

Just in case you are not, if fossils were 'mixed' up they would not be found in strata that are clearly defined. The time span were are discussing covers several million years. The fossils that have been found are most in rock strata that could not be disturbed by floods. Massive earth quakes that shifted tectonic plates perhaps. Also, the fossils are coming from various locations and they corroborate each other.

 

[fifidriver]

BTW, if you want proof regarding evolution, look at bacteria. They evolve on at a very quick pace which is why antibiotics must be constantly changed to keep up with the bacteria. I guess if you do not believe in science then looking for info would be a waste of time.

One of the interesting, but little reported issues of bacteria "evolution" is that although most mutations invoke harm or offer no advantage to the organism, certain "point mutations" on the dna strand result in distinct advantage to it. However, the crux of the issue is that although offering a situational advantage, this comes not with a gain in the encoded information, as would likely be thought, but a loss!

 

[fifidriver]

I believe evolution is real and accurate. The accusation was made that historians about evolution were made. The onus is on him to provide some proof. Why I would seek out false arguments is beyond me. That would be like looking for proof that we never landed on the moon or that the world is flat.

Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. There are some missing pieces regarding the exact origins of man but there is no disputing that man has evolved from something else. There is no disputing that animals have and are evolving.

Evolution may be an accepted fact by a large number of people. It is not accepted as fact by many others. Definition of terms appears critical, as the term "evolution" often evokes near hysteria on both sides of the debate. With respect to "macro-evolution" one of the problems with our current theory is that we cannot account for the "build up" of genetic information. Although species change, in observed change, it appears that the genetic information was previously encoded and subsequently accessed, or in certain situations deleted as opposed to a progressive, positive buildup of genetic information.

 

[fifidriver]

I believe evolution is real and accurate. The accusation was made that historians about evolution were made. The onus is on him to provide some proof. Why I would seek out false arguments is beyond me. That would be like looking for proof that we never landed on the moon or that the world is flat.

Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. There are some missing pieces regarding the exact origins of man but there is no disputing that man has evolved from something else. There is no disputing that animals have and are evolving.

To be technically correct, one would have to say that "evolution is an accepted scientific theory".