EVOLUTION ??

[Guest farukmert]

I

[Guest Servant's Heart]

I

[Mongo]

The theory of Evolution is albeit dead to the hardcore fanatics.

It is proven that evolution does not occur or exist. The argument is that it takes millions of years, but the argument has no proof and no viable research. Its all speculation.

I was a hardcore evolutionist, but I question everything. Eventually I began to question something that was never proven because of something in my uncle's life (He didn't believe in Bigfoot, then he ran smack dab into one and believed), and this is where I looked first.

Evolution does not occur in nature, but what does occur is mutations. This is not evolution. For evolution to exist, something must become something else completely. A frog must become a bird, etc.

What does occur in nature is natural mutations - something mutates into a different version of the same thing. A spotted lizard in New Mexico became a striped lizard after what is estimated 200 years. Yes the stripes are small slits, but over 200 years they have changed from spots to these slits. In time, they will probably become stripes if the population continues to breed readily and within itself often. The original spotted variety is still found in Mexico, but nearly 400 miles south of the stripes. What outward or inward experience caused this, scientist do not know, but they do not they are the same DNA, though one is much larger and colored differently. And I don't mean they are the same basic DNA, they are the exact same.

DNA is a digital code. We know that now. The hardcore will argue this, but its futile. We know that DNA does change is most basic components. "Something that walks on all fours will always walk on all fours." That quote is from the modern evolutionists trying to prove we came from apes. Arguing that we had to "come from something that at least walks upright and apes are the best choice". Another one. They are "choosing" what we evolved from?

Primitive man, ie cavemen, are best explained even scientiffically as mutated forms of man. It is scientiffically possible, without using millions of years and using "devilution", that early man was mutated through genetics into what was found centuries later and thought to be millions of years old cavemen. This scientiffic thought, coming from non-believers, is that at some point early man inbred or something. However, we know that in the Bible angels took man's daughters for wives and created offspring which were "tainted" in God's eyes and wiped out in the flood.

The Missing Link is still missing. We are suppose to believe that something that can't be proven is logical, yet something that has hundreds of texts to support it and various "outer" texts that support its content is a lie? Amazing.

[yomotalking]

The missing link is missing because it never existed.

[sisterinchrist]

Evolution can never be proven as a fact. It is sad how people want to take God out of everything, and refuse to recognize Him as the creator. If people would only listen to themselves when they talk about evolution and how silly it sounds. And they have no evidence to back it up.

And there is all kind of evidence to back up creation. Yet they don't want it taught in the schools. How rediculous is that?

[apothanein kerdos]

Wow, some very interesting claims in here.

It is proven that evolution does not occur or exist.

Evolution is, by definition, progression from one stage of being to the next. In essence, a one year old is in a certain stage of being where his motor and mental skills are hampered by his short existance. A twenty-one year old, however, has progressed to a different stage of life. Thus he has "evolved" from a baby into a relatively grown adult. Likewise, a tadpole looks nothing like a frog, however through evolution, turns into a frog. Evolution occurs everyday all around us, it is observable and testable, thus it is a scientific fact.

The argument is that it takes millions of years, but the argument has no proof and no viable research. Its all speculation.

No proof and is only speculation? Actually, the most solid piece of scientific evidence out there is that the geological formation of the earth took millions, even billions, of years. Look at the layers and how pact they are. The simple fact is if you date them you find certain layers are millions of years old.

Evolution does not occur in nature, but what does occur is mutations. This is not evolution. For evolution to exist, something must become something else completely. A frog must become a bird, etc.

That is a faulty definition of evolution. Evolution is simply the belief that one thing progresses through life into death. While all things evolve, what is debated is if certain things progress into other species. The simple fact is certain species have evolved into other "species". For instance, a poney is a very close relative of a horse. Both have very similar makes up genetically, but differ in certain instances. However we can trace this back in the biological record and find the split and their common ancestor. With humans, however, we cannot do such a thing. In other words, to make the case that humans are merely a chain in evolution from another species is nothing more than a theory with little evidence. I digress, to say that evolution simply does not occur is to ignore the scientific evidence out there.

What does occur in nature is natural mutations - something mutates into a different version of the same thing.

The problem with this is that if we use the Bible we can disprove this claim. I can merely point to Genesis 3 where the snake lost its legs and began to crawl on its belly...yet there are still snakes that have legs but are classified as snakes. Furthermore snakes are believed to have evolved from lizards. Again, this would be validated by the Biblical model. Here we have a certain species splitting into two distinct species.

Primitive man, ie cavemen, are best explained even scientiffically as mutated forms of man. It is scientiffically possible, without using millions of years and using "devilution", that early man was mutated through genetics into what was found centuries later and thought to be millions of years old cavemen. This scientiffic thought, coming from non-believers, is that at some point early man inbred or something. However, we know that in the Bible angels took man's daughters for wives and created offspring which were "tainted" in God's eyes and wiped out in the flood.

No, they aren't mutated men. Neaderthal, while similar to man is lacking 18 genetic codes to make him directly related to man. That and modern man existed at the same time Neanderthal did, and eventually killed him off (during the migration into Europe). I would rather take this approach (as most Darwinian evolutionists choose to take, which makes no sense) in that all the "missing links" all lead up to neanderthal, however neanderthal isn't a "previous version" of modern man. In essence, modern man appeared out of no where.

Evolution can never be proven as a fact. It is sad how people want to take God out of everything, and refuse to recognize Him as the creator.

Why must true, scientifically proven evolution, be mutually exclusive to a belief in God?

[Mongo]

Wow, some very interesting claims in here.

It is proven that evolution does not occur or exist.

Evolution is, by definition, progression from one stage of being to the next. In essence, a one year old is in a certain stage of being where his motor and mental skills are hampered by his short existance. A twenty-one year old, however, has progressed to a different stage of life. Thus he has "evolved" from a baby into a relatively grown adult. Likewise, a tadpole looks nothing like a frog, however through evolution, turns into a frog. Evolution occurs everyday all around us, it is observable and testable, thus it is a scientific fact.

That's not evolution, but nice try.

The argument is that it takes millions of years, but the argument has no proof and no viable research. Its all speculation.

No proof and is only speculation? Actually, the most solid piece of scientific evidence out there is that the geological formation of the earth took millions, even billions, of years. Look at the layers and how pact they are. The simple fact is if you date them you find certain layers are millions of years old.

Geologist estimate the ages. They have nothing to set an absolute, but they use a reference from an accepted procedure which is in itself "theory in guessing". Assumptions are made as there are not absolutes.

Evolution does not occur in nature, but what does occur is mutations. This is not evolution. For evolution to exist, something must become something else completely. A frog must become a bird, etc.

That is a faulty definition of evolution. Evolution is simply the belief that one thing progresses through life into death. While all things evolve, what is debated is if certain things progress into other species. The simple fact is certain species have evolved into other "species". For instance, a poney is a very close relative of a horse. Both have very similar makes up genetically, but differ in certain instances. However we can trace this back in the biological record and find the split and their common ancestor. With humans, however, we cannot do such a thing. In other words, to make the case that humans are merely a chain in evolution from another species is nothing more than a theory with little evidence. I digress, to say that evolution simply does not occur is to ignore the scientific evidence out there.

Darwin's theory of evolution was that small cells, become fish, became amphibians, became land mammals, became primitive ape-like creature, became man. Don't try to go and change the standard evolutionists accepted as the way life was created. Evolution doesn't exist. No fish will ever evolve into birds.

What does occur in nature is natural mutations - something mutates into a different version of the same thing.

The problem with this is that if we use the Bible we can disprove this claim. I can merely point to Genesis 3 where the snake lost its legs and began to crawl on its belly...yet there are still snakes that have legs but are classified as snakes. Furthermore snakes are believed to have evolved from lizards. Again, this would be validated by the Biblical model. Here we have a certain species splitting into two distinct species.

Again, wrong. You use the example of the Lord using His hand to affect change in "the serpent" and the defination of mutations and evolution. Doesn't work that way. Something has to become something fully different to prove evolution.

Primitive man, ie cavemen, are best explained even scientiffically as mutated forms of man. It is scientiffically possible, without using millions of years and using "devilution", that early man was mutated through genetics into what was found centuries later and thought to be millions of years old cavemen. This scientiffic thought, coming from non-believers, is that at some point early man inbred or something. However, we know that in the Bible angels took man's daughters for wives and created offspring which were "tainted" in God's eyes and wiped out in the flood.

No, they aren't mutated men. Neaderthal, while similar to man is lacking 18 genetic codes to make him directly related to man. That and modern man existed at the same time Neanderthal did, and eventually killed him off (during the migration into Europe). I would rather take this approach (as most Darwinian evolutionists choose to take, which makes no sense) in that all the "missing links" all lead up to neanderthal, however neanderthal isn't a "previous version" of modern man. In essence, modern man appeared out of no where.

The date these fossils were to have existed is another guesstimate by scientists. Neanderthal man is the last thing hardcore fanatics have left to point at and still there's a missing link. Evolution doesn't exist, never did.

Evolution can never be proven as a fact. It is sad how people want to take God out of everything, and refuse to recognize Him as the creator.

Why must true, scientifically proven evolution, be mutually exclusive to a belief in God?

Because evolutionists want it that way.

[apothanein kerdos]

That's not evolution, but nice try.

Ah, okay. You may want to tell that to American Heritage Dicitonary:

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Yeah, find a dictionary that works from your definition because as far as I'm concerned, mutation and evolution are the same thing (AHD: An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality)

Geologist estimate the ages. They have nothing to set an absolute, but they use a reference from an accepted procedure which is in itself "theory in guessing". Assumptions are made as there are not absolutes.

Carbon dating is a myth?

Darwin's theory of evolution was that small cells, become fish, became amphibians, became land mammals, became primitive ape-like creature, became man. Don't try to go and change the standard evolutionists accepted as the way life was created. Evolution doesn't exist. No fish will ever evolve into birds.

You are talking about Darwinian evolution, however that is not scientific evolution. The difference is scientific evolution is a provable fact whereas Darwinian evolution (like Intelligent Design) is a scientific philosophy.

Again, wrong. You use the example of the Lord using His hand to affect change in "the serpent" and the defination of mutations and evolution. Doesn't work that way. Something has to become something fully different to prove evolution.

No, something merely has to change to become evolution.

The date these fossils were to have existed is another guesstimate by scientists. Neanderthal man is the last thing hardcore fanatics have left to point at and still there's a missing link. Evolution doesn't exist, never did.

Ah yes, carbon dating is a guestimation.

Because evolutionists want it that way.

Because Darwinian evolutionists have dictated certain things does not mean we should become ignorant to science.

First of all, because we know almost exactly when Adam, The First Man, was made: 6127 years ago plus or minus a few years.

You're kidding me, right? For one, we have civilizations that have been around longer than that. Secondly, this would mean that Adam was created about two three thousand years after the first known city was established in Sri Lanka.

We know exactly the names of every man in the lineage of Jesus Christ, and several of the women, starting with Adam and going all the way to Mary and Joseph. There are 42 generations from Abraham to Christ. There are 20 generations from Adam to Abraham, making a total of 62 generations from Adam to Jesus(See Genesis 1-12, and Matthew and Luke).

Only problem is there each geneology is different and provides different names

Reason? Generally patriarchs, or important people are listen, and not always everyone in the family tree.

Second, We know Biblically that all men are descended from Adam

Scientific evolution doesn't teach any differently.

[apothanein kerdos]

You got a bigger response on Crossmap, farukmert

Or should I call you, ahmetcelik?

Where DO these trolls come up with these names?

[Mongo]

Its ok SJ.

You place your faith in Darwin, I place mine in Jesus.