The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[Jimmy D]

In that case, what they say is right.

No supporting evidence? What you really mean is whether there is or isn't you ain't going to believe it as your mind is made up. I did a search one day "Does God exist" on the internet and I got over a million sites. More said he did that those that said he didn't. Some of them proved he did purely from a scientific perspective. So when you say there is no supporting evidence you are revealing your prejudice and inability to reason reasonably.

I haven't seen any evidence in favour of evolution. All I have seen is speculation, theory, claims and counter claims and in some cases downright falsification of facts.

The definition of a theory in a scientific context doesn't hold water. If it did, the Piltdown man would not have made the scientific community a laughing stock. And gravity is not a theory it is a fact. I am surprised with all your so called knowledge you did not know that.

I have spent 60 years investigating my faith in God and in that time, it has got stronger and stronger and more convincing and full of truth so I have no good reason to believe that it is not true.

It seems you are implying the (tens of?) thousands of scientists who's work has any connection with the Theory of Evolution are liars, stupid, deluded or conspirators. I wonder specifically which parts of the TOE you disagree with, can you give us any examples? Here's the Talk Origins case for Common Descent can you tell us how it isn't factual?

On another note I'd be interested to see this evidence that proves God exists from a purely scientific perspective, we've yet to be presented with any such evidence on this forum, it would make a nice change from your usual rhetoric.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes I can and it is this. The ability of atheists to admit that someone who is not an atheist could be right is zero and having a perspective on something that differs from atheism is anathema to them.

The problem is that when you say that the universe is only 200 million years, you are making a claim about cosmology and astronomy.

None of which has anything to do with atheism...
It's furthermore demonstrably false what you say.

As an atheist, I pretty much accept big bang theory as the best explanation we currently have for the development of the universe. This theory was put forward by LeMaitre. A catholic priest and astronomer/cosmologist.

So you are demonstrably and factually wrong when you say that "atheists will only agree with atheists".

You can spend the next 100 years arguing that you are right and I am wrong but it will change nothing as I am totally convinced and please note, totally convinced that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.....

Yes, we are very aware about how you have already made up your mind and how no amount of evidence will ever change your mind.

This is the problem of dogmatic faith based doctrines.

The scriptures says that God is not a man that he can lie. I don't expect you to understand such a claim but I do so let's leave it at that.

Yes, we are very aware that you simply buy into your particular fundamentalist interpretation of your religious texts and that you simply want to "leave it at that".

Don't expect us to play that same game, void of intellectual integrity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And so are you as you are saying that dogmatic atheism should be allowed to decide what other people think about what is truth and what isn't.

There's no such thing as "dogmatic atheism".

 

[DogmaHunter]

But of course you have no evidence to support your claim.

2 problems.

First, it's the claims of exodus that require evidence... burden of proof and all that...

Secondly, at no point in recorded history did 600.000 slaves walk out of Egypt. This isn't recorded anywhere. Not in Egyptian record nore in the records of its enemies. There is zero evidence that such a thing ever happened.

There is no trail whatsoever of such a body of people every wandering in the desert for 40 years.

Furthermore, there is LOTS of evidence that the early israelites are simply the lower class canaanites who revolted against the elite and re-invented their history with mythology. Much like how Romans build mythology to "explain" the founding of the city/empire. Or did you really think that Romulus and Remus were raised by a wolf who then erected this city?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

1. Do your own homework. I do and do not ask you to provide evidence. Anyway, I was told that atheists know everything so why are you asking me what you already know.

2. Prove that it does.

3. The transitional fossils don't exist so that doesn't say much for your evidence.

4. For the reason I stated.

5. You don't mean that because if you did, you would not spend all your time trying to convince us you are right and we are wrong. You really must stop making things up as you go along.

1. I have. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Mainly because science is not in the business of explaining the supernatural. Nice deflection though. If you'd like to provide a source, i'd be happy to look at it.

2. My point exactly. You have the burden of proof to provide the evidence for the existence of God. You make the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you. That was the point I was making with the teapot example. That seemed to go right over your head.

3. Incorrect. Every fossil we find is a transitional. This "No transitional" is a tired argument and when you claim this to other people, you are lying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Oh, and meet Tiktaalik, the transition from fish to amphibian

4. What reason? You seemed to have just claimed it without providing an explanation.

5. I'm not making things up. I am providing you scientific evidence on a theory you don't seem to have a lot of understanding of.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Hello Jon.

Can a species suddenly appear in the fossil record?

Will check your link tomorrow.

I'm not sure what you are asking. The fossil record grows as we make more discoveries.
The most recent discovery in human evolution is Homo Naledi. Lots of research left to be done, but it is quite exciting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

 

[florida2]

Why waste my time when I have done copious amounts of reading already?

May I ask what scientific sources these are?

What annoys you is that I don't agree with you and you don't like it.

Pot, kettle, black?

So much for a comment from another atheist who said you are free to believe what you want to believe. Obviously you don't agree with him.

Congratulations on saying yet another forum member is an atheist when you can see that I'm not.

You can believe whatever the heck you like, but that doesn't mean that if you post views in a public forum that I disagree with I won't discuss them with you.

No, we come to that conclusion when we take your logic [sic].

You claim that the Bible is evidence for creationism. I was merely pointing out that this doesn't make sense as I could look at any other religious text and claim it is evidence for its particular creation story.

I am only cynical about the fairy story of evolution which is being touted as fact by those who want to get God out of the picture.

I'm not sure how one of the most well-evidenced theories in science is a fairy story.

Evolution passes no comment on God.

Should the theory of gravity also not be taught as it doesn't mention God?

 

[The Cadet]

You atheists don't believe that for one moment as I have noticed that they are very quick to denigrate anyone who says anything they disagree with even though they may be highly qualified in their field of endeavour.

...Wait, are you seriously claiming that a geocentrist with no formal training in Biology is highly qualified in Biology?

Look, I expect my arguments to stand up not on my reputation but on their own merits. When I say "Wolfgang Smith is a geocentrist", I don't expect you to trust me because I'm the head of Smith's fan club, I expect you to trust me because I offer good sources indicating that that is in fact the case. Whereas Smith's comment, at least the snippet of it you posted, is based on nothing - nothing beyond his own reputation and claims. And more importantly, it simply does not hold up to scrutiny at all, as a great many Christians accept both the existence of God and that evolution happened.

 

[The Cadet]

Why waste my time when I have done copious amounts of reading

Because exposure to alternative viewpoints and new knowledge is never a waste of time. And because you don't know as much about evolution or atheism as you think you do.

 

[The Cadet]

Evolution is a belief system, a belief that there exists sufficient evidence, to
construct a naturalistic explanation of life on this planet.

No. That is not what evolution is. You do not understand what you are arguing against. It's time to go back to the drawing board, figure out what evolution is, and then maybe reformulate your argument.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As is yours because evolution is unreality.

The above denial of the reality of evolution was written by a human with a vestigial nictating membrane in the corner of his eye, clearly a left over from a previous species that actually had a nictating membrane.

 

[ecco]

I have a feeling and forgive me if I am wrong the Presbyterian church in the USA has suddenly discovered that the bible endorses homosexuality and same sex marriage so you will forgive me if I don't get all excited about what he said.
.
To believe in evolution is to call God a liar and the Bible is clear that God is not a man that he can lie.
.
I know you don't understand this fact because satan has blinded your eyes but there is nothing I can do about this whilst you are so cynical.

So, satan has blinded my eyes and that is why I believe in evolution. When I point you to a list of 13,000 clergy who believe in evolution you dismiss it. When I quote from just one of these clergy you disregard his comments because his church endorses homosexuality.

You list your religion as non-denominational. If I were to quote from other of the 13,000 who are non-denominational, you would say They are of a different non-denomination, and there is no reason to respect their views either.

As I was saying....Haven't found any evidence supporting evolution. The evidence is clear in the Bible. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and he created everything after its own kind.

News Flash! You will not find evidence for evolution in the bible. Six thousand years ago uneducated sheepherders looked at their world and explained it as best they could with the knowledge they had: goddidit.

I guess you think it pleases your god that 6000 years later some people still choose to remain ignorant.



Furthermore, others posters have shown that biblical stories (your absolute truth) have been shown to be wrong. You disregard evidence for evolution and you disregard evidence showing where the bible is wrong.

​

 

[Loudmouth]

Charles Darwin has minimal scientific education, no degree in science or any scientific credentials and borrowed much of his original theory from others. His unsubstantiated theory was actually quickly dismissed as fantasy by most of the scientific establishment and was only kept alive by outspoken atheists who began to promote it as an alternative to religious faith. So when it comes to scientific sources one must ask where is yours because using Darwin in any way, shape or form is far from scientific.

Unsubstantiated? Have you read "Origin of Species"?

Do you understand the mountains of evidence you are ignoring?

 

[CabVet]

Six months without coming to this forum and the discussion is still exactly the same: people rebuking their own versions (misunderstandings and misconceptions) of evolution. This is almost like building a straw man yourself, burning it, and then saying that you destroyed your opponent. I wonder if there is a name for that...

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it? Sorry to say I am just facing reality. All I see is book after book debunking the theory of evolution and which say that this theory or that theory does not stack up because....All written by professors and Ph.D's who have taught at universities like Yale, Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, Oxford and Cambridge etc.

99.9% of biologists with PhD's accept the theory of evolution.

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Oh, and the evidence you claim you have never seen:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Loudmouth]

In that case, what they say is right.

No supporting evidence?

Supporting evidence found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[klutedavid]

I'm not sure what you are asking. The fossil record grows as we make more discoveries.
The most recent discovery in human evolution is Homo Naledi. Lots of research left to be done, but it is quite exciting.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150910-human-evolution-change/

Hello Jon.

Read the article you mentioned and I now have more questions to ask.

My previous question was a simple question.

'Can a given species abruptly occur in the fossil record?'

Surely Jon, you can understand this question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hello Jon.

Read the article you mentioned and I now have more questions to ask.

My previous question was a simple question.

'Can a given species abruptly occur in the fossil record?'

Surely Jon, you can understand this question.

If I go digging in a grave yard and find a skeleton that is 20 years dead, can I say that humans suddenly appeared 20 years ago?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Hello Jon.

Read the article you mentioned and I now have more questions to ask.

My previous question was a simple question.

'Can a given species abruptly occur in the fossil record?'

Surely Jon, you can understand this question.

What questions do you have?

And your question is a bit confusing. Are you asking if a new species can be discovered? Yes. Homo Naledi is a recent discovery. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.

 

[Astrophile]

'Can a given species abruptly occur in the fossil record?'

It depends what you mean by 'abruptly'. Fossils are not common, they have to be looked for, and an individual fossil probably represents only one in a hundred thousand or a million members of a species.

Suppose that a geologist finds a fossil of an animal species at one level in the geological succession and a fossil of an animal, of a different species but of the same genus or family, in rocks half a million years older (perhaps ten metres lower in the succession). Which is more probable, that the younger species appeared abruptly without any parents or other ancestors, or that it is descended from the older species through a succession of ancestors and descendants none of which have
been fossilised?

Either hypothesis would be consistent with the known fossils. However, the law of biogenesis, that all life comes from life rather than appearing by some sort of spontaneous generation, implies that the younger fossil is probably descended from the older one.