Evolution evidence: the truth

[AquinasXVI]

The first section of The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton deals with this theory and removes all the hype. Find time to read it and it will sober you up.

in XT.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

rossum:

I see fraud as a deliberate attempt to decieve. You have posted an inaccurate quote from Darwin. Was that fraud? I don’t think so since I strongly suspect that it was a mistake rather than deliberate. Nebraska Man was also a mistake, not a fraud. The person who made the error admitted his mistake when he realised it. Nebraska Man was only around for five years - not long enough to make it into the school curriculum. If you can provide a reference to a school textbook that used Nebraska Man to teach evolution then I will allow you some validity in this point.

Your source is wrong again here. Arthritis does not flatten the skull, lengthen it, increase brain capacity (the average Neanderthal brain was larger than ours), cause brow ridges to grow or change the shape of the nose. Have a look at the Neanderthal skulls in the picture I referenced earlier to see these differences. Neanderthals had different mitochondrial DNA to us, as I showed in the reference I gave in an earlier post. Do you have evidence that arthritis changes mitochondrial DNA? There are many Neanderthal skeletons, some are female and others are children. They are certainly not all old men with arthritis. Neither fraud nor mistake. You really do need to find some better sources.

False. Your mind reading powers have let you down. I have seen a mountain of evidence for evolution and none for special creation. I accept evolution because it has the scientific evidence on its side. I reject special creation because it has no evidence in its favour. As you have shown, all that creationists can do is to try to pick holes in evolution because they have no positive evidence of their own.

Where is your evidence of special creation? According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. I would like to see your evidence of any of these things from early rocks. Such evidence would be a powerful argument for Creationism and against the theory of evolution.

Two points in conclusion:

1 Your creationist sources are not inerrant. I have repeatedly shown that they have errors in them. Please check things first before you post them here. I am sure that you would not want to inadvertently give incorrect information.

2 Please show us some positive evidence for creationism rather than just adopt the negative attitude of trying to pick holes in evolution.

rossum

Common sense proves creation. Evolution supposedly happened randomly and without purpose, yet all of creation can be seen to have design and purpose.

Take the human immune system. Where did it come from? Evolution? That would imply that some distant human ‘link’ had no immune system and needed to evolve one as generations of humans were procreated. How did such a creature survive on earth long enough in this bacteria rich enviroment so that it could reproduce so evolution could happen? How about reproduction? Darwin’s theory states that men are more evolved than women. How are men and women compatable for reproduction, if Darwin evolution is right? We know that a watch had a maker because each part of that watch has a function and purpose in mind. You did not address the rest of the quotes I posted.

Who said anything about arthritus altering DNA? Certainly not me. Birth defects in old bones don’t prove evolution. As for mind reading powers, I never claimed to have any. Sir Arthur Keith, as I stated, made a statement that is pretty revealing as to why evolutionists’ are so quick to accept the theory.

Nebraska man is still included in the evolutionary chart. In spite of the mistake, many still use it as proof of evolution.

How exactly would I be looking for in rocks to prove that creationism is true? A signed statement from God?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

rossum:

In a scientific argument it is best to stick to the facts.

rossum

Ok. How’s this for a fact:

Evolution is only a theory, hence the title ‘the theory of evolution’. It’s regarded as a theory because it’s not scientifically proven.

The fact remains that no scientist can explain how the complex lifeforms we have on earth got here by accident. A random sequence of events would not lead to order and design in nature.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris LaRock:

Common sense proves creation. Evolution supposedly happened randomly and without purpose, yet all of creation can be seen to have design and purpose.

How can selection be read as random?

Darwin’s theory states that men are more evolved than women.

Oh really!! Citation please.

We know that a watch had a maker because each part of that watch has a function and purpose in mind.

That watch did not evolve. Next specious argument.

Who said anything about arthritus altering DNA? Certainly not me. Birth defects in old bones don’t prove evolution.

That wasn’t even a very good dodge. Try answering the question.

Nebraska man is still included in the evolutionary chart. In spite of the mistake, many still use it as proof of evolution.

THE evolutionary chart? Please cite one current science book that uses Nebraska man as evidence for evolution? Name of book, author, date.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Orogeny:

How can selection be read as random?
Oh really!! Citation please.
That watch did not evolve. Next specious argument.
That wasn’t even a very good dodge. Try answering the question.
THE evolutionary chart? Please cite one current science book that uses Nebraska man as evidence for evolution? Name of book, author, date.

Peace

Tim

So, you are saying there was intelligent design? If not, it would have to be random. Since it would require an intelligent mind to put order into creation. Saying it wasn’t random would have to mean there is purpose to the design.

You can look at a watch and determine it didn’t get there by accident, since each part is there to serve a purpose. The same can be observed in the complex biological creatures on earth. The bodies, with all their functions, like the parts in a watch, all servee a purpose and has a design.

Who remembers the names and publishers of the text books they had in school? We have all seen the charts in school depicting apes becoming men, right? Many of those images are based upon frauds and forgeries.

 

[George_Waters]

Chris LaRock:

Who remembers the names and publishers of the text books they had in school? We have all seen the charts in school depicting apes becoming men, right? Many of those images are based upon frauds and forgeries.

Chris, you shouldn’t throw stuff out there if you can’t quote your sources, that totally undermines any credibility you may have had.

And for the record apes did not become men, they became more modern apes.

Peace,

George

 

[Orogeny]

Chris LaRock:

So, you are saying there was intelligent design? If not, it would have to be random. Since it would require an intelligent mind to put order into creation. Saying it wasn’t random would have to mean there is purpose to the design.

Do you understand the basis of natural selection?

You can look at a watch and determine it didn’t get there by accident, since each part is there to serve a purpose. The same can be observed in the complex biological creatures on earth. The bodies, with all their functions, like the parts in a watch, all servee a purpose and has a design.

Have you done any research into “Intelligent Design” and claims of irreducible complexity? Do you know any of the arguments against it? Do you understand those arguments?

Who remembers the names and publishers of the text books they had in school? We have all seen the charts in school depicting apes becoming men, right? Many of those images are based upon frauds and forgeries.

That’s exactly what I expected. You don’t do your argument any favors by making things up. In fact, you do exactly the opposite. Don’t make references to non-existing sources.

You still haven’t answered Rossum’s points.

Peace

Tim

 

[George_Waters]

Orogeny:

You don’t do your argument any favors by making things up. In fact, you do exactly the opposite. Don’t make references to non-existing sources.

See what I mean Chris?

George

 

[Chris_LaRock]

George Waters:

Chris, you shouldn’t throw stuff out there if you can’t quote your sources, that totally undermines any credibility you may have had.

And for the record apes did not become men, they became more modern apes.

Peace,

George

I quoted my source: The Evidence Bible.

I’m not the one who says apes became men. EVOLUTIONISTS’ are. The whole theory of evolution contends that apes evolved, or became through millions of years of biological changes, into man.

BTW, Dr. Kent Hovind is offering $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution to be true. www.drdino.com/articles/article1.html

Collect your money, since you have all the evidence.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris LaRock:

Darwin’s theory states that men are more evolved than women.

I would still like a citation for this absurd statement. I noticed that you just skipped over that request.

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Orogeny:

Do you understand the basis of natural selection?
Have you done any research into “Intelligent Design” and claims of irreducible complexity? Do you know any of the arguments against it? Do you understand those arguments?
That’s exactly what I expected. You don’t do your argument any favors by making things up. In fact, you do exactly the opposite. Don’t make references to non-existing sources.

You still haven’t answered Rossum’s points.

Peace

Tim

Natural selection, as far as it is defined, had no intelligent mind governing it. It supposedly came about as different elements in nature interacted with eachother. I’ve never done any ‘research’, but I do watch the nature shows. They make it clear that the actions of weather, and preditors, are what supposedly cause natural selection.

What non-existent source am I citing??? I just told you my source.

As I told you before, you cannot get complex designs in biological creatures without intelligent design. You haven’t offered any arguments as to how order can come from nothing. Just comments as to whether I’m some kind of scientist or researcher.

 

[George_Waters]

Chris LaRock:

I quoted my source: The Evidence Bible.

I’m not the one who says apes became men. EVOLUTIONISTS’ are. The whole theory of evolution contends that apes evolved, or became through millions of years of biological changes, into man.

BTW, Dr. Kent Hovind is offering $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution to be true. www.drdino.com/articles/article1.html

Collect your money, since you have all the evidence.

Man Chris, I was just trying to offer you some friendly advice about citing your sources. Oh well.

If an evolutionist is saying that apes became men they are equally ignorant of what evolution really is. Evolution is a gradual process in which species change over time and in doing so differ from their ancestors. Apes are not of the same genus or species as humans. Apes did NOT become men. Apes evolved into more modern apes and humans evolved into more modern humans. As is God’s design.

Peace,

George

 

[Chris_LaRock]

George Waters:

Man Chris, I was just trying to offer you some friendly advice about citing your sources. Oh well.

If an evolutionist is saying that apes became men they are equally ignorant of what evolution really is. Evolution is a gradual process in which species change over time and in doing so differ from their ancestors. Apes are not of the same genus or species as humans. Apes did NOT become men. Apes evolved into more modern apes and humans evolved into more modern humans. As is God’s design.

Peace,

George

The theory of evolution states that the human species is the product of evolution. The evolution charts show apes in differing transitional forms slowly becoming upright walking creatures - and them men. The theory says we came from apes.

Maybe there are variations in the theory of evolution, but true Darwinism says we evolved from apes. Maybe the kind you are subscribing to is a differing theory?

I’d like to note that nobody has yet collected the $250,000 - even though evolutionists’ claim that evolution has been proven.

 

[L.Kraiger]

Just because a theory hasn’t been proven yet doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taught/learned/believed in.

Case in point, quantum theory. Some physicists use it every day. Hasn’t been proven. It has, however been backed up by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

Kind of sounds like evolution…

 

[Orogeny]

Chris LaRock:

Natural selection, as far as it is defined, had no intelligent mind governing it. It supposedly came about as different elements in nature interacted with eachother. I’ve never done any ‘research’, but I do watch the nature shows. They make it clear that the actions of weather, and preditors, are what supposedly cause natural selection.

OK, so you have demonstrated that you don’t really understand natural selection. Watching nature shows is probably not the best way to learn about the science of evolution.

What non-existent source am I citing??? I just told you my source.

Does this sound familiar? “Who remembers the names and publishers of the text books they had in school?” That non-existent source. You know, the current science textbook that uses Nebraska man as evidence for evolution. You still haven’t produced a citation for your claim that darwinian evolution claims that men are more evolved than women.

As I told you before, you cannot get complex designs in biological creatures without intelligent design.

You are wrong.

You haven’t offered any arguments as to how order can come from nothing. Just comments as to whether I’m some kind of scientist or researcher.

You don’t respond to legitamate arguments (you still have not responded to Rossum). I don’t believe that you understand the evidence or else you wouldn’t be posting the dribble that you are posting. And by the way, I haven’t asked if you are as scientist or researcher. No need to.

Peace

Tim

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Hello ChrisLaRock, perhaps I can come on board and see if I can add something new.

1st, for any Chrisitan to believe in evolution would be going against the word of God…thus calling him a liar. If a non-christian believes in evolution, (too me) that is fine and it is not worth arguing about.

So, if you are a non Christian, you need not respond as I am not trying to debate. However, if there be a misguided brother or sister out there, I would like them to answer these questions:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
    * Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
    * Single-celled animals evolve?
    * Fish change to amphibians?
    * Amphibians change to reptiles?
    * Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
    * How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
    * Whales evolve?
    * Sea horses evolve?
    * Bats evolve?
    * Eyes evolve?
    * Ears evolve?
    * Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
    * The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
    * The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
    * The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
    * DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
    * The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
    * The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
    * The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
    * The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
    * The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
20. *How did thought evolve?
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

After you have answered the preceding questions above, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, “God must have designed it”?
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
   * It is all they have been taught.
   * They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
   * They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
   * They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
   * Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, “Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening.”
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
11. Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

 

[YahShuaMessiah]

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man’s interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. “. . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:27)
3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn’t we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human’s values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

 

[George_Waters]

1st, for any Chrisitan to believe in evolution would be going against the word of God…thus calling him a liar.

YahShuaMessiah,

As is stated in Pope Pius XII encyclical, Humani Generis, “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Emphasis Added)

To state that for any Christian to believe in evolution would be going against the word of God is simply your opinion, offensive to Catholics and in my opinion incredibly presumptuous on your part. Do you know by what means God created the universe? How do you know that evolution is not part of God’s plan and according to His will? Why is it so hard to accept that evolution may be God’s plan and will? He is the father of natural law.

As for me I will not presume to tell God how He can or cannot create life.

Peace,

George

 

[L.Kraiger]

YahShuaMessiah…

I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about.

Correction:

I KNOW you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Of the many ignorant statements in your first post, I’ll take a few…

1. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

First of all, you obviously don’t understand how genetic code works. Different amino acids combined in different combinations can produce drastically different things. Random “point mutations” are what cause different varieties, even within a species.

1. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

• The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
• The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
• The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

For the first: The very, very earliest life forms, protozoans and some types of algae, depended on food. In fact, that is one of the scientific requirements for something to be considered living. Stomach and intestines are highly advanced organs that are the products of millions of years of evolution.
Reproduction was, and in some cases still is, asexual. It was simply a cellular function used to control cell size.
Lungs are a relatively new thing in the large spectrum of life. As for the “perfect mixture of gases”…Well. Gas doesn’t adapt to what is breathing it. The only organisms that survive are the ones with the adaptations to live off of a particular gas.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

This has nothing to do with evolution, but everything to do with theoretical physics/cosmology.

1. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Actually, matter is quite chaotic, especially at the smallest levels. However, planets and larger bodies came about because of gravity and electromagnetism.

As for your next post, the hipocrisy is almost nauseating.
For instance:

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

I could reword this…
Are you sure your questions are reasonable, scientifically provable or do you just believe the way you want regardless of any scientific evidence because you’re a moron? (Do your questions reflect your ignorance of your religion or your ignorance in your science?)

I would leave it at this, because it is late, and I am tired. But one more thing:

1. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

Is divine creation science?

No.

Is evolution?

Yes.