No evidence for evolution?

[BVZ]

A great number of debates boil down to the creationist claiming that There is no evidence for evolution.

Lets discuss this.

Creationists please explain why you think this, and evolution supporters, please give examples of evidence for evolution.

Other threads in this series:
Beneficial mutations

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I think this quote from AiG's statement of faith sums it up nicely:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

IOW, by definition they have ruled out evidence for anything that contradicts their beliefs. So discussion of evidence is moot.

 

[Nacho]

Many seem to play on a false dichotomy: If evolution is false, Creationism is true.

Even if evolution were refuted, one still has to provide evidence to posit Creationism. It's one thing to refute evolution, another to try and use refutation as grounds for Creationism. Evolution came about through evidence. If Creationism is to be an alternative to evolution it must have as much evidence as evolution.

 

[BandyOne]

It is just not possible to prove a negative.

 

[BVZ]

*bump*

 

[shadowmage36]

When explained in such simple terms as put forth by AiG, the Creationist position falls flat on its face. They make absolutely no pretence at being scientific or even reasonable. They make blanket statements about things that some experts have spent half a lifetime working on and proving. The fact that AiG and other Creationist groups have the nerve to make some of these assertions and call their own positions "reasonable alternatives" is mind-boggling.

And, because of all that, no Creationist is going to answer your question, I almost guarantee that.

 

[Loudmouth]

A great number of debates boil down to the creationist claiming that There is no evidence for evolution.

Lets discuss this.

Creationists please explain why you think this, and evolution supporters, please give examples of evidence for evolution.

Other threads in this series:
Beneficial mutations

For me, the best evidence is the single nested hierarchy that life fits into. This evidence was first discovered by a creationist (Carl Linnaeus) well before Darwin was born. My favorite resource is www.tolweb.org.

 

[JavaMan]

From the O.P.

A great number of debates boil down to the creationist claiming that There is no evidence for evolution.

In a way, Young Earth Creationists are great enthusiasts for evolution these days, as long as it doesn't go too far. Having figured out that only a limited number of species could have been carried on the ark (its measurements are in the Bible), they seem to have come to the conclusion that a lot of very rapid "micro-evolution" must have taken place since the flood, including a lot of speciation, but only within "kinds". This means that they are now backing a much faster rate of change in organisms than any serious biologist would dream of!

Personally, I find that hilarious.

This is coming from creationist "scientists", so when it seeps through to the masses, we may hear less of the "there is no evidence for evolution" comments. (It will be "macro-evolution" instead).

 

[Schroeder]

A great number of debates boil down to the creationist claiming that There is no evidence for evolution.

Lets discuss this.

Creationists please explain why you think this, and evolution supporters, please give examples of evidence for evolution.

Other threads in this series:
Beneficial mutations

you mean no evidence for the theory of evolution FROM ONE COMMON ANCESTOR. I dont see this. I dont know how to show it except to say i dont see it in the evidence i have been shown. most i have been shown just shows evolution. speciation adaptation ect ect.

 

[LittleNipper]

When explained in such simple terms as put forth by AiG, the Creationist position falls flat on its face. They make absolutely no pretence at being scientific or even reasonable. They make blanket statements about things that some experts have spent half a lifetime working on and proving. The fact that AiG and other Creationist groups have the nerve to make some of these assertions and call their own positions "reasonable alternatives" is mind-boggling.

And, because of all that, no Creationist is going to answer your question, I almost guarantee that.

AiG uses common layman's terms so that anyone may understand. They are not trying to show how intelligent they are at the expense of the average person. They do not seek to impress but inform....

 

[LittleNipper]

<quore removed by staff>


Those groups know that satan is the enemy, and CHRIST is our only hope. I'll leave the rest to being your unfounded opinion. I suggest you read the book of JOB. If you cannot bring yourrself to read the entire book, at least read Chapter 38 through to the end. The very things Job didn't answer are not known to this very day by anyone but GOD.....

 

[grimbly]

Those groups know that satan is the enemy, and CHRIST is our only hope. I'll leave the rest to being your unfounded opinion. I suggest you read the book of JOB. If you cannot bring yourrself to read the entire book, at least read Chapter 38 through to the end. The very things Job didn't answer are not known to this very day by anyone but GOD.....

well, if these groups know that Satan is the enemy then why don't they fight against Satan rather than working so hard to dumb down their readership.

Unless of course, knowledge is "da tool of Satan" and most be fought against with every fiber of ignorance in their body. So why is it Nip, that the aforementioned sites can be shown to be dishonest and deceptive again and again and again.....? By it's fruits so shall a tree be known. I really wonder in this fight who is on Satan's side.

 

[Siderite]

well, if these groups know that Satan is the enemy then why don't they fight against Satan rather than working so hard to dumb down their readership.

Unless of course, knowledge is "da tool of Satan" and most be fought against with every fiber of ignorance in their body. So why is it Nip, that the aforementioned sites can be shown to be dishonest and deceptive again and again and again.....? By it's fruits so shall a tree be known. I really wonder in this fight who is on Satan's side.

The best of intentions can go to waste. An apt saying for such creationist websites.

Their lies and deceit end up pushing christians away from Christ. To be told something that you believe to be true and then you find out that it is actually not true - how does this bring people to Christ?

 

[shadowmage36]

The best of intentions can go to waste. An apt saying for such creationist websites.

Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can come from the best intentions.
Wizard's Third Rule: Passion rules reason.

So many creationists think they have such grand intentions, and are so blinded by their passion in their own good intentions that they cannot see reason, nor can they be made to see reason. They cannot see the harm they do, driving people away from Christ. They think that those who are not swayed by their rhetoric are simply weak in faith. We have seen this time and time again, both on this message board and out in the world, the claim that to be a Christian, one must deny all the scientific evidence in favor of a several-thousand year-old text that has gone through a multitude of translations, some of which are egregiously in error. This is, to me, the ultimate rejection of reason. Why reject using something which God has gifted us with?

The essence of Christianity is not the rejection of reason, but simply to love your neighbor as yourself, and God above all else.

Those are the two greatest commandments. They are all that matter. Everything else stems from that. If it cannot be brought back to that, it has no place within Christianity. Denying what your reasoning ability tells you is a rejection of one of God's gifts to us, and I do not stand for that.

[/rant]

Please do forgive my philosophical...outburst. It's just that people rejecting the gifts that God has given them, in particular the ability to reason (one thing that sets us apart from many lower animals), tends to get me rather upset.

Mountains of evidence, in so many fields, and they have the nerve to....*mumble mumble* *walks off*

 

[Siderite]

Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can come from the best intentions.
Wizard's Third Rule: Passion rules reason.

So many creationists think they have such grand intentions, and are so blinded by their passion in their own good intentions that they cannot see reason, nor can they be made to see reason. They cannot see the harm they do, driving people away from Christ. They think that those who are not swayed by their rhetoric are simply weak in faith. We have seen this time and time again, both on this message board and out in the world, the claim that to be a Christian, one must deny all the scientific evidence in favor of a several-thousand year-old text that has gone through a multitude of translations, some of which are egregiously in error. This is, to me, the ultimate rejection of reason. Why reject using something which God has gifted us with?

The essence of Christianity is not the rejection of reason, but simply to love your neighbor as yourself, and God above all else.

Those are the two greatest commandments. They are all that matter. Everything else stems from that. If it cannot be brought back to that, it has no place within Christianity. Denying what your reasoning ability tells you is a rejection of one of God's gifts to us, and I do not stand for that.

[/rant]

Please do forgive my philosophical...outburst. It's just that people rejecting the gifts that God has given them, in particular the ability to reason (one thing that sets us apart from many lower animals), tends to get me rather upset.

Mountains of evidence, in so many fields, and they have the nerve to....*mumble mumble* *walks off*

Shadowmage - I agree with you. I feel exactly the same way. I see the damage that has been done and is continuing to be done.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please do forgive my philosophical...outburst. It's just that people rejecting the gifts that God has given them, in particular the ability to reason (one thing that sets us apart from many lower animals), tends to get me rather upset.

Thought you might like this quote:

"I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."--Galileo Galilei

 

[shadowmage36]

Reps to you. That makes me feel a whole lot better.

 

[LittleNipper]

well, if these groups know that Satan is the enemy then why don't they fight against Satan rather than working so hard to dumb down their readership.

Unless of course, knowledge is "da tool of Satan" and most be fought against with every fiber of ignorance in their body. So why is it Nip, that the aforementioned sites can be shown to be dishonest and deceptive again and again and again.....? By it's fruits so shall a tree be known. I really wonder in this fight who is on Satan's side.

I do not see that the sites in question have been shown to be dishonest. I am familiar with The Institure for Creation Research. I find them very open and matter of fact. They certainly have nothing to hide-----thay simply disagree with evolutionists and uniformitarians. They state their opinion very openly. and publish all their findings for people to read and investigate.

 

[LittleNipper]

<quore removed by staff>

Paul was not a Christian at the time, though Paul seemed honest in his view of the LAW. I can only say that GOD sees the heart. But you are going off the topic even more and trying to drag me along. I simply answered YOUR imput.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Closed for staff review