[_ Old Earth _] Does Evolution have any actuall evidence?

[cd27]

Just curious, but i've read alot of stuff on evolution, ALOT, for and against it, and nothing seems to really have any evidence or proof. i'm a full-ledged christian, and believe that Jesus died for my sins. however, i do not see much "proof" for creationism, or evolution in that matter. the kind of evidence i'm talking about is evidence that can be reproduced. we can only speculate that the bones we have found even go to the specific dinosaurs that we have drawn up. i'm also afraid that the majority of the dinosaurs we have found (not all of them), only had bones on them, no skin, no internal organs, and nothing to show how the body itself evolved. i've seen many evidences that carbon dating is wrong, and is way off. i've seen many tested theories on how the universe can be both young and old. with how evolution is constantly talking about chance, wouldn't it also be a huge and possible chance that scientists are not even putting these bones together correctly? it's really all speculation. "i think this bone goes here from all of my obeservations" (of course, they were there when this creature was created and can say beyond a doubt how old it is, where is from, what it looks like, how much hair or scales it had on it....speculation).

Now, creationism also has its downpoints. i don't see anyone being able to actually create matter. i don't see anyone creating life. all i see is alot of people manipulating the matter that is already here. it's all a constant battle between those who "believe this and don't belive that".

it's simply a battle of beliefs. i've seen alot of science with creationism (so it'll be fairly idiotic to say that christians don't use science and their beliefs are not backed by scientific findings). i've also seen alot of science with evolution. but they're both speculation of how it's put together. i mean, evolution is a theory, simple, not a law, it can't be proven, if it could be, then it would be a law, at the moment, it's simply a theory being taught as fact. the only reason christianity has lasted as long as it has is because it does change people's lives for the better. i've never seen a true christian kill someone, smoke, have sex with another woman other than their wife/husband. now, in the old testiment, i've read about it, and without a doubt, those who tresspassed were punnished for it by God. in the new testimate however, God never told anyone to do anything that we would now consider bad...NEVER.

the only difference with Evolution and Chreationism is that we have an ancient book that tells us what happened, evolution on the other hand, is nothing but spectulation of "evidences" that have been obseved. shoot, i could say that dinosaurs came from outer space and if i found a little piece of evidence to support it (like say that theydeveloped air pouches that could hold air for huge amounts of time so that they could travel to Earth and then evolved from there) some idiot would believe me.

don't comment on what i have said, simply tell me what evidences have been found (on both creationism and evolution). i don't care to know what you think about my own belief of the evidence, i simply want to see what you believe.

cd

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

We can see evolution happen...so yes.

 

[Drew]

You ask for evidence that can be reproduced. I am not sure if that is really a "fair" demand - we cannot reproduce the big bang, for example, yet this does not mean that the evidence is not strong in favour of it.

I know nothing about biology (never even took a course in high school), but I do have some familiarity with cosmology - the study of the origin, history, structure, and future of the universe as a whole. I would say that the cosmological evidence almost certain rules out a very young universe (say on the order of 10,000 years). For instance, I believe that one of the powerful evidences in favour of a multi-billion year old Universe is the predicted "temperature" of the background radiation that is a signature associated with the Big Bang. My recollection from readings done more than 10 years was that the cosmological case for an old universe was really quite strong.

I find it stretches credulity to imagine that thousands of scientists around the world are deliberately distorting the facts in order to "disprove the Bible". Conspiracies involving so many people just simply do not hold together. I will not, at this point anyway, get into a detailed defence of the scientific method for gaining knowledge. I will say one thing: the very nature of the scientific enterprise encourages efforts to disprove the status quo. This is a healthy characteristic in my opinion. The Big Bang theory (with an "old" universe) has essentially survived a lot of challenges.

 

[Quath]

Stuff supporting evolution:

1. Direct observations in quickly breeding systems such as bacteria. Antibiotic resistant diseases are an example of this.

2. Fossile records appearing in rock strata in a consistent pattern. Dinosaurs are deeper than mammals.

3. Fossils of a long chain of our ancestors to where we diverge from the chimps. Talk.origins

4. Direct understanding. We know mutations happen from radiation, enviornmental chemicals and cell processes. Passing on genes creates something that is better, equal or worse than the parents. If worse, the thing can not compete. If better, it lives and passes on its genes. Given enough time, small changes add up to huge changes.

There are others. In the scientific community, not believing evolution explains the life we see today is like saying that you don't believe the world is round. Scientists are neutral on whether evolution could have been guided or if the spark of life was set up by a god, alien, or random chance. However, the usual belief is that random chance is the simpliest explanation.

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html if you want to see how some make faith and science work.

Quath

 

[Soma-Sight]

Yes, just look at bacteria.

 

[cd27]

these are all great replies. i enjoyed reading them and expect more if you are willing to give them.

creationism also has the fossil record on its side. creationism says that full grown creatures appeared out of no where, no intermediate stages and steps. and the fossil record supports that. it's really only theory and speculation that some people say that "hy, these two look kind similar, MAYBE they came from one another", i must say, however speculative that is, it is a rather good assumption. without the bible, evolution would perhaps be the only assumption for how the universe and life came around.

so, keep seding the info, i enjoyed reading what you guys gave so far. please be open minded in this, i don't want to start any arguments, and if i cross that line, i would expect you all to tell me so, in a kind mannor.

cd

 

[cd27]

i half way liked the link you gave. the open mindedness of it gave me a comforting feeling that whoever wrote this site understands that they may not be absolutely right and there are other possibilities. i belive in Christianity's system, but i am always open minded to state that there are other ways to doing everything and that not even the laws of physics can be absolute, they are always jsut theory, no matter how many times you test it, there is always the possibility that something may come up in the near or distant future that will contradict that law and the law may have to be changed some day.

i ask that everyone here look at things that way, being closed minded is ignorant (not meant to be rude in any way) in the ways that it's only supportive on one side.

please continue to post your evidences (not only evidence for evolutino, but for creationism as well).

cd

 

[Lekazar]

the open mindedness of it gave me a comforting feeling that whoever wrote this site understands that they may not be absolutely right and there are other possibilities.
i ask that everyone here look at things that way, being closed minded is ignorant (not meant to be rude in any way)

But there is only ONE true way, and only ONE absolute truth, that of the LORD!
If you do not acknowledge this fact then you are commiting heresy.
True wisdom begins with fear of the LORD!
Not of human lies of evolution or the pride of men thinking they
can tell you more about the world than the word of the LORD.

Everyone should read Proverbs 3:5 and live by its wisdom.
Amen!

 

[Asimov]

But there is only ONE true way, and only ONE absolute truth, that of the LORD!
If you do not acknowledge this fact then you are commiting heresy.
True wisdom begins with fear of the LORD!
Not of human lies of evolution or the pride of men thinking they
can tell you more about the world than the word of the LORD.

Everyone should read Proverbs 3:5 and live by its wisdom.
Amen!

Prove that it's a lie, prove that it is mutually exclusive from God.

 

[reznwerks]

sadly

[

But there is only ONE true way, and only ONE absolute truth, that of the LORD!
If you do not acknowledge this fact then you are commiting heresy.
True wisdom begins with fear of the LORD!
Not of human lies of evolution or the pride of men thinking they
can tell you more about the world than the word of the LORD.

Everyone should read Proverbs 3:5 and live by its wisdom.
Amen!

Many have done just that and been disappointed. Just like prayer whatever the outcome it must be Gods will.

 

[Quath]

creationism also has the fossil record on its side. creationism says that full grown creatures appeared out of no where, no intermediate stages and steps. and the fossil record supports that. it's really only theory and speculation that some people say that "hy, these two look kind similar, MAYBE they came from one another", i must say, however speculative that is, it is a rather good assumption. without the bible, evolution would perhaps be the only assumption for how the universe and life came around.

I am not sure what you mean by this? Are you saying that we haven't found any transitional fossils?

Quath

 

[cd27]

exactly, the fossils that we have found only show a few characteristics (maybe more) between existing creatures, and someone said that they fit together, well, they must came from each other. it can also be said that the same createer had the same design and that he/she created all of the creatures full grown (the first ones) with a similar design, which is exactly what the fossil records show. however, it is really what one person to another "say" the information is. i can't "prove" that there is a God, but you can't "prove" that evolution ever took place. all we can both say is that we "think" the evidence that we ahve points in our direction, but both of us can use that same information to use for our own good. it's just like T.V. you can use certain camera shots in a political thing to where one person looks good and the other looks bad well, you can use those same shots to make the other person look good or bad.

Lekezar, i am a Christian and do believe that God is the one and only way, however, others do not, and i must respect that in order to keep the peace in this thread. also, this is a Christian site, therefore there SHOULD be more christian input here, but to my disipointment, it is flooded with atheists and skeptics and the few christians that are here don't get a chance.

anyways, back on topic....and let's please stay on topic.....

cd

 

[Quath]

Here are some human transitional fossils: Talkorigins.prg

If you want more transitional fossils, check out [ur]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html[/url]. It has transitional fossil information for
Primates
Bats
Carnivores
Rodents
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
Elephants
Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups

--------------------

One thing that evolution would predict is that some things will evolve in two different ways with the same function. A good example is the eye. You can see how it evolves as part of the skin that is sensative to light. Having several light sensative patches gives some sense of direction of light sources. Having a translucent film over one makes some of the early "eyes" be able to focus straight ahead. Anyway, step by step, the eye builds up. So we would expect that eyes may be different across animals if they evolve differently.

So that is the case. With humans light has to pass through stuff before it hits the detectors in our eyes. In squids, the detectors are in the front and light can go straight through. So why would a creator come up with two different ways to do the same thing? Why make one more efficient than the others?

So if God designed stuff, He was not consistent. Or you can say that He did not design by function. If He designed, it appears He designed through evolution.

Quath

 

[unred typo]

Quath wrote:

So if God designed stuff, He was not consistent. Or you can say that He did not design by function. If He designed, it appears He designed through evolution.

Obviously, God is the essence of creative genius. If you have ever created something, whether on canvas or from wood, metal, glass or clay, you would start with simple pieces and gradually add more and varied pieces, getting more and more elaborate. Each addition inspires you to another and while you might employ the same features or improve them, you might simply make changes for the fun of it. There is no reason to believe this took millions of years.

 

[lovely]

I think we should consider DNA. Can something change it's DNA? Is DNA a form of programing? If so, who programmed it, and by what method? If not programing or coding, then what is it? If something has the ability to adapt...is it programmed with that ability? If not, then what enables the change?

Similarities in species can be interpreted as transitional...but do they have to be? Can it just be that those characteristics work in multiple designs?Differences in species can be interpreted as change over time, but do they have to be? Can it be that the differences are what makes animals suited to their purpose and identifiable?

 

[keebs]

Can something change it's DNA?

Humans can change DNA to a certain extent with the help of modern genetics. However, the only way something changes it's DNA naturally is through mutations that get passed down to the kids.

Is DNA a form of programing?

That's how I see it.

If so, who programmed it, and by what method?

Nature programmed it with natural selection.

If something has the ability to adapt...is it programmed with that ability?

Everything is programmed with an ability to adapt due to the plasticity of organisms. However, I don't believe that's the kind of adapting you're talking about. If you're talking about adapting by gaining an extra limb or something like that, then no, we aren't programmed for that. That kind of adaptation comes about by mutations that are transferred to our offspring, and how that mutation is propogated depends on the fitness (I'm talking about natural selection here...).

Similarities in species can be interpreted as transitional...but do they have to be?

Yes, unless you want to be completely illogical about it.

Can it just be that those characteristics work in multiple designs?

If evolution didn't happen then that would be the only other choice...

Can it be that the differences are what makes animals suited to their purpose and identifiable?

Yes, except for the fact that not only do they look the same, but that their genetic code shows a progression as well. It's like reading a book. Sure, if you only read one page at a time you might wonder about the similarities of the sentence structure, the similarities in the story, etc. However, when you look at the big picture (ie the whole book), it becomes obvious that the similarities are not by accident because everything only makes sense when you read the book as a whole. However, you can still be completely illogical about everything and say that even though they go together so well, they're still only individual pages that don't constitute a book.

 

[lovely]

Keebs,

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, and answers to my questions. I really do. I think that your interpretation is something I can respect, however I do not find myself in agreement.

I don't want to offend you, but I would like to humbly say that the priori that is associated with words like, "illogical" is not an argument. However, I did find the tone of your post to be overall a respectful one.

Thanks again.

 

[keebs]

I don't want to offend you, but I would like to humbly say that the priori that is associated with words like, "illogical" is not an argument.

Yeah, I tend to use "illogical" and "irrational" as synonyms...even though they aren't.

 

[lovely]

I apologize keebs, I thought in your previous posts you were wanting to have a serious and respectful discussion...as the person who started this thread intended. I did not realize that my pointing out a priori in your speech would upset you, but obviously by your response it did. So, for the offense, I am sorry.

 

[keebs]

I apologize keebs, I thought in your previous posts you were wanting to have a serious and respectful discussion...as the person who started this thread intended. I did not realize that my pointing out a priori in your speech would upset you, but obviously by your response it did. So, for the offense, I am sorry.

Oh no, I wasn't offended at all. I was agreeing with you.