Evidence for Evolution

[Guest Butero]

Man does make a good point.  Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."  That has always been missing.  They do offer "evidence" but it is hardly convincing evidence.  There is nothing that shows once species changed into another.  You can see minor changes in the appearance of one type of animal, but a dog doesn't become a cat, and a lion doesn't become a bear.  There will be minor changes in appearance based on who mates with who.  As people come together from different parts of the globe for instance, you will see gradual changes in appearance as a white European marries someone who is oriental.  When a white American marries an African American, that too creates gradual changes.  This does not support the theory of evolution, as it only shows gradual changes to the appearance of human beings.  They are still humans. 

 

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals.  That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same.  At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been.  There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality.  There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today.  Evidence doesn't equal fact.  If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case.  Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims. 

 

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment.  I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word.  I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution.  I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it. 

[HumbleThinker]

But I'm curious why you focus on what is not there instead of what is there. These fossils clearly show a morphological progression through time.

 

 

Because what's there isn't proof of anything. The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls.

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. I'm curious: what training do you have in comparative morphology to say that "The only thing those skulls have in common are that they are skulls?" If you have none, this would be like telling a 30 year veteran of Biblical language studies that he is mistranslating a Koine Greek phrase when you have absolutely no experience with Koine Greek. Do you see how this behavior is both wrong and should be corrected through humility?

Edited December 11, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[HumbleThinker]

i do not think there are full evidence of evolution,how to explain the DNA?and eye,and Cambrain Explosion

but i have the evidence that GOD is GOD 

 

and.....how to explain the black people,white people,yellow people look like so different?

the science shows that all the human being come from one man

If you wish to discuss the evidence, pick some detail about one of those things or give me the cue to pick something and we can begin. I'm glad you have evidence that God is God. That's a blessing. God has graced me with such evidence myself. But "God is God" doesn't mean anything by itself, so when you use it, it is appearing to me that you are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever position you hold that conflicts with evolution, and that by cloaking it with God you make anyone who disagrees with you disagreeing with God. If that's what you're doing, that doesn't affect me one way or the other. I also God's Creation is God's Creation, but that doesn't tell you anything other than implying that I think you are disagreeing with God's Creation that evolution happened and happens. Better, though, would be to go into detail and actually have a discussion about it.

Please link me to a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates humans come from one man because I can assure you that genetics makes that impossible. That would be a genetic bottleneck that would be impossible to overcome without massive interbreeding with other compatible populations of organisms.

[HumbleThinker]

Man does make a good point.  Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."

Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that.

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals.  That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same.  At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been.  There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality.  There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today.  Evidence doesn't equal fact.  If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case.  Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims.

Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation?

 

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment.  I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word.  I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution.  I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it.

It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.

Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.

Edited December 11, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[Guest man]

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. 

 

 

That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? 

 

"Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one.  

[HumbleThinker]

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. 

 

 

That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? 

 

"Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one.  

Please try to remain accurate. In nowhere did I say "Science imagined it so it has to be true," nor did what you emphasize even imply this. I also note that you repeated the word proof. In my experience, before one can understand the reasoning and evidence behind any scientific topic, a prerequisite is understanding that science does not deal with proof but what the most probable conclusion is. Consilience, or the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence on a single position, is a huge indicator that a position has a high probability of being correct. Evolution has spades of consilience. Your mistake is understandable because proof and theory and other such words are used very loosely in the public sphere, but they cause many problems when people begin to talk about science in any kind of serious manner.

Edited December 11, 2013 by HumbleThinker

[Guest man]

 

 

Correct that there isn't proof of anything because science doesn't deal in proof. It doesn't deal in absolute certainty. 

 

 

That's your proof? Science imagined it so it has to be true? 

 

"Science doesn't deal in proof"...........................that's a good one.  

 

Please try to remain accurate. In nowhere did I say "Science imagined it so it has to be true," nor did what you emphasize even imply this. I also note that you repeated the word proof. In my experience, before one can understand the reasoning and evidence behind any scientific topic, a prerequisite is understanding that science does not deal with proof but what the most probable conclusion is. Consilience, or the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence on a single position, is a huge indicator that a position has a high probability of being correct. Evolution has spades of consilience. Your mistake is understandable because proof and theory and other such words are used very loosely in the public sphere, but they cause many problems when people begin to talk about science in any kind of serious manner.

 

 

 

For the sake of this conversation I choose not to deal in accuracy. That way my words appear more viable.

[silviawang]

 

If you wish to discuss the evidence, pick some detail about one of those things or give me the cue to pick something and we can begin. I'm glad you have evidence that God is God. That's a blessing. God has graced me with such evidence myself. But "God is God" doesn't mean anything by itself, so when you use it, it is appearing to me that you are simply using it as a placeholder for whatever position you hold that conflicts with evolution, and that by cloaking it with God you make anyone who disagrees with you disagreeing with God. If that's what you're doing, that doesn't affect me one way or the other. I also God's Creation is God's Creation, but that doesn't tell you anything other than implying that I think you are disagreeing with God's Creation that evolution happened and happens. Better, though, would be to go into detail and actually have a discussion about it.

Please link me to a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates humans come from one man because I can assure you that genetics makes that impossible. That would be a genetic bottleneck that would be impossible to overcome without massive interbreeding with other compatible populations of organisms.

 

about the evolution ,i myself assume the Theistic Evolution,but i can not assure,i am not the biologist,but i have the full knowledge of biology and Physics，from DNA theory to big-bang theory,after studied all of these,i think GOD is exist,and then i tried pray for the Biblical  miracle，after 10 moths'deadly faith trial,the miracle i demanded happened,.....so i said "God is God“

[Guest Butero]

 

Man does make a good point.  Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."

Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that.

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals.  That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same.  At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been.  There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality.  There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today.  Evidence doesn't equal fact.  If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case.  Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims.

Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation?

 

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment.  I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word.  I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution.  I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it.

It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.

Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.

 

I want to deal with one of your comments, "Science doesn't deal in proof."  In another thread, you are speaking of a hypothetical situation where science proves something in scripture false.  You have just admitted that cannot happen because "science doesn't deal in proof."  It is a belief system, nothing more, and nothing less.  Some scientists look at the things that exist and see evolution.  Others look at the things that exist and see creation.  When a person dies, we bury that person, and return them to the ground they were created from.  I have had pets that died, and have likewise buried them, and returned them to the ground they were created from.  It is not like I had to put a lot of thought into this.  I knew both man and animal came from the ground.  I just knew a divine creator fashioned us from the earth.  Scientists want to claim similarities in DNA shows evidence of evolution, and I say it shows no such thing. 

 

The question is, what do I have more faith in?  Science books or the Bible?  I have more faith in the Bible, and you appear to put more faith in science books.  We are both acting in faith, seeing as though you have admitted "science doesn't deal in proof."  What more is there to say? 

[HumbleThinker]

Man does make a good point. Evolutionists do not have what many call "the missing link."

Because the "missing link" concept hasn't been science for a while. You might as well point out that evolutionists do not have evidence for the Great Chain of Being. Now if you're talking about transitionals, then by all means say so and we can discuss that.

Much of what evolutions are pushing are similarities in the DNA between man and animals. That doesn't prove anything, except that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same. At the same time, each type of animal is as it always has been. There is "evidence" for evolution, but not nearly enough to make it reality. There is much more evidence that God created everything as it exists today. Evidence doesn't equal fact. If you watch a trial, all kinds of evidence are presented, but you have to have enough to prove your case. Evolutionists aren't even close to proving their claims.

Science doesn't deal in proof, so don't expect it or scientists to prove anything. Also, you are presuming your conclusion when you say that it proves, which again science cannot do, "that God created living creatures from the ground, and so the initial material is the same." For natural phenomena to support your position (support is the word you are looking for) you would first have to demonstrate that you are not just inventing an explanation. We could all come up with a near infinite number of explanations for any given phenomenon, but coming up with explanations after observing a phenomenon then declaring that that phenomenon support your explanation is not how science works. How would you test your explanation?

You claim it is a sin to misrepresent what evolution is to it's detriment. I believe it is a bigger sin to try to sow seeds of doubt about the truth of God's Word. I don't need to misrepresent the theory of evolution. I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it.

It's a sin to misrepresent anything, which is a pretty well established Christian principle. Claiming that it is the lesser of two evils, which is what your above statement sounds like. Saying "I am glad to let it stand or fall on its own, because there is no truth to it" doesn't really mean anything, particularly when you are bemoaning it in the same breath. If you ere to let it stand and fall on its own, then it would stand proudly, for scientists have given reams of evidence to support it. Simply claiming that it speaks for itself and it is saying that it is wrong is just a convoluted way of saying you think it's wrong without giving any reason beyond bare assertions.Since there is evidence on the table for it, which part of it would you like to discuss? Or are you happy to let it stand and fall on its own and so forfeit any valid opinion to it? I'm not trying to be pushy here, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it to it seems.

I want to deal with one of your comments, "Science doesn't deal in proof." In another thread, you are speaking of a hypothetical situation where science proves something in scripture false. You have just admitted that cannot happen because "science doesn't deal in proof." It is a belief system, nothing more, and nothing less. Some scientists look at the things that exist and see evolution. Others look at the things that exist and see creation. When a person dies, we bury that person, and return them to the ground they were created from. I have had pets that died, and have likewise buried them, and returned them to the ground they were created from. It is not like I had to put a lot of thought into this. I knew both man and animal came from the ground. I just knew a divine creator fashioned us from the earth. Scientists want to claim similarities in DNA shows evidence of evolution, and I say it shows no such thing. The question is, what do I have more faith in? Science books or the Bible? I have more faith in the Bible, and you appear to put more faith in science books. We are both acting in faith, seeing as though you have admitted "science doesn't deal in proof." What more is there to say?

If I used proof or prove then I was in error and apologize, but I suspect you may have mistook strongly supporting or similarbphrase with proof. The aquinas quote may also have made youthink this but Aquinas was not speaking as a scientist. Another false equivocation that we should come to common ground on is between the bible and science texts. The Bible and creation are two great works of God while science books are works of men containing information derived from one of Gods works. Creation and the Bible are the proper equivocation.

The false question but correct equivocation would be do you believe God's Creation or the Bible? The correct question and correct equivocation is do you believe your and others interpretations of the Bible or yours and others interpretation of Creation?

Edited December 13, 2013 by HumbleThinker