Challenging Evolution

[doubtingmerle]

In another thread, razzelflabben has launched a critique of evolution. Since that thread has nothing to do with evolution at all, I decided to bring that discussion over here.

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?

Evolution is not perfect. No species has evolved to the point of perfection.

I have never heard the report I heard [about dinosars and man footprints being found together] reported as a forgery so do not assume to know more than you do.

As I have explained, the Paluxy river footprints are a known fraud. If you know of another claim of dinosaur and human footprints together, could you tell us about it, please?

First off, I have read books [about evolution], several of them.

And were they written by evolutionists? Can you tell us one or two that you have read? Because you seem to misunderstand some of the basics of evolution theory.

Secondly, I do not attack evolutionist theory, only the idea that their theory is truth and that what they interpret is evidence.

Okay, you don't think evolution is true? Why not? What evidence do you have?

As stated earlier, fallible, temperal man cannot interpret the infallible eternal. When I find an evolutionist that understands that, I will gladly enter a conversation with them on evolutionary theory. Untel then, science cannot be used to prove evolution for by the very nature of science as well as the theory, it cannot be proven.

Do you have any other explanation for the mammal-like reptiles, other than that they were transitionals between mammals and reptiles?

First off, science cannot prove evolution. The very nature of the theory leaves it unprovable. So how then can the scientific community accept evolution because of the overwhelming evidence. The theory itself sets it up for unprovable.

But you have no other explanation for the fossil record, do you?

Secondly, the scientific "evidence" must be interpreted. This interpretation is done by man, man makes mistakes,

That's why science is self-correcting.

Are you better at interpreting geologic evidence than scientists are?

What science proves is that man doesn't know everything. Period, end of story. This includes the origins of the world and when man can on the scene.

Who said we know everything?

But we do know that animals must have been progressing from microbes to modern animals throughout the ages.

Secondly, I am sure I stated more than once that possibility and probability and truth all have different criteria. The criteria for possibilty is in direct perportion to the number of people who believe something.

Okay, as I asked before, does this mean that, when 99% of the people thought the earth was flat, that therefore the earth was flat?

To jump ahead, the possibility that the earth was flat, based on the evidence at the time, was high because there were people who believed it. The probability that it was flat was not nearly as high because there was limited evidence on either side of the coin (at the time) The truth was not know until it could be proven.

Excuse me. There was never a time when it was probable that the earth was flat. It was always round. Humans just didn't know it.

So, let us take a moment to get off topic again, in the case of evolution vs. God, the possibilty is high for either to exist because there are large numbers of people who believe either. If is even possible for both to have happened because there are people to believe that as well.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something. Evolution is true based on the facts, not on the popular vote.

Now mathamticians have done probability studies (math being a much more exact science than science) and the studies suggest that the probability of evolution is astronomically against.

Please show me where I can find this mathematical study that proves evolution is unlikely.

I am not angry, but I do have a problem with scientists and others that claim science to be infallible proof.

Do you know any scientist who claims science to be infallible proof?

For example. Science says that what goes up must come down. This is supposedly a law of science that science has proven repeatedly, so is gravity and yet, over the last few years, man has defied gravity and has even created a solid that is lighter than air and thus floats. So what evidence them does science prove to us about gravity, that it can be overcome? This is no proof of anything. It is mans interpretation of what me sees, nothing more nothing less,

Excuse me. My son's kindergarten science class was more advanced than this. They learned that rockets go into outer space.

it is in this very science that we have seen man's ideas of his world change, example, the earth is flat. Now with science always changing and man's knowledge ever growing, who is to say that our ideas of things like gravity and earth function, and man's origins will not grow and change with our knowledge.

Our knowledge of evolution grows.

Do you know of any significant argument against evolution?

It is those who claim science infallible that I take issue.

Who claims that science is infallible?

This is your interpretation of the evidence and my interpretation says otherwise. Are you then claiming to be more intelligent than me because we see things differently? I thought intelligence was not based on opinions? Science is about opinions based on observations! Isn't this a bit off topic though?

I do not know if I am more intelligent than you. I know a little about evolutionary theory, and why it is completely accepted by science. Do you have any reason to think evolution is wrong?

 

[Logic]

Pwned!1ONE1

 

[lucaspa]

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?

Because natural selection can only work for the good of that individual. Thus, natural selection is selfish. And isn't selfishness a part of evil?

I have never heard the report I heard [about dinosars and man footprints being found together] reported as a forgery so do not assume to know more than you do.

Well, they are. Even the new head of ICR, the son of Henry Morris, admits that they are.

As stated earlier, fallible, temperal man cannot interpret the infallible eternal. When I find an evolutionist that understands that, I will gladly enter a conversation with them on evolutionary theory. Untel then, science cannot be used to prove evolution for by the very nature of science as well as the theory, it cannot be proven.

But theories can be disproven. And creationism has been disproven. Also, by all reasonable standards, evolution has been proven to be true. I have a thread called "Evolution Proven". You are welcome to disagree there.

Theories are accepted as (provisionally) true when there is considerable supporting evidence for them. For instance, round earth is a theory. Any doubt in your mind it is "proven"?

Creationism is also a theory. Remember, it has been disproven.

Also remember that evolution is not atheism. DoubtingMerle is an atheist, but evolution will not prove his atheism. Instead, evolution is simply how (for a theist) God created .

 

[Sopharos]

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?

Evil is a psychological, philosophical and moral issue, and does not present any evolutionary disadvantage to the evolution of humans in any way.

I have never heard the report I heard [about dinosars and man footprints being found together] reported as a forgery so do not assume to know more than you do.

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

First off, I have read books [about evolution], several of them.

Without any real understanding of the subject, obviously.

Secondly, I do not attack evolutionist theory, only the idea that their theory is truth and that what they interpret is evidence.

Science doesn't work that way. We interpret the evidence first, then construct a theory out of it. And it's not "truth", it's just the most scientifically acceptable theory to explain the diversity of life on earth.

As stated earlier, fallible, temperal man cannot interpret the infallible eternal. When I find an evolutionist that understands that, I will gladly enter a conversation with them on evolutionary theory. Untel then, science cannot be used to prove evolution for by the very nature of science as well as the theory, it cannot be proven.

Ahaha, laughable argument from fallibility. What he's basically saying is that:
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that Evolution is false.
(4) Therefore, Evolution is false.

R-O-F-L-M-A-O

First off, science cannot prove evolution. The very nature of the theory leaves it unprovable. So how then can the scientific community accept evolution because of the overwhelming evidence. The theory itself sets it up for unprovable.

I am unaware of any aspect of the Theory of Evolution that cannot be supported by scientifically viable evidence.

Secondly, the scientific "evidence" must be interpreted. This interpretation is done by man, man makes mistakes,

More argument from fallibility. Aha-ahahahahaha!!!

What science proves is that man doesn't know everything. Period, end of story. This includes the origins of the world

Not within the scope of Evolution.

and when man can on the scene.

We know that one, though.

Secondly, I am sure I stated more than once that possibility and probability and truth all have different criteria. The criteria for possibilty is in direct perportion to the number of people who believe something.

I smell an argumentum ad populum coming.

To jump ahead, the possibility that the earth was flat, based on the evidence at the time, was high because there were people who believed it. The probability that it was flat was not nearly as high because there was limited evidence on either side of the coin (at the time) The truth was not know until it could be proven.

Ah, idiocy was epidemic back in those days. Science solved this problem.

So, let us take a moment to get off topic again, in the case of evolution vs. God

Evolution =/= Atheism.

the possibilty is high for either to exist because there are large numbers of people who believe either. If is even possible for both to have happened because there are people to believe that as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, there we have it: argumentum ad populum.

Now mathamticians have done probability studies (math being a much more exact science than science) and the studies suggest that the probability of evolution is astronomically against.

I don't see what aspect of evolution can be mathematically demonstrated as highly improbable.

I am not angry, but I do have a problem with scientists and others that claim science to be infallible proof.

I've never heard of a scientist saying such a thing. "Infallible truth" is a concept of religion, not science. Rules of religion =/= rules of science. Shut up and take your persecution complex somewhere else.

For example. Science says that what goes up must come down.

Wrong. That is a folk saying used by common society with no science behind the statement. The mechanics of gravity is much more complex than that. Learn some Physics instead of making strawman simplifications.

This is supposedly a law of science that science has proven repeatedly, so is gravity and yet, over the last few years, man has defied gravity and has even created a solid that is lighter than air and thus floats.

If such a solid exist, we would have flying cars by now. And man have not defied gravity at all, they've just produced enough force to counter the effects of gravity. Learn some Physics.

So what evidence them does science prove to us about gravity, that it can be overcome? This is no proof of anything. It is mans interpretation of what me sees, nothing more nothing less,

Cease your gibberish and learn some Physics.

it is in this very science that we have seen man's ideas of his world change, example, the earth is flat. Now with science always changing and man's knowledge ever growing, who is to say that our ideas of things like gravity and earth function, and man's origins will not grow and change with our knowledge.

Science changes and improve on itself, so if something is shown to be wrong, science corrects itself. That's what science is.

It is those who claim science infallible that I take issue.

Never heard of such a statement coming from a mouth of a scientist.

This is your interpretation of the evidence and my interpretation says otherwise. Are you then claiming to be more intelligent than me because we see things differently? I thought intelligence was not based on opinions? Science is about opinions based on observations! Isn't this a bit off topic though?

Yes, Science is based on observation - and your observation is wrong. Simple is that.

 

[Jet Black]

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?

because "evil" is part of an evolutionarily stable strategy. if everyone was good and incapable of evil, then we would also be somewhat naiive. then when an evil person comes along, he could expoit the goodness of everyone else and increase his own breeding prowess (i.e. rape dozens of women, but because everyone is good, they have all the children and so on, even if he is summarily punished for his actions) hence his evil genes would spread through the populous, eliminating all the good people. Instead what we have is an ESS, where we are a mix of both, in which case neither purely evil nor purely good people can take over.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay, it looks like it is time to declare victory and move on to another thread.

 

[Lysit]

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?

This "evil" has often benefitted an indevidual to survive.

 

[Obertray]

You didn't just write it off as a razzleflabben post?

You're all brave, brave people.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existence?

Because we evolved the evil into our existence. Reasonable, rational people tend to lead reasonable, rational, irenic lives. But aberrant mental defects like the right-wing religious nut-jobs don't live that way, because they don’t think that way. And there are times when religious leaders like Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson and Hitler further their own selfish ends by collecting paranoid, reactionary believers controlled by their superstitious fears, and these leaders yoke those minions to kill all the unbelievers. Thousands of years ago, certain cult leaders like Krsna, Quetzocoatl and Moses waged war against the unfaithful simply because they didn’t believe what they had no reason to believe. Moses had the greatest influence on modern society, and may have been worst of all. His desert brigands slaughtered practically everyone they came across down to the last man, and either murdered or raped all the women, including the pre-teen girls, quickly breeding themselves into the dominant gene pool.

Once evil religious zealots get into positions of political power, (often by this very means) then they have the ability to eliminate rational, understanding people from the gene pool even more efficiently. This is how the Holy inquisition began. But even 4,500 years before that, Lord Krsna was already spreading propaganda that atheist evolutionists were “demonic.” For thousands of years, believers have been "fruitful" and have "dominated the Earth". But it has also been incumbent upon them to kill the infidel, and annihilate secular reasoning. This is why books are burnt, libraries are destroyed, science books are censored, and scientists have been held in contempt, or (historically) in prison. This is also why "holy" wars are fought and great thinkers like Socrates and Hypatia are put to death, supposedly by the will of someone’s imagined god. And since rational, compassionate, liberal-minded people don’t seek to murder the raving zealots en mass the way they do us, then evil will always be dominant.

 

[razzelflabben]

Now Merle, let us start by explaining some things to the others here. I asked you some questions about what you believe based on the questions you were asking me. The questions were not about evolution but how evolution relates to our world.

Secondly, after telling you repeatedly that I have no interest in discussing evolution with you, you insist I come here and debate.

When I tell you that I do not accept scienc as having overwhelming proof of evolution because science is an interpretation of the data and as such, can have more than one interpretation, you take my post on the other thread, out of context, and bring it here then expect me to run because you want me to. When I tell you I will get to it, you accuse me of several things that I won't even bring up.

Now, since my name was brought into this thread by someone else, we are up to speed with the thread and that false pretense that Merle brought you here. None the less, I never hide from a challenge so lets go at it, please remember however, that I have some serious time constraints do to the other thread Merle is debateing with me and since I don't have as much time as he does, I could be slow getting back to this thread. No Merle, that doesn't mean I forfeit anything, just that I am a busy mother of 5.

In another thread, razzelflabben has launched a critique of evolution. Since that thread has nothing to do with evolution at all, I decided to bring that discussion over here.

How thoughtfull of you since I repeatedly told you that the one time question on that thread was to clarify your belief on the issue being discussed and you accuse me of getting off topic. Then you repeatedly take us off topic and expect me to answer all your questions so that you can come here and accuse me of things.

Evolution is not perfect. No species has evolved to the point of perfection.

I asked you how evolution addresses the vast differences between man and animals, things like guns, computers, abortions, etc. Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale. How does evolution answer this question?

As I have explained, the Paluxy river footprints are a known fraud. If you know of another claim of dinosaur and human footprints together, could you tell us about it, please?

Oiy how many times must I go over this with you? I do not know the name of the report that I heard and I have not real interest in it at all. Fraud or not, it does not prove evolution. If it is not a fraud, then it would prove a flaw in the evolutionary theory. If it is a fraud, it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time.
Evolution 0
Creation0

And were they written by evolutionists? Can you tell us one or two that you have read? Because you seem to misunderstand some of the basics of evolution theory.

What I understand and do not understand about evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the posts made to you. I asked you about your understanding of evolutionary theory, including that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution because it is a matter or man's interpretation.

Okay, you don't think evolution is true? Why not? What evidence do you have?

I believe that to put things into context, I did not say one way or the other what I believed. But since you asked, I believe that evolution is a theory and so is creationism and intelligent designism, as such, I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.

My personal belief system is one of intelligent design. I base my beliefs on the contrictictions I see in science on the issue, my belief system in God and the consistancy found in the bible, and the consistancy that bible has shown in my life. My belief system is not however what we are discussing so I would expect this to be the last on this issue.

Do you have any other explanation for the mammal-like reptiles, other than that they were transitionals between mammals and reptiles?

Try God created every living things. And that they reproduce according to their kind. That is one theory and as to what is reproducable scientific data, there is nothing to prove otherwise. The very nature of the theory of evolution proves that evolution cannot be proven because of the length of time involved to reproduces a sugnificant change.

But you have no other explanation for the fossil record, do you?

Explain what you are referring to and we can address it in more detail. I will assume you mean that man footprints are not along side dinosaurs, that can be explained by the creationist theory of the flood. So again, we are at
evolution 0
creations 0

That's why science is self-correcting.

Please explain what you mean by self-correcting. It would seem to me that you are saying that the theory of evolution is always changing according to what science knows.

Are you better at interpreting geologic evidence than scientists are?

What gives you this idea? I have heard reputable scientists on both sides of the issue debate. Both have strong points, thus further proof that there is not overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

Who said we know everything?

Your responses on the other thread, show arrogance, skill at changing the subject, and skill at avoiding questions, I take this to mean that you see yourself as knowing everything.

But we do know that animals must have been progressing from microbes to modern animals throughout the ages.

What scientific data can you present to support this so that we can discuss the possible interpretations of this data?

Okay, as I asked before, does this mean that, when 99% of the people thought the earth was flat, that therefore the earth was flat?

Oh how dense are you, my time frame does not allow for this type of lame questioning. For those here who did not follow the other thread. The reference was summarized as follows:
1. To accredit everyone's idea as having worth, one must apply a % of possibility to every idea. This possibility is in direct proportion to the number of people that believe the thing.
compare that to
2. The probability of something happening. Mathamatics is a much more exact science and as such, has put astronomically low probability on the evolutionary theory
Neither of these prove
3. Truth for the prusuit of truth is much more complexed that either of the above.

Excuse me. There was never a time when it was probable that the earth was flat. It was always round. Humans just didn't know it.

So you boast that everyone's opinion matters when really you do not believe that they do???? At the time, the possibilty of it being flat was there, now we are moving into the truth of the shape of the earth because we have moved into number 3 above. Until we move into number 3 above, I do not value other's opinions if I do not attribute a possibility to every theory. I really shouldn't have defended you on the other thread if this is you view. Please do not say things you do not believe.

It doesn't matter how many people believe something. Evolution is true based on the facts, not on the popular vote.

What facts prove evolution. Science itself is an interpretation of the data. Interpretations can vary. What proof makes evolution fact, this is the issue I have with evolutionist, they claim fact when theory is what they have.

Please show me where I can find this mathematical study that proves evolution is unlikely.

Book in the library, I will have to look up the name of it for you, give me a bit of time and if I forget, remind me.

Do you know any scientist who claims science to be infallible proof?

Are you a scientist? you just said that science gives proof to the evolutionary theory.

Excuse me. My son's kindergarten science class was more advanced than this. They learned that rockets go into outer space.

And we now have a solid that is lighter than air, so what then can we make of the interpretation of the data? There are several possibilities, we have a generally accepted interpretation based on probabilties, but that does not dismiss the possibilties.

Our knowledge of evolution grows.

So does our knowledge of our world and to date, evolution has not been proven nor creation or intelligent design, disproven.

Do you know of any significant argument against evolution?

Heard quite a few but the discussion I engaged you in is possible interpretations so why don't you throw out a couple.

Who claims that science is infallible?

Your claim that evolution is fact rings of infallible science does it not?

I do not know if I am more intelligent than you. I know a little about evolutionary theory, and why it is completely accepted by science. Do you have any reason to think evolution is wrong?

Yes, because science is an interpretation of data, interpretations don't by fallible man.

 

[razzelflabben]

Because natural selection can only work for the good of that individual. Thus, natural selection is selfish. And isn't selfishness a part of evil?
[/i]
Well, they are. Even the new head of ICR, the son of Henry Morris, admits that they are.

But theories can be disproven. And creationism has been disproven. Also, by all reasonable standards, evolution has been proven to be true. I have a thread called "Evolution Proven". You are welcome to disagree there.

Theories are accepted as (provisionally) true when there is considerable supporting evidence for them. For instance, round earth is a theory. Any doubt in your mind it is "proven"?

Creationism is also a theory. Remember, it has been disproven.

Also remember that evolution is not atheism. DoubtingMerle is an atheist, but evolution will not prove his atheism. Instead, evolution is simply how (for a theist) God created .

My children have offered to fix lunch so I will see how far I can get before I have to stop. I hope that my fiest response here will help to put things into perspective as to how and why they were asked of Merle and what my opinions are when not taken out of context. In the meantime, Merle has all my times used on this and the other thread, so I would appreciate if you could give me a short summary of how science has disproven creationism or intelligent design because as of yet I have not seen any such evidence.

I have seen much on what science calls proof of evolution, none of which is more than suggestions.

Also please not that in my first post, putting people perspective of the reason for this thread that I have already said that each is a theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

Evil is a psychological, philosophical and moral issue, and does not present any evolutionary disadvantage to the evolution of humans in any way.



Then you haven't looked hard enough.



Without any real understanding of the subject, obviously.



Science doesn't work that way. We interpret the evidence first, then construct a theory out of it. And it's not "truth", it's just the most scientifically acceptable theory to explain the diversity of life on earth.



Ahaha, laughable argument from fallibility. What he's basically saying is that:
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that Evolution is false.
(4) Therefore, Evolution is false.

R-O-F-L-M-A-O



I am unaware of any aspect of the Theory of Evolution that cannot be supported by scientifically viable evidence.



More argument from fallibility. Aha-ahahahahaha!!!



Not within the scope of Evolution.



We know that one, though.



I smell an argumentum ad populum coming.



Ah, idiocy was epidemic back in those days. Science solved this problem.



Evolution =/= Atheism.



Ladies and gentlemen, there we have it: argumentum ad populum.

I don't see what aspect of evolution can be mathematically demonstrated as highly improbable.



I've never heard of a scientist saying such a thing. "Infallible truth" is a concept of religion, not science. Rules of religion =/= rules of science. Shut up and take your persecution complex somewhere else.



Wrong. That is a folk saying used by common society with no science behind the statement. The mechanics of gravity is much more complex than that. Learn some Physics instead of making strawman simplifications.



If such a solid exist, we would have flying cars by now. And man have not defied gravity at all, they've just produced enough force to counter the effects of gravity. Learn some Physics.



Cease your gibberish and learn some Physics.



Science changes and improve on itself, so if something is shown to be wrong, science corrects itself. That's what science is.



Never heard of such a statement coming from a mouth of a scientist.



Yes, Science is based on observation - and your observation is wrong. Simple is that.

I am going to assume that some of your arguements are based on the misconceptions Merle intended to present about my opinions and as such, I have nothing to say to this post. If you read my first post and want to address issues after my post is put into perspective, then we can discuss your opinions.

 

[razzelflabben]

You didn't just write it off as a razzleflabben post?

You're all brave, brave people.

I'm not sure where to take this as a compliment or a critisizm.

 

[doubtingmerle]

after telling you repeatedly that I have no interest in discussing evolution with you, you insist I come here and debate.

Huh? I said the exact opposite. I said your anti-evolution rhetoric will be so easily defeated, it is best for you not to defend it. And now you say I am insisting that you come here? Hello?

If anybody is interested in the history of how we got here, there were a few posts regarding evolution in the tornadoes thread beginning at post 344.

I have about 3 weeks of backlog on this forum , so I will not be able to respond to this stuff now. If nobody answers this stuff before then, I will put it next on my agenda.

 

[razzelflabben]

You debate techniques are interesting, I watch with interest.

Huh? I said the exact opposite. I said your anti-evolution rhetoric will be so easily defeated, it is best for you not to defend it. And now you say I am insisting that you come here? Hello?

I do not give anti-evolution rhetoric, only defend your twisting of what was said, and you claim you did not insist on me coming here? What do you call it when someone says, I am going to twist you words to make you look like a fool and then tease you with what I have done so that you will come. Then I am going to assurt that I did none of that. Interesting, very interesting.

If anybody is interested in the history of how we got here, there were a few posts regarding evolution in the tornadoes thread beginning at post 344.

By all means, anyone doubting my words, read the forum, but dont' just start or stop at post 344, see how Merle has been debating his own opinions throughout the thread, it is interesting read.

I have about 3 weeks of backlog on this forum , so I will not be able to respond to this stuff now. If nobody answers this stuff before then, I will put it next on my agenda.

Then why did you not manage your time better and save this thread for when you did have more time? An am anxious to see your next debate tactic. I am learning a lot.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and you claim you did not insist on me coming here? What do you call it when someone says, I am going to twist you words to make you look like a fool and then tease you with what I have done so that you will come. Then I am going to assurt that I did none of that. Interesting, very interesting.

I never insisted that you come here.

I never said I was going to twist your words to make you look like a fool.

I never teased you with what you have done to make you look like a fool.

Where are you getting this stuff from?

 

[The Bellman]

And we now have a solid that is lighter than air

What is this lighter-than-air solid? Do you have any support for this claim?

 

[billwald]

"As stated earlier, fallible, temperal man cannot interpret the infallible eternal."

Then what is the purpose of theology?

 

[billwald]

"Now mathamticians have done probability studies (math being a much more exact science than science) and the studies suggest that the probability of evolution is astronomically against."

This is a gross error. Probability only applies to future events. Past events are a done deal. They can only try to calculate the probability of evolution happening a 2nd time.

 

[Jet Black]

I asked you how evolution addresses the vast differences between man and animals, things like guns, computers, abortions, etc.

Evolution remains largely a genetically based theory, not a memetic one.

Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale. How does evolution answer this question?

Evolutionary theory indicates nothing of the sort.

Oiy how many times must I go over this with you? I do not know the name of the report that I heard and I have not real interest in it at all. Fraud or not, it does not prove evolution. If it is not a fraud, then it would prove a flaw in the evolutionary theory. If it is a fraud, it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time.
Evolution 0
Creation0

the fact that creationists keep plugging it as evidence counts against them somewhat don't you think? it has no bearing on evolution.

What I understand and do not understand about evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the posts made to you. I asked you about your understanding of evolutionary theory, including that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution because it is a matter or man's interpretation.

actually yes there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution. twin matched hierarchies, the existance of a great number of transitional forms in the fossil record, observed instances of speciation, observed instances of rapid evolution, junk DNA, pseudogenes, ERVs, ALUs, Biodiversity and so on and so on......

I believe that to put things into context, I did not say one way or the other what I believed. But since you asked, I believe that evolution is a theory and so is creationism and intelligent designism, as such, I have an issue with anyone who claims to have overwhelming evidence or that theory is fact.

do you now. do you actually know anything about the evidence for evolution, or is your claim just a blind one? I suspect that to be the case.

My personal belief system is one of intelligent design. I base my beliefs on the contrictictions I see in science on the issue, my belief system in God and the consistancy found in the bible, and the consistancy that bible has shown in my life. My belief system is not however what we are discussing so I would expect this to be the last on this issue.

this would be the intelligent design responsible for, amongst many other things, the laryngeal nerve, manatee toenails, eyes in the Itjaritjari which are embedded in the skin, Bothriomyrmex regicidus and B. decapitans, Scurvy, the male Urethra, greenland shark eyes,. need I go on? why doesn't your intelligent designer design intelligently?

Try God created every living things. And that they reproduce according to their kind. That is one theory and as to what is reproducable scientific data, there is nothing to prove otherwise. The very nature of the theory of evolution proves that evolution cannot be proven because of the length of time involved to reproduces a sugnificant change.

false, evolution is both fact and a theory, science doesn't do proof so you might as well argue the same against gravity.

Explain what you are referring to and we can address it in more detail. I will assume you mean that man footprints are not along side dinosaurs, that can be explained by the creationist theory of the flood. So again, we are at

only the flood has been falsified already. you can't call on a falsified theory to try to explain things, because it's false.

What gives you this idea? I have heard reputable scientists on both sides of the issue debate. Both have strong points, thus further proof that there is not overwhelming evidence to support evolution.

please give us some of these strong points.

2. The probability of something happening. Mathamatics is a much more exact science and as such, has put astronomically low probability on the evolutionary theory

false. give evidence, please don'T quote Hoyle's calculation of abiogenesis, because (1) abiogeneisis is unrelated to evolution (2) it is a strawman

What facts prove evolution. Science itself is an interpretation of the data. Interpretations can vary. What proof makes evolution fact, this is the issue I have with evolutionist, they claim fact when theory is what they have.

the fact that mutation and differential reproductive success have been observed. tell me, given variation in the population and differential reproductive success, how exactly would you stop evolution?

And we now have a solid that is lighter than air,

evidence plz rather than claims.

So does our knowledge of our world and to date, evolution has not been proven nor creation or intelligent design, disproven.

creation has not been disproven, since the fact that we exist proves we were created, the question is how we were created. intelligent design on the other hand is set up as an unfalsifiable theory, how on earth are we meant to determine if something is intelligently designed or not. Yesterday I went down to the river, and there is a shingle beach there. on looking at it, I could see that the shingle beach was intelligently designed, with each stone placed in a specific location by an intelligent shingle beach maker. prove me wrong. Of course one question IDists do have to answer is why their intelligent designer is so incapable of designing intelligently.