Evolution as a theory of creation is a JOKE

[CraigBaugher]

I am not saying that some animals have not mildly evolved over time to better adapt to their environment, but to think all life came from one cell animals and plants to what we have today is a JOKE!

Scientist try and link one animal to another, "these two creatures have similar teeth, thus they must be related somehow and thus evolved. These two have similar ear bones, thus they must be related and evolved." Do you have proof? Well... No... we have to make logical assumptions... REALLY! So can you prove through fossil evidence that the same species truly evolved from one stage to the next? Well... again... not currently... like I said, we have to make some logical assumptions... REALLY... based on what... two creatures share similar teeth? Well... that does indicate they have some connection. REALLY!

If man evolved from ape, why didn't all apes evolve? Why have we not witnessed any evolution in apes? And Why do we only see big jumps, and have to hypothesize about the change, why don't we have proof of the sublte evolutionary steps from one stage to another. If man evolved from one stage to the next slow and subtly, where is the bone evidence showing these subtle changes? Why only the big jumps?

Why? Because they are only guesses... I'm sorry, if you are a PhD, you don't guess you hypothesize, but a guess is a guess, is a guess.

I believe in Creation. I believe God created every plant, insect, animal, fowl, and aquadic life that exists, and that they may have slightly evolved to better suit their environment, but they started and are today basically the same as what they were from the beginning.

Now some of you may even believe a higher form of life transplanted us, or genetically created us from the life already found here... While I do not believe this, I could accept this over everything evolving from one cell creatures over time.

Can I prove God created everything scientifically... Nope! But neither can you prove evolution. Mine is faith, and yours, a guess - ok hypothesis. I will stick with faith!

 

[Nathan45]

Be careful with this one, he's got a sword and some pretty good armor.

 

[AirPo]

I have to admit. The creationist version of evolution is pretty funny.

 

[Nathan45]

I am not saying that some animals have not mildly evolved over time to better adapt to their environment but to think all life came from one cell animals and plants to what we have today is a JOKE!

to have any credibility you should first define parameters of "mildly evolved"

Specifically, what kinds of evolution are possible and what kinds are impossible, and what do you base this off of? Furthermore, if you propose that there is no common ancestor, then there must be multiple distinct ancestors. It should be easy to determine using morphology 1) how many common ancestors there were, 2) which species belong to which ancestor.

To have any credibility, you should propose an outline of which creatures evolved from which original designed by God.

Scientist try and link one animal to another, "these two creatures have similar teeth, thus they must be related somehow and thus evolved. These two have similar ear bones, thus they must be related and evolved." Do you have proof? Well... No... we have to make logical assumptions... REALLY!

I don't know what you mean by "proof". If you mean "absolute metaphysical certainty" you should know that it is impossible to have absolute certainty about anything. If you mean "evidence" there is an incredibly large amount of evidence for evolution. Some of the best evidence is really as plain as day, the skeletal structure of so many different vertibrate animals are basically identical + or minus enlongation or a few features missing in some.

Almost all land vertibrates have, two eyes, a nose, two ears a mouth, a neck, two arms, hands (you'll notice in the bat, for example, the skeletal structure of a bat wing is nearly identical to a human hand, only the bones are thin and enlongated and oriented differently. but the same bones, in the same order, only stretched out ) Almost all have a rib cage, a pelvis, two legs, and feet, and a tail.

You'll notice that certain features have fallen off of certain animals, for example, whales lack hind limbs because they don't need them, similarly humans lost their tails, and birds lack most of the bones in the hand, and snakes lack any limbs as they have found a way to get around without them.

However, you'll notice that all of these diverse animals, they all have the same basic body type and the same types of bones.

Let's do some comparisons:

^A human and some apes


^Bat skeleton. It's "wings" are in fact simply elongated fingers.

^Frog skeleton

There are really more similarities than differences.

So can you prove through fossil evidence that the same species truly evolved from one stage to the next?

A fossil is just a snapshot and they're relatively rare.

Well... again... not currently... like I said, we have to make some logical assumptions... REALLY... based on what... two creatures share similar teeth? Well... that does indicate they have some connection. REALLY!

Your problem is that you're focusing on "similar teeth" I've already showed with the pictures above that the fossils really are similar on most EVERYTHING. Even not-closely related species like frogs and humans share the same basic skeleton. If the teeth are similar, in addition to everything else being similar, that would be a big deal, because teeth tend to change faster than other parts of the body. A human and a frog don't share similar teeth, but humans and neanderthals do. If a species has similar teeth they're probably closely related as teeth tend to change more quickly than everything else over the eons due to evolution.

If man evolved from ape, why didn't all apes evolve? Why have we not witnessed any evolution in apes?

Ok i don't even know where to start on this. First off, the apes you see today are not the same as the apes man evolved from...they evolved too. they're more like our cousins than our ancestors.

second, evolution takes millions of years among larger species. You're not going to see evolution in real time when studying something that reproduces as slow as humans or monkeys. Evolution can be observed in the laboratory, however, if you use fast-reproducing species such as fruit flies or e-coli. You could google e-coli evolution and probably find some interesting stuff.

And Why do we only see big jumps, and have to hypothesize about the change, why don't we have proof of the sublte evolutionary steps from one stage to another. If man evolved from one stage to the next slow and subtly, where is the bone evidence showing these subtle changes? Why only the big jumps?

what big jumps are you talking about? I showed you the skeletons of some apes alongside a human one can you point out any features that you think are insurmountable?

Why? Because they are only guesses... I'm sorry, if you are a PhD, you don't guess you hypothesize, but a guess is a guess, is a guess.

You seem to already think you know the answer before you ask.

I believe in Creation. I believe God created every plant, insect, animal, fowl, and aquadic life that exists, and that they may have slightly evolved to better suit their environment, but they started and are today basically the same as what they were from the beginning.

And you believe this on no evidence whatsoever. You talk about "proof" "proof" "proof", proof is for alchohol and mathematics, evolution has MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE, you have NO EVIDENCE.

Now some of you may even believe a higher form of life transplanted us, or genetically created us from the life already found here... While I do not believe this, I could accept this over everything evolving from one cell creatures over time.

I don't know anyone who believes this. I've seen it thrown out for discussion but nobody actually believes it.

Can I prove God created everything scientifically... Nope! But neither can you prove evolution.

A better question, can you provide any evidence that God did it all? i can provide evidence for evolution, google endogenous retroviruses, Google Twin nested hierarchy

Mine is faith, and yours, a guess - ok hypothesis. I will stick with faith!

So you basically admit you have no evidence for your belief, and then you accuse evolution of being a guess. Hypocrisy much? You're wrong, anyway, evolution is not a "guess" it is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, that is to say it has far and away more evidence for it than any other proposition.

 

[sbvera13]

If man evolved from ape, why didn't all apes evolve? Why have we not witnessed any evolution in apes? And Why do we only see big jumps, and have to hypothesize about the change, why don't we have proof of the sublte evolutionary steps from one stage to another. If man evolved from one stage to the next slow and subtly, where is the bone evidence showing these subtle changes? Why only the big jumps?

To answer your questions: They did, we have, we don't, we don't have to, we do, in museums, and also in museums. Watch this video and say there are no transitional fossils again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies&annotation_id=annotation_336064&feature=iv

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Poe? It's so hard to tell these days...

Hmmm, "Origin of the Life View: Theistic Evolution".

 

[sbvera13]

Check his posting history and profile. Seems to be the real deal.

 

[Nathan45]

Check his posting history and profile. Seems to be the real deal.

Occasionally i'll lurk on the christians only section of this site, i think i've seen him there. I don't think this is a poe, just a very very confused man.

 

[truth above all else]

I have to admit. The creationist version of evolution is pretty funny.

the evolutionist version of life is hilarious

 

[Nathan45]

the evolutionist version of life is hilarious

Describe for us what you think the "evolutionist version of life" is, so that we can all have a good laugh!

 

[AV1611VET]

Describe for us what you think the "evolutionist version of life" is, so that we can all have a good laugh!

 

[Nathan45]

Did you draw that yourself, AV?

 

[Split Rock]

I am not saying that some animals have not mildly evolved over time to better adapt to their environment, but to think all life came from one cell animals and plants to what we have today is a JOKE!

So, you don't really believe evolution is a "joke," you just want to restrict it. If evolution does work, it is not a "joke." I would also like to know how you determine what is "mild" evolution.

Scientist try and link one animal to another, "these two creatures have similar teeth, thus they must be related somehow and thus evolved. These two have similar ear bones, thus they must be related and evolved." Do you have proof? Well... No... we have to make logical assumptions... REALLY! So can you prove through fossil evidence that the same species truly evolved from one stage to the next? Well... again... not currently... like I said, we have to make some logical assumptions... REALLY... based on what... two creatures share similar teeth? Well... that does indicate they have some connection. REALLY!

Hmmm... is there something wrong with "logical assumptions?" When you flip the light switch on, do you make the logical assumption the bulb will light up? When you stop at a red stop light in your car, do you make the logical assumption that the light will soon turn green? Common Descent is inferred from the physical evidence. Period.

If man evolved from ape, why didn't all apes evolve? Why have we not witnessed any evolution in apes? And Why do we only see big jumps, and have to hypothesize about the change, why don't we have proof of the sublte evolutionary steps from one stage to another. If man evolved from one stage to the next slow and subtly, where is the bone evidence showing these subtle changes? Why only the big jumps?

All apes have evolved.

We see small changes all the time... isn't that the "mild" evolution you espoused earlier? Then you complain about not seeing every little small change in the fossil record? If we see some photographs of a volcanic eruption and then record the end of it with a video camera, should we question the earlier photographs because there are only a few stages recorded by them?

Why? Because they are only guesses... I'm sorry, if you are a PhD, you don't guess you hypothesize, but a guess is a guess, is a guess.

Look up the terms "hypothesis" and "theory." They are not "guesses." You called them "logical assumptions" a moment ago. You change your mind a lot, don't you?

I believe in Creation. I believe God created every plant, insect, animal, fowl, and aquadic life that exists, and that they may have slightly evolved to better suit their environment, but they started and are today basically the same as what they were from the beginning.

Then please explain the fossil record. Not a single creationist on the planet has succeeded so far.

Now some of you may even believe a higher form of life transplanted us, or genetically created us from the life already found here... While I do not believe this, I could accept this over everything evolving from one cell creatures over time.

Good for you. You are a Raelien.

Can I prove God created everything scientifically... Nope! But neither can you prove evolution. Mine is faith, and yours, a guess - ok hypothesis. I will stick with faith!

I will stick with the Scientific Theory of Evolution that has not been falsified in 150 years (least of all by you).

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you draw that yourself, AV?

​

 

[MoonLancer]

Evolution as a theory of creation is a JOKE

your right, it is. But as a theory that explains all the diversity of life on this planet, Its the best theory science has. It is also one of the fundamental principles of biology.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Occasionally i'll lurk on the christians only section of this site, i think i've seen him there. I don't think this is a poe, just a very very confused man.

I prefer to believe people like this don't exist for real. It's too scary to contemplate... they could be out there... walking down the street... in your very own home... </Twilight Zone music>

 

[truth above all else]

So you basically admit you have no evidence for your belief, and then you accuse evolution of being a guess. Hypocrisy much? You're wrong, anyway, evolution is not a "guess" it is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, that is to say it has far and away more evidence for it than any other proposition.

If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity, it has to make do with the only alternative it has at its disposal, namely the philosophy of natural selection. This view or theory can never be allowed to be considered doubtful since there is no plausible naturalistic alternative.There is an important difference between going to the evidence to test a theory against an alternative, and going to this same evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that science is willing to tolerate.

 

[IzzyPop]

If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity, it has to make do with the only alternative it has at its disposal, namely the philosophy of natural selection. This view or theory can never be allowed to be considered doubtful since there is no plausible naturalistic alternative.There is an important difference between going to the evidence to test a theory against an alternative, and going to this same evidence to look for confirmation of the only theory that science is willing to tolerate.

You really don't know how science works, do you? Every experiment run is not to prove evolution, it is to disprove it. It just hasn't happened.

 

[MoonLancer]

any scientist who could falsify evolution would be a rich rich man. even with that kind of incentive no one has been able to disprove it.

 

[Nathan45]

If science is to have any explanation for biological complexity, it has to make do with the only alternative it has at its disposal, namely the philosophy of natural selection. This view or theory can never be allowed to be considered doubtful since there is no plausible naturalistic alternative.

I don't see how the fact that there is no plausible naturalistic alternative to natural selection could be considered a weakness of natural selection rather than a strength. You do not need an alternative theory to test a theory.

Evolution by natural selection has passed every test given to it, in that:

1) the theory makes predictions that could be refuted if the evidence was different.
2) no evidence has been found that does not fit the theory.
3) no simpler theory has been devised that also fits all of the evidence.

The fact that no other plausible naturalistic theory even exists let alone can compete with evolution, simply shows just how well evolution passes with flying colors.

Again, you don't need an alternative theory to test evolution, you only need to know that evolution makes assertions, those assertions are backed by evidence and have never been refuted by evidence.