Is evolution real?

[Hans Blaster]

I think adaptation is real like you've described, but not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.

Cells turn into mice, monkeys, and humans all the time.

A cell turned into me. Isn't that the point of certain arguments against abortion -- that cell will become a person?

You're new here, but your arguments are old and poor.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not only canyons but water gaps spanning several mountain clearly indicate water flowed over the mountains and cut out the gaps....Old Earth geologist have no annswer to this problem.

The creationist article literally mentions several different hypotheses. So it's not as if geologists are sitting around with puzzled expressions on their faces, completely at a loss.

As is typical, the article is 90% trying to tear down established geology, and only one paragraph actually describes the supposed flood-based creationist solution, with no discussion of its merits and flaws.

 

[driewerf]

Yes, that is what I read. We all came from a single celled organism according to the textbooks didn't we?

You stated something different:

not macro evolution where a cell turns into a mouse, which turns into a monkey, which turns into a human.

So I repeat my question:
"Do you really believe that the ToE states that a cell turns into a mouse? That a monkey turns into a human? If you open a textbook on evolution, do you really believe to read that?"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well I don't know about most self proclaimed christians, but I believe it has everything to do with science.


Oh come on, you know there was a time where the consensus believed that the earth was flat and were enforcing it. Wasn't there also a consensus in germany where the jews were believed to be inferior as well? You will not be called a scientist if you don't believe in the scientific consensus, and so when someone comes out against the consensus: they are not funded, and they are said to not be scientist, and they are not publicized by media or otherwise. Is this true or not?

DO i=1,10000
print *, "NOPE!"
END DO

Now that I've said it 10,000 times. That's not how science works. No Dogma. No ideological screening. Scientists are those who do science. That's all. No more. No less.

 

[-57]

The creationist article literally mentions several different hypotheses. So it's not as if geologists are sitting around with puzzled expressions on their faces, completely at a loss.

As is typical, the article is 90% trying to tear down established geology, and only one paragraph actually describes the supposed flood-based creationist solution, with no discussion of its merits and flaws.

That as well as other articles show how the OE crowd can't explain how the gaps formed...as the evidence for a world wide flood grows.

 

[Larniavc]

Not only canyons but water gaps spanning several mountain clearly indicate water flowed over the mountains and cut out the gaps....Old Earth geologist have no annswer to this problem.

Click here for an interesting article on the subject.

That would be rivers and glaciers. There is no mechanism for selective weathering of a canyon. It’s either rivers ‘V’ shaped valleys or glaciers ‘U’ shaped valleys.

 

[essentialsaltes]

as the evidence for a world wide flood grows.

What evidence? Even if you succeeded at tearing down traditional geology, "The Flood" doesn't win by default.

 

[-57]

What evidence? Even if you succeeded at tearing down traditional geology, "The Flood" doesn't win by default.

There is sandstone that cover continents that have been shown to have been deposited by flowing water.

 

[driewerf]

There is sandstone that cover continents that have been shown to have been deposited by flowing water.

"Flowing water". And is there any reason that that flowing water was

• global?
• flowing 4300 years ago?
• rained down ànd receding in one single year?

 

[emett22]

DO i=1,10000
print *, "NOPE!"
END DO

Now that I've said it 10,000 times. That's not how science works. No Dogma. No ideological screening. Scientists are those who do science. That's all. No more. No less.

Then in that case, there are plenty of christian scientists that don't believe in evolution, and the evolutionists are not actually scientists

 

[emett22]

You stated something different:


So I repeat my question:
"Do you really believe that the ToE states that a cell turns into a mouse? That a monkey turns into a human? If you open a textbook on evolution, do you really believe to read that?"

Yes, I do. I don't know what their idea of lineage is between single celled organism and human (it kinda changes from time to time too), But like I said already: Yes

EDIT: Oh I think I see what you mean now. No, obviously nobody says a cell gives birth to a mouse, but over time the organism supposedly gets more and more complex.

 

[JIMINZ]

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which stage exactly do you think is incorrect?

Sure, it's right at the stage where this feathered, weak sighted, two legged, creature, lost it's feathers and grew fur, (Hair) instead, gained better eyesight through a mutation in it's genes, and grew one leg on all four corners of its body to keep it from tipping over in a big wind, as well as developing stripes which it felt would give itself a better chance of confusing the predator, when it was in a herd situation.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure, it's right at the stage where this feathered, weak sighted, two legged, creature, lost it's feathers and grew fur, (Hair) instead, gained better eyesight through a mutation in it's genes, and grew one leg on all four corners of its body to keep it from tipping over in a big wind, as well as developing stripes which it felt would give itself a better chance of confusing the predator, when it was in a herd situation.

It's all very well to make fun, but some creationists actually believe nonsense like that about what the theory of evolution says, and you're liable to be taken for one of them.

 

[driewerf]

nm

 

[JIMINZ]

...

And what experiments, observations or other evidence have you gathered, to contradict people who do not believe "your" account.

 

[Tinker Grey]

DO i=1,10000
print *, "NOPE!"
END DO

for i in range(10000):
    print('nope')

 

[pitabread]

Can you prove that statement to be correct?

It's based on my general experience in these debates going back about two decades. The vast majority of creationists aren't really familiar with the science behind evolution or its success as a scientific theory.

(Of course, there are also studies that have inversely correlated scientific knowledge with beliefs in creationism.)

 

[pitabread]

As is typical, the article is 90% trying to tear down established geology, and only one paragraph actually describes the supposed flood-based creationist solution, with no discussion of its merits and flaws.

And of course we already know the creationist flood model is untenable just by basic physics, but creationists continue to ignore that.

 

[-57]

It's based on my general experience in these debates going back about two decades. The vast majority of creationists aren't really familiar with the science behind evolution or its success as a scientific theory.

(Of course, there are also studies that have inversely correlated scientific knowledge with beliefs in creationism.)

Are you claiming you are familiar with the science behind evolution?

 

[JIMINZ]

a scientific theory.

Abstract reasoning; speculation.