Can anyone tell me if evolution has ever been shown correct on any occasion?

[dad]

..Theistic Evolutionists have told you this, even YEC's won't even address your crazy ideas.

TEs are those who value science above the word far as I can tell, no? Any TE's out there say something different-speak up.
That leaves bible believers. True, they have shyed away from a new and revolutionary concept. But where are the guns blazing? I am tapped into the bible, and really, it can't much be debated. One could prefer certain interpretaions, but not dismiss mine.

And by the way there are people out there who know Evolution is a fact and is valid,

I allow for hyper evolution, so I guess that's me.

who agree with an ancient Earth and no global flood and still believe in the Bible.

Ah, the compromise theorists. Where were they before modern science came along, and they had to jackhammer the word to try to get it to fit man's wisdom?

 

[gluadys]

the term 'species' is alien to scripture a modern artificial term at best which can excite biologists into believing that they have discovered or created or forced a mutation onto an organism thus proving microevolution.A cyclicle proof ,that is to say "I have discovered a new species because our definition of species say so"
whereas scripture describes living creatures according to their kinds,the beasts, cattle, creeping things etc.

The term species is not at all alien to scripture. It is the Latin term used to translate the Hebrew 'min' (i.e."kind") in the Vulgate, the first translation of the bible into Latin.

Since, for the next millennium and a half, nearly all scientific work was published in Latin, "species" became the scientific term for "kind" and was adopted into English as a scientific synonym for the biblical "kind".

No one questioned that "species" and "kind" meant the same thing until it was conclusively shown that not every species was separately created. Then, to save face, creationists began to distinguish the two by giving a new definition to "kind" which included a number of related species.

Now, a century later, most creationists do not know the history of their own theology well enough to know that the current creationist definition of "kind" was invented to get around the fact of evolution.

 

[dad]

...
No one questioned that "species" and "kind" meant the same thing until it was conclusively shown that not every species was separately created. Then, to save face, creationists began to distinguish the two by giving a new definition to "kind" which included a number of related species.

....

Hyper evolution fixes all that.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

He called genesis ridiculous first, I just applied the adjective more appropriately. Looks like you found a new calling. Try to convince others not to take me seriously!

Dad dad dad, you have convinced everyone not to take you seriously with all the nonsense you have already posted, even before the no gravity thread. People just respond to you to see if they can induce you into posting something even more absurd than what you posted before and guess what, it usually works.

 

[Gracchus]

Hyper evolution fixes all that.

In your mind. (I had my dog fixed.)

 

[dad]

In your mind. (I had my dog fixed.)

Yes, it fixes it. In your mind, it remains broken. At least your dog won't reproduce.

 

[dad]

Dad dad dad, ....People just respond to you to see if they can induce you into posting something even more absurd than what you posted before and guess what, it usually works.

Maybe one day I will come up with some things as bizzare as granny and the speck, you think? No, your fantasies are in the running for a memorial award. (that is for man's classic, all time depths of foolishness, like evolution and the big bang) which may be given in the coming world.

 

[Valkhorn]

Maybe one day I will come up with some things as bizzare as granny and the speck, you think?

If you talked to someone who lived 500 years ago about Evolution, germ theory, gravity, the age of the Earth, etc. yes they'd think you were crazy, but then again it is supported by evidence that they didn't have back then, so if they were exposed to the evidence the reasonable person from that time would agree.

You see the difference in what YOU say and what scientists say is scientists actually know what they are talking about, their stuff is supported by evidence.

Whereas you do not know anything about physics, geology, biology, or even history, and you do not know what you're talking about - nor do you even try to research the evidence.

You can say whatever you want really, it doesn't change the facts of which you are completely clueless on.

 

[dad]

If you talked to someone who lived 500 years ago about Evolution, germ theory, gravity, the age of the Earth, etc. yes they'd think you were crazy,

Age of the earth is not supported now more than then. You assume decay then, and same light, and same this and same that, and a PO everything but have no proof or support. Germ theory is not some atheist exclusive either. Look at the likes of Louis Pasteur . Washing hands, and cleanliness were concepts that are godly. And evolution goes only as far as creation! You can't take it any further, so it avails me as much as it is useful to old agers!! We got it all.

but then again it is supported by evidence that they didn't have back then, so if they were exposed to the evidence the reasonable person from that time would agree.

Not old ages or precreaion evolution. Sure we can see germs, whopee do. Thanks to christians.

You see the difference in what YOU say and what scientists say is scientists actually know what they are talking about, their stuff is supported by evidence.

I question not their stuff. I simply point out the foundation upon which all old age belief rests is a past that was as the present, physical only. This assumption is not their stuff they can evidence.

Whereas you do not know anything about physics, geology, biology, or even history, and you do not know what you're talking about - nor do you even try to research the evidence.

That is a pretty silly statement. Nevertheless, what can you dredge out of any of those things to back up your fantasy past? Nothing, thats right. Yet in all those things is hidden great knowledge of God, and how He set things up, and the creation, etc. Don't think you own it!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Dad dad dad, you have convinced everyone not to take you seriously with all the nonsense you have already posted, even before the no gravity thread. People just respond to you to see if they can induce you into posting something even more absurd than what you posted before and guess what, it usually works.

Check that -- it always works.

 

[anunbeliever]

Some one mentioned the pesticides vs. insects as an example... you ever heard Doctors complaining about the over use of anti-biotics? bacteria are developing a resistance to it and will eventually become immune to it.

Some YECs argue that insect resistance to pesticide and bacteria resistance to antibiotics already exists in their genome. The trait is simply being naturally selected. This would be easy enough for science to disprove once a given bacterias genome has been fully mapped.

As for evolution in action - what about the nylon eating bacteria?

And guess what? They are exactly the same as the mechanisms that cause othre slight variations. If you concede that natural selection can, via the selection of mutation, cause genetic changes within a species, then you are conceding to the exact same mechanism that leads species to diverge genetically when they are separated.

Some YECs concede that evolution is a true mechanism and does result in new species. However they then say that this mechanism is not enough to account for the diversity seen in life on Earth. eg only 20% of organisms originated through evolution.

 

[anunbeliever]

as the difference between humans and chimps isn't that much larger as between other species where such a hybrid is possible. That would be very interesting to research, if it weren't for those pesky ethics commissions

http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/DaCapo.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t1808623-chimp-to-man-ethics.html

 

[And-U-Say]

Some YECs argue that insect resistance to pesticide and bacteria resistance to antibiotics already exists in their genome. The trait is simply being naturally selected. This would be easy enough for science to disprove once a given bacterias genome has been fully mapped.

As for evolution in action - what about the nylon eating bacteria?


Some YECs concede that evolution is a true mechanism and does result in new species. However they then say that this mechanism is not enough to account for the diversity seen in life on Earth. eg only 20% of organisms originated through evolution.

<creationist mentality>
Only 33% of the neutrinos are accounted for from the sun. Therefore: 2/3 of the sun's light is from gravitational collapse, not fusion (or a lack of understanding of neutrinos). So, stop all research in nuclear chemistry and just believe that the sun and earth are only 10,000 years old.
</creationist mentality>

Good thing we don't listen to creationists. Technology would never leave the 1950's.