There is no evidence againts the Theory of Evolution.

[SteveB28]

Well, for the sake of a good discussion, why don't you present some to the proofs and show why you think they have failed?

Not my responsibility. The burden of proof lies entirely with those of you who make these claims. YOU have to show why these things hold, otherwise the null hypothesis applies; ie, they fail.

Your amputee example overlooks a couple of things. People may well starve to death and die in the desert. But there is food and water on the earth. People need legs to function, and there are legs. The fact you can't meet a specific need at one time, does not mean the system does not provide for that need.

I see. You maintain that we "need" God. Yet you have no way of justifying that claim. Who says we need gods, any of them? Some of you might WANT gods, but that is not a need like food, water, legs or vision.

Also, I think there is far more to believing in God than just the fact we need order. Human imagination is never very free. Just about anything we imagine has some basis in reality. All our concepts, no matter how strange they are, came for out experiences. So if there was no God, if no human ever encountered a God, we would simply have no concept of God., wouldn't even have the word.

Nonsense. We are capable of imagining many things that may or may not exist. And the fact that we can concoct labels for them means nothing special.

Watch: I am imagining a creature that has no form, but is pure intelligence. It lives in the Qzarkloxzsy Galaxy. I have named it Hycxerjaspol.

There. Do you think there is a chance that any of that exists? How great a chance, do you think?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

There. Do you think there is a chance that any of that exists? How great a chance, do you think?

Haven't seen you around here in a while, Steve. Hope you are well.

 

[SteveB28]

Haven't seen you around here in a while, Steve. Hope you are well.

Thank you Jon. Still managing to stagger along my local beach each day. Great grandkids help to inspire as well. Nice to hear from you.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, why not? What's the point in having God that doesn't satisfy, that is threating and alien? A God like that is no God to me, just a tyrant, a Devil that I feel it would be my sworn oblation to rebel against.

The creator of all that is is unlikely to stand for reelection once every four or five years, and, if he exists, you don't get to choose which attributes he should have.

 

[Hieronymus]

If there was it would mean the ToE was wrong.

Then it is wrong.
Case solved.

You might want to check this out too:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution only seems to be a problem for the people who want to believe something else, they can not live with the fact that our closest ancestors were Apes and we are all primates, if we damage our brains we do not even make very good Apes because in the world of Apes our brains are all that sets us apart.

The usual bias many just parrot with verve...
It's ad hominem argumentation, typical for theophobes.
Apparently it is you who has a problem with creation.
Or maybe you just put your trust in the wrong thing.
(which is normal, considering the platform naturalism has)
Check that topic, and see that naturalism is just a belief.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/

By the way, no, it's not just the brain that sets us apart from apes.

 

[SkyWriting]

It isn't a religious separation. Evolution is a fully worked out, and evidenced, theory. Abiogenesis is scarcely off the starting blocks.

That's the oddest way ever to categorize scientific fields.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not, of course, the job of religion to come up with scientific theories.

The founders of modern science would likely disagree.

 

[SkyWriting]

What is "mutation theory", why is it wrong, and what evidence demonstrates that it is wrong?

Hyper fast evolution suggests that slow and random mutation theory is not correct.
"Switch genes" suggest intelligent design over stupid-design.

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution is a fully worked out, and evidenced, theory.

They have been repeating that mantra for decades now, probably in the hope it may come true if they believe it hard enough.

it is however a blatant lie.

 

[Hieronymus]

What did Darwin get right?

That species can adapt, like the finches.
The conjecture that organisms can gain purposeful characteristics (write their own DNA) has been bankrupted since the knowledge of DNA.

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution stands firm throughout all the tests,

It is not testable because it must have taken millions of years.

evolution is as close to being a fact as it is possible to get.

No.

It's at this point your ignorance about evolution lets you down, when you talk about life coming from nonlife you have stopped talking about evolution and changed the subject to abiogenesis,

Which is also a part of the general theory, it is dead things evolving into living things.

you then do it again and make a special plea for an intelligent life that did not require an intelligent life to make it exist, surely you can see how ridiculous this claim is?
it's positively childish.

Iḿ not sure where you obtained all this certainty, but i think you should have a look here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/
See what your prophets have to say.

 

[Hieronymus]

That is pretty much the whole game in a nut shell. Of course they know that the mutation theory is now defunct and it has been proven to be wrong.

Then where do the assumed changes in the DNA come from?
Selection does not change the DNA, you see.

 

[Hieronymus]

How much of that mountain is force-fitted data?

Ah, "the mountains of evidence" mantra...
There is indeed a mountain of data, gathered by science.
But it doesn't point to evolution at all.
But i guess it's a good mantra to stay in the faith....

 

[lesliedellow]

The founders of modern science would likely disagree.

I'm sure Newton would have known the difference between physics and theology, even if creationists don't.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's the oddest way ever to categorize scientific fields.

It is an accurate description of where the two theories stand.

 

[lesliedellow]

They have been repeating that mantra for decades now, probably in the hope it may come true if they believe it hard enough.

it is however a blatant lie.

They repeat it because it is true. If creationists don't much care to hear the truth, well that's just tuff.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm sure Newton would have known the difference between physics and theology, even if creationists don't.

You seem to be unaware that ID and creation science has nothing to do with theology.
Even Biblical creationism has nothing to do with theology, only in stead of Darwin's bankrupt 19th century conjecture, they look for evidence for the Biblical account of history.

 

[Hieronymus]

They repeat it because it is true.

But it isn't true, there is no evidence to support evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species.

If creationists don't much care to hear the truth, well that's just tuff.

You only have bluff and anger, dear sir.

 

[lesliedellow]

You seem to be unaware that ID and creation science has nothing to do with theology.
Even Biblical creationism has nothing to do with theology, only in stead of Darwin's bankrupt 19th century conjecture, they look for evidence for the Biblical account of history.

It has everything to do with theology, and in particular with a fundamentalist reading of the Bible.