Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[crossnote]

ironic to be saying that in a post about evidence for evolution.

No more ironic than to be arguing for evolution in a Christian Forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No more ironic than to be arguing for evolution in a Christian Forum.

How so? Evolution is not anti-Christian.

 

[Strathos]

I wasn’t referring to microevolution amongst organisms but macroevolution across species.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Multiple examples here.

 

[loveofourlord]

You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

well because you just proved you don't know the difference so....thanks for the legwork :> Theories explain facts, the theory of evolution is the explnation of the fact of evolution, just as germ theory is the explanation of the fact of bacteria and germs, or gravitational theory is the explanation of the facts of gravity. theory is the highest level in science, and nothing related to the common usage of theory which is just guess. If your going to talk about stuff better know the meanings.

 

[loveofourlord]

When has evolution been tested and observed repeatedly?

We just showed you one, every fossil we find has been observations of evolution, we have this new fossil, we have the dinosaur tail found in amber, the dozens of fossils through multiple parts of evolution, funny how all these things fit what was predicted.

 

[Astrophile]

I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.

What evidence would you need to convince you that evolution is a fact?

In what way does the theory of evolution differ from atomic theory, the theory of thermodynamics, or kinetic theory?

 

[essentialsaltes]

When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

Around 1800 and into the early 19th century. I would point in particular to the principle of faunal succession, showing that living things were different at different times. They changed. Over time.

This was a fact that required an explanation. Several were offered, and Darwin's theory of evolution was and (in its modern form) is the best explanation for the fact of evolution.

 

[MIDutch]

You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

Evolution has ALWAYS been a FACT; for the entire 3+ billion years that life has been on Earth. That's how the first simple forms of life 3+ billions of years ago ended up resulting in the diversity of life we see on the planet today. The THEORY of Evolution was developed as a formal scientific concept around 160 years ago when we humans finally figured out what evolution is and how it works.

Also, your question "when ... did the theory of evolution become a fact?", in the second part of your post, basically demonstrates that, unlike your assertion in the first part, you really DON'T know the difference between fact and theory.

Further, no one on an internet "debate" forum should ever claim that just saying something "makes it so". Fortunately, the EVIDENCE for the FACT of evolution is in THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, research hospitals, libraries, etc. in every country around the world. There may even be some near where you live. You don't have to take our word for it.

 

[crossnote]

How so? Evolution is not anti-Christian.

It goes against Scripture. Scripture reveals that through Adam came sin and through sin came death. You can't have cycles of death and life until the first man.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
(Rom 5:12)

And if you think it only pertains to mankind...

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
(Rom 8:20-21)

 

[crossnote]

Observed Instances of Speciation

Multiple examples here.

I didn't see any observations over millions of years going on.

 

[crossnote]

We just showed you one, every fossil we find has been observations of evolution, we have this new fossil, we have the dinosaur tail found in amber, the dozens of fossils through multiple parts of evolution, funny how all these things fit what was predicted.

One big assumption...'has been observations of evolution'.
No one alive is old enough to observe the so-called 'millions of years' it takes for evolution to take place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It goes against Scripture. Scripture reveals that through Adam came sin and through sin came death. You can't have cycles of death and life until the first man.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
(Rom 5:12)

And if you think it only pertains to mankind...

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
(Rom 8:20-21)

No, it goes against your interpretation of scripture. Most Christians throughout the world disagree with you and your interpretation.

And so what if it does go against scripture? If that is the case you are simply admitting that the Bible is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't see any observations over millions of years going on.

That is only because you do not understand observation. Again, we need to go over the basics of science so that you understand observation.

Like it or not all observations are of things that occurred in the past. Simultaneity is a comforting fiction. When you look at the stars at night you are often observing far into the past with your naked eye alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One big assumption...'has been observations of evolution'.
No one alive is old enough to observe the so-called 'millions of years' it takes for evolution to take place.

We don't need to be. Again, you do not understand observation.

 

[crossnote]

What evidence would you need to convince you that evolution is a fact?

What evidence would you need to convince you that there is a living God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence would you need to convince you that there is a living God?

Hard to say. But it is up to the persons making the affirmative assertion to support their claim. Where is your evidence for a "living God"?

 

[MIDutch]

It goes against Scripture.

And it goes "against" most every other religious text around as well. And completely ignores the mythologies that humans have created over the years. Does that make evolution anti-Thor, Odin and Freya in your opinion?

 

[crossnote]

Around 1800 and into the early 19th century. I would point in particular to the principle of faunal succession, showing that living things were different at different times. They changed. Over time.

This was a fact that required an explanation. Several were offered, and Darwin's theory of evolution was and (in its modern form) is the best explanation for the fact of evolution.

And you call that article a conclusive statement on Faunal Succession?...

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Principle of faunal succession" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

 

[Speedwell]

What evidence would you need to convince you that there is a living God?

Whether there is a living God or not is nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The equivalent response to Astrophile's challenge would be, "What evidence would you need to convince you that the Book of Genesis is historical fact?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you call that article a conclusive statement on Faunal Succession?...

Instead of grasping at straws it would be much wiser to admit that you do not understand and try to learn.

You can learn if you try. I guarantee it. You do not lack the intelligence. But you might be too afraid to learn. I have seen that far too often in creationists.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And you call that article a conclusive statement on Faunal Succession?...

Weak sauce.

Would you prefer the National Park Service? Britannica? Oxford Reference?