Evolutionism is not science but fool hypothesis

[michabo]

Are you trying to say ALL the creationist evidence is fake?

I can't recall seeing any evidence for creationism. Can you provide a couple of the strongest examples?

What about the geology that DOES point to a global flood?

There have been local floods, but that's not evidence for a global flood.

Ultimately, a single piece of evidence may contradict a theory and there is a wealth of evidence to contradict a global flood. The fruminous bandersnatch has many threads devoted to this.

His thread on trace fossils, http://www.christianforums.com/t63670, is an excellent place to start.

What about the numerous "ape-man" frauds, which even evolutionists must admit were errors?

Must admit? Scientists and evolutionists exposed these frauds in the first place! Are you not aware that the eagerness of scientists to expose frauds should be seen as conveying extra confidence in the remaining evidence?

What about the evidence of dinosaurs & humans coexisting?

There is none.

What about the inexplainable astronomical anomolies, such as the volcanic activity on the Jovian moon Io?

What about it?

What about the lack of intermediate species which even evolutionists agreed were lacking?

What about them? There's more than enough to prove evolution. As Jet Black said earlier: try to find a single fossil of the passenger pigeon. Does that mean they never existed? We have more than enough fossils to support evolution. We'd all like more, but I don't think we can reasonably expect many more.

You can't possibly dismiss all the evidence, and I didn't even bring up anything in the field of microbiology, DNA structure, etc that also points towards intelligent design, not random evolution.

Evolution isn't random, and the research of these fields supports evolution. Again, if you have a real point or real evidence, bring it up.

 

[Starcrystal]

I've refered time and again to my homepage if you haven't already viewed it. Go to the pages "Creation Evidence" and "Creation Evidence II" What I compiled was based on research & evidence presented by various scientists, geologists, astronomers, etc. Some of them were non-Christians. It almost sounds like people either refuse to take the evidence as evidence, or else think its faked.
If thats the case, how do I know evolution evidence isn't faked? We know some was, as in the case of the ape-men frauds, which are lightly dismissed.
What about the pre-cambrian creatures that were far more complex than had been estimated by evolution? Its on the page....

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I've refered time and again to my homepage if you haven't already viewed it. Go to the pages "Creation Evidence" and "Creation Evidence II" What I compiled was based on research & evidence presented by various scientists, geologists, astronomers, etc. Some of them were non-Christians. It almost sounds like people either refuse to take the evidence as evidence, or else think its faked.
If thats the case, how do I know evolution evidence isn't faked? We know some was, as in the case of the ape-men frauds, which are lightly dismissed.
What about the pre-cambrian creatures that were far more complex than had been estimated by evolution? Its on the page....

So did you remove all those false creation evidences I pointed out to you or are you still touting them?

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[ryfso]

I've refered time and again to my homepage if you haven't already viewed it. Go to the pages "Creation Evidence" and "Creation Evidence II"

Don't mind if I do!

No astronomer has ever seen a star actually be born, much less evolve into a more complex structure.

Right off the bat we have a bad definition of evolution - you're attacking a strawman from the get go. Ruh roh. Evolution, as far as we are concerned, is defined as a change in allele frequencies over succeeding generations. Do stars perform Mitosis, StarCrystal? No, I didn't think so.

All they have seen is the violent destruction of some stars, in Supernovae. Degeneration and disintegration is certainly NOT evolution, but it DOES coincide with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy ~ or Progressive deterioration.

Taken from http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html

"What About the Universe?
An occasional creationist response to the first flaw mentioned above is to say that, while the Earth is not an isolated system, the universe as a whole is. However, this does not help the argument they are trying to make. Astrophysicists, using data such as the cosmic background radiation, have verified that the universe has obeyed the second law of thermodynamics very well since the time of the big bang. The 2nd law predicts that something small and hot should become larger and colder, and that is just what has happened. The existence of some ordered life in a little corner of the universe like ours is a drop in the bucket - when the whole system is considered (which one must always do in thermodynamics), there is no violation of the second law in the development of the universe."

Keep in mind this gentleman is a Physics Ph.d. and an evangelical Christian. Does this mean you're going to remove it from your "Creation Evidence" pages, starcrystal? It's obviously in error. I can provide further proof if you wish.

More later, I don't want to cram it all into one post.

 

[webboffin]

Can evolution be proved or always remain a theory?

 

[ryfso]

Can evolution be proved or always remain a theory?

A scientific "theory" was once a hypothesis that has withstood testing. Germ theory is just a "theory" but it has been used in medicine for years.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Strike one for webboffin.

Does not know definition of theory or how science works!

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Can evolution be proved or always remain a theory?

That question has been answered many times. You need to learn what a theory is. The word "theory" in science does not mean the same thing as it does in most other contexts.

 

[webboffin]

I asked you can evolution be proved or will it always remain a theory?

Yes it can be proved or yes it will always be a theory will suffice.

Sorry if I asked a difficult question.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Nothing in science is ever completely proven and you still need to learn what a theory is.

 

[webboffin]

hmmm, sorry didn't mean to cause embarressment.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

You haven't embarrassed anyone. Your question just shows that you don't understand science. You are the one that should be embarrassed.

 

[webboffin]

But you never answered the question that I don't know the answer to, hence I asked, yet again you have failed to answer the question. If you don't know the answer then just say so and not put it back on me.

 

[webboffin]

If you know the answer then answer will evolution always be a theory or can it
be proven?

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I just want a yes or no answer.

When you see what is wrong with this question you will see what is wrong with yours.

 

[webboffin]

Theory according to dictionary

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

 

[webboffin]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I just want a yes or no answer.

When you see what is wrong with this question you will see what is wrong with yours.

Is that the scientific answer to my question? Or avoiding the issue?

 

[Non-Sequitur]

That is not what a theory means in science. That is the common definition for a theory. People will not answer your question because it is based on an incorrect definition.

I told you to give me a yes or no answer to my question.

 

[webboffin]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I just want a yes or no answer.

When you see what is wrong with this question you will see what is wrong with yours.

I never beat my wife so your question does not apply can you answer mine now?

 

[webboffin]

Okay I will ask someone else who may answer directly instead of circling around it.

Can evolution be proven or will it always remain a theory?