Why creationists reject evolution

[Loudmouth]

I would expect, in this modern era when thinking outside the box is encouraged, that we should be open to receiving inputs from other disciplines than just science. Perhaps, our large science tree right in front of us is too big to see the forest?

What other disciplines have been able to describe the characteristics of sub-atomic particles? What other disciplines explain gravitational lensing and relativity?

Are concepts & ideas (or art or mystic appreciation) not real? I consider these to be beyond human (physical) experience or understanding.

I consider them to be part of the human experience. Why is it hard to understand arbitrary opinions of beauty and artistry? A Pollack painting is art to one person and a paint spill to another. We humans decide what we like. It's not that hard to understand.

I must admit that I am lacking in the mystical & artistic areas of appreciation. Perhaps, I can compensate with my philosophy. We may just have a difference in our definition of reality (or fact)?

That is where science steps in. Science forces all investigators to agree on what is and isn't reality for the purposes of their investigation. This is why Leprechauns are not allowed as an explanation for the orbit of planets.

I have not seen a good scientific proof of the development of these humanly unique qualities. This development would be beyond the human experience. This is the evolution-creation connection.

First off, science doesn't do proof. Science constructs theories. Proof is for math and alcohol.

Next, why is "God Did It" a better answer than "We Don't Know"?

Dannager -- You must believe in only black & white -- evolution (science & physical) vs. creation (philosophical & ideas)? There is no metaphysical?

Arguing metaphysical positions leads nowhere. Only through verification (ie scientific testing) can one idea be compared to another. Believing in Leprechauns is one thing. Showing that they exist is quite another.

Both can be right (or wrong)!

So how do we determine if they are right or wrong? By proclaimation or through testing?

 

[jonesdon]

Loudmouth (and others) -- Thanks for you questions & comments.

Other disciplines for sub-atomic particles? How about the philosophy of the infinitesimal (always something smaller) with the math of probability before science found traces? Then, for gravity & relativity? Have these really been explained? Dawkins in his "Elegant Universe" makes a good start for us lay people. There is still much searching here -- I would say in the metaphysical area. Math easily "saw" beyond the 3rd dimension before the string theory equation got to 11-D. Now, we have to think-up the meaning beyond the 3rd-D to reconcile with the physical (scientific) world. Else, this is beyond physics?

Yes, I agree that ideas, art, & the mystic are part of the total human experience -- hence, I inserted "physical". Science seems to be tied to this physical experience? That is my point. An artist sees "reality" beyond the physical that us engineers would see. In deChardin's "The Heart of Matter", I was taken by his expression of his mystical experiences -- which are beyond mine (so far). We tech people seem to have a difficulty here -- perhaps, a right-left brain issue?

This is not to say that all disciplines are needed to discern all facts. Some disciplines are more operative than others in specific areas -- especially, as relates to the complexity of sensing objects. Between Leprechauns & planets, I think that philosophy (logic) is the first (and primary) operative discipline! Yes, applied scientists can come to a consensus on some physical realities -- based on their disciplined scientific method(s). Some don't do as well with theoretical science -- like string theory -- which one could say is "mostly" math.


Some scientists may disagree that they don't do proofs (verifications?)! You may hear more from this! Isn't this what the scientific method is all about? Mathematical proof may complement applied physics, but, it stretches the theoretical physics. Again, as with "reality", the definition of "proof" has different understandings. And, this is a hang-up in the creation-evolution controversy. BTW: Alcohol is claimed to be the catalyst for many creative disciplines!

Yes, Dannager, arguing metaphysics is fruitless if there is a fundamental difference in the spiritual-physical systems -- as I've mentioned. And, the spiritual part requires faith -- with only dabbles of "evidence" (like near death experience). For consistency, my system requires one absolute right. But, as finite human beings, we are in search of this ultimate right -- approaching, perhaps, asymptotically -- which may disagree with others, also, in search.

Now, back to the evolution-creation issue: Why "God did it" is better than "We don't know"? Again, we have a choice of foundational definitions. I prefer to start with a positive (call it hypothesis) and search for inconsistencies or inaccuracies -- especially with such a critical issue. As Aristotle (or somebody in his time) said -- I can't prove there is a God. But, it is better to error in believing in God, then, to not believe if there really is one!

And, what truths (or facts) really count? I submit - those that affect our fundamental being (i.e. reasoning) and way of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Other disciplines for sub-atomic particles? How about the philosophy of the infinitesimal (always something smaller) with the math of probability before science found traces?

What if there is nothing smaller than quarks? What then?

Then, for gravity & relativity? Have these really been explained?

It doesn't matter if they have been explained. What matters is the guidelines we use to discover the explanations. Is magic fairy dust a good explanation for gravity? Why or why not? What method, other than methodological naturalism, has born fruit in discovering how the natural world works?

Yes, I agree that ideas, art, & the mystic are part of the total human experience -- hence, I inserted "physical". Science seems to be tied to this physical experience? That is my point. An artist sees "reality" beyond the physical that us engineers would see.

An artist invents a mental picture. How is this beyond the physical?

Do you have a dog? I give my dog pig ears as a treat once in a while. My dog has linked the rustle of the packaging with getting a pig ear. Before I even get my hand all of the way in the bag the darn dog is begging for a pig ear. Here is the question. When my dog hears the bag she pictures a pig ear. If the package is empty, does a pig ear actually exist if she pictures it in her head? I would say know, but you seem to be claiming that somewhere, beyond the "physical", there exists a pig ear that my dog magically constructed just by thinking about it.

This is not to say that all disciplines are needed to discern all facts. Some disciplines are more operative than others in specific areas -- especially, as relates to the complexity of sensing objects.

Between Leprechauns & planets, I think that philosophy (logic) is the first (and primary) operative discipline! Yes, applied scientists can come to a consensus on some physical realities -- based on their disciplined scientific method(s). Some don't do as well with theoretical science -- like string theory -- which one could say is "mostly" math.

As to string theory, it is a solid theory mathematically. The hard part is showing that the model is consistent with reality. I can't think of any other method besides methodological naturalism that would be helpful in discerning whether or not string theory is an accurate model. Can you?

Some scientists may disagree that they don't do proofs (verifications?)!

Proof requires complete knowledge. No scientist I know of claims to have complete knowledge of any system.

Now, back to the evolution-creation issue: Why "God did it" is better than "We don't know"? Again, we have a choice of foundational definitions. I prefer to start with a positive (call it hypothesis) and search for inconsistencies or inaccuracies -- especially with such a critical issue. As Aristotle (or somebody in his time) said -- I can't prove there is a God. But, it is better to error in believing in God, then, to not believe if there really is one!

I prefer to start with no conclusions and follow the evidence. If there is no evidence, then "I don't know" is the prudent choice.

 

[Erock83]

As Aristotle (or somebody in his time) said -- I can't prove there is a God. But, it is better to error in believing in God, then, to not believe if there really is one!

And, what truths (or facts) really count? I submit - those that affect our fundamental being (i.e. reasoning) and way of life.

I’ll take Pascal for 200 please.

One Love.

 

[Loudmouth]

I’ll take Pascal for 200 please.

One Love.

What Pascal never mentioned is what happens if the Hindus are right.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

What Pascal never mentioned is what happens if the Hindus are right.

Yes… sadly Pascal never got to be enlightened by the wisdom of Homer.

And what if we picked the wrong religion?
Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!

 

[Erock83]

What Pascal never mentioned is what happens if the Hindus are right.

Anyone that can drop those kinds of proofs I’m inclined to agree with especially when you can do them with out a TI-86. Talk about super smart

*flips hair*

Yeah I don’t know why I even remember he said that more than likely it stuck me odd to learn something like that about a mathematician.

One Love.

 

[Dragar]

Dawkins in his "Elegant Universe" makes a good start for us lay people.

It's Brian Greene, not Dawkins, who wrote The Elegant Universe.

 

[Schroeder]

ATTENTION ALL CREATIONISTS

Well I don't think there is much to improved your theory as it is not falsifiable. No one can proove it wrong. So you guys are very safe in that way.

But the theory of evolution can help. According to your bible (which i do not believe in but nevermind that for now) we are all decsendants from Adam and Eve. All animals are decsendants of those in Noah's ark. Eg - I assume there would have only been one pair of dogs in the ark. The theory of evolution helps you explain the diversity of dogs we see today. You guys need to borrow some evolutionary theory to explain diversity... otherwise you would need to explain how there are so many breeds of dogs around today. Scientists have seen new species been created (never mind breeds), so you cannot deny that happens either.

Now what you need to do is borrow parts of evolutionary theory that support your beleifs. You can pick and choose. You do not have to accept evolutionary theory in its entirety. You just pick the bits you like, just like you pick the bits out of the bible that you like. As for the other bits - easy! Just debunk them with some psuedoscience, or ignore them and say that god made it like that to test your faith. Remember - no one can proove you wrong when you have god on your side! Evolution as a means of the origin of life on the other hand - can be disproven! So really you don't have to do much, just be careful of what real science you do use, and science you don't use. And if you make a mistake - don't worry, you can change your mind later and pick some different science or a different part of the bible to fix up your mistake.

there is NO biological example onm earth that PROVES the theory of evolution from one organism. your dog example is bad. if you trace any breed back it only gets stronger and better. which proves speciation does not always evolve but mostly weakens the orginal species. every other thing given to PROVE evolution shows speciation adaptation and matter of fact things which proves anything one way or another. abteria is used alot and proives nothing. its highly reproductive and adpative yet NEVER changes form or "evolve" into another organism at all. good thing or animals and us would die off rather guickly since there are a lot of bacteria in us. a lot of evidence is given in biology YET none of it PROVES the theory at all. show a speciation that improves or strengthen the species from its origanal species.

 

[caravelair]

there is NO biological example onm earth that PROVES the theory of evolution from one organism.

there is no such thing as "proof" in science. nothing in all of science is proved. the best we can do is provide evidence for a theory, and we always do that in a simple way: we test the predictions of a theory. scientific theories make strong and specific predictions about what evidence we will find in the future. if these predictions are correct, then that is good evidence for our theory. if any of the predictions are found false, then the theory is wrong, and it must be abandoned or changed. evolution has an abundance of evidence that has been collected in this way:

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

this evidence for common descent is as strong as evidence for any other theory in any field of science.

your dog example is bad. if you trace any breed back it only gets stronger and better.

dogs were evolved by artificial selection. that is, human breeders deliberately chose certain traits to change in certain ways and bred the dogs accordingly, and not always were they desiring the dog to be stronger. whether or not they are "better" is a matter of opinion. certainly those who bred the dogs might consider the new breeds to be "better". in nature, populations evolve by natural selection, which works differently. rather than traits being chosen by people, the successful traits are those that allow the organism greater success in reproduction. those that reproduce the most, will pass their genes on in the greatest numbers. so evolution by natural selection results in the species being better adapted to survive and reproduce in their environments. so this will not result in species becoming "worse" as you imply.

which proves speciation does not always evolve but mostly weakens the orginal species.

can you show me an example of speciation in nature where the species becomes "weaker"? speciation results in a species that is better adpated to its environmental niche.

every other thing given to PROVE evolution shows speciation adaptation and matter of fact things which proves anything one way or another.

um... what?

abteria is used alot and proives nothing. its highly reproductive and adpative yet NEVER changes form or "evolve" into another organism at all.

it evolves exactly as we would expect it to. the fact that you don't know that indicates that you do not really understand the theory of evolution. why don't you actually learn about it, before deciding to be adamently opposed to it? wouldn't that be a more honest approach?

good thing or animals and us would die off rather guickly since there are a lot of bacteria in us.

how would killing off their hosts help them to survive and reproduce? that just means they would die too.

a lot of evidence is given in biology YET none of it PROVES the theory at all.

nor does any evidence in all of science prove any other theory. as i have already explained, that's not how science works.

show a speciation that improves or strengthen the species from its origanal species.

"improves" is a subjective term, it's a matter of opinion. evolution suggests that speciation results in species better adapted to their environment, and we do find many examples of this in nature:

http://www.christianforums.com/t155626-observed-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[jonesdon]

LOUDMOUTH -- "What if nothing smaller than quarks"? Well, what if there is? Willing to bet? Such has caused Dawkins (and others) to go into philosophy!

Gravity & relativity vs. magic fairy dust. Do we understand magic fair dust? Other methods? Check philosophy, imagination, and other areas of the human experience. Yes, science takes care of the 5 senses -- for starters -- if that is what you mean by "the natural world".

A mental picture beyond physical? Check out Plato. Also, Pavlov knows much about dogs & other animal reactions. As much as you "love" your dog, I would not attribute the human unique gift of intellect (imagination or thinking) to her -- at least, not in my system.

String theory -- and "methodological naturalism". Pushing this method, I guess I need to read my Funk & Wagnals a little more. Is this, simply, another term for scientific investigation? Yes, we math people "love" solid math theory results -- which is very real to us -- even tho is may never become "real" to others. We love our pi into infinity.

"Proof requires complete knowledge". Whoa! We could talk about every word here separately ad infinitum (or ad nauseum) -- whichever comes first! But, such as a mathematician, in defining his own system, knows it completely -- by definition!

Choosing "no conclusion ... or don't know" is your choice. Some people live a lifetime in such ignorance. I prefer the converse -- being fat, dumb, and happy (w what I know) -- until proven otherwise!

EROCK83 -- Any reference on the Pascal view? I thought, at least, it was a philosopher -- like Aristotle. But, your post did start a healthy discussion on Pascal anyway! And, Loudmouth responded, again skeptically, about "what if" which must be a dark world? I say that Hindus are right -- for Hindus. 'Course, they'd be righter if they believed my way!

DRAGAR -- Ooops, you are so right. Thanks for the catch. It is/was Green, not Dawkins, who wrote Elegant Universe. Dawkins provided some input for the PBS video version -- VERY well done!

CARAVELAIR (and earlier Loudmouth) -- Again, no "proof" in science? There must not be any scientists in this forum to defend this hard work only to arrive at "good evidence for the theory". But, this is a safe position from being called wrong. Conjuring up theorems w good evidence, and armchair quarterbacking, is safe! Mathematicians (and, perhaps, philosophers) are required to complete with, at least, a QED!

SCHROEDER -- "Attention all Creationists" reminds me that I have given the fair balance against the creationists (of faith) as I have the scientific evolutionists.

I consider myself a neo-Creationist! Not just a YAC. You might have gathered that I see consistency is using both science & faith.

The "typical" (or traditional) Creationist, also, has a very big tree blocking their view from seeing the same (world) forest. This is a tree of arrogant righteousness in knowing, with absolute certainty, what every word & phrase means in the Bible (or Qur'an). In the Garden of Eden, this was called the "tree of knowledge" by which Adam & Eve fell. So, it's nothing new!

Unfortunately, our country is being controlled by such self-professed self-righteous leaders who play (or assist?) God with their moral judgments. But, this is a separate subject.

For this evolution-creation issue, such literal interpretation of the Bible, without considering the more important message or intent of the writers (via figures of speech, etc.) to the culture (civilization) of the times -- defies logic, and, hence, lies completely outside of my system. For those that believe so strongly in such words (in their system), there is no rational argument.

And, our college students are not being taught how to critically think through such perspectives -- but, this, is yet another subject!

New kid on the block -- but, aging fast!
DJ from San Jose

 

[Nightson]

Is english your first language?

 

[TheInstant]

A mental picture beyond physical? Check out Plato. Also, Pavlov knows much about dogs & other animal reactions. As much as you "love" your dog, I would not attribute the human unique gift of intellect (imagination or thinking) to her -- at least, not in my system.

But a mental picture is still a product of a physical mind. Just because you can conceive of something that isn't "real", it doesn't mean that your thoughts are somehow beyond the physical world. Sure, dogs can't do it but I don't see what that proves.

 

[caravelair]

CARAVELAIR (and earlier Loudmouth) -- Again, no "proof" in science? There must not be any scientists in this forum to defend this hard work only to arrive at "good evidence for the theory". But, this is a safe position from being called wrong. Conjuring up theorems w good evidence, and armchair quarterbacking, is safe! Mathematicians (and, perhaps, philosophers) are required to complete with, at least, a QED!

that's because it is POSSIBLE to do proofs in math. it is not possible in science, because we always need to allow for the possibility that some evidence will arise in the future that will indicate we were wrong. you may not like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[Dannager]

CARAVELAIR (and earlier Loudmouth) -- Again, no "proof" in science? There must not be any scientists in this forum to defend this hard work only to arrive at "good evidence for the theory". But, this is a safe position from being called wrong. Conjuring up theorems w good evidence, and armchair quarterbacking, is safe! Mathematicians (and, perhaps, philosophers) are required to complete with, at least, a QED!

I'm afraid you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that science doesn't deal with proof. Science isn't out to prove anything, ever. It is out to disprove everything, always. That's what science boils down to - a process by which the only change brought about is the discarding of old theories, to be replaced with theories that better explain what's going on.

 

[Erock83]

EROCK83 -- Any reference on the Pascal view? I thought, at least, it was a philosopher -- like Aristotle. But, your post did start a healthy discussion on Pascal anyway! And, Loudmouth responded, again skeptically, about "what if" which must be a dark world? I say that Hindus are right -- for Hindus. 'Course, they'd be righter if they believed my way!

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Pascal.html
nope pascal was a math dude but that does not mean that he could not write from time to time
One Love.

 

[Edmond]

Objection: “Evolution goes against the bible”
Although this may or may not be true depending on your interpretation of said myth there are plenty of other scientific theories and discoveries that “go against the bible”. The fact that there aren’t creationists railing against a heliocentric solar system or a round Earth shows that the “goes against the bible” objection is a selective excuse to oppose evolution and not the true reason.

Objection: “Evolution isn’t supported by the evidence”
Although there are many poor creationists that have been fed a false version of evolution and may believe this at first too many creationists continue to hold this position long after they have been shown the evidence. This means, once again, that this objection is just an excuse to rail against evolution and not the genuine reason.

The THEORY of evolution ever happening in the past is filled with nothing but gaps. The whole idea is built on an extrapolated hypothesis...that's the thinnest kind of 'scientific theory' possible. Add to that, an immense past of 'evidence that is missing'...you have nothing more than a pipe-dream. Thsi is what they call evidence for past evolution? The evidence point to a fabricated dream ....

After looking at all the creationist arguments and, more importantly, the creationists conduct themselves, I am starting to realize that the motivation to rail against evolution is personal and selfish.

If the creationists really cared about defending the bible then they would be against round-earthers, and those that support heliocentricity just as fervently as evolutionists. The only reason to single out evolution is because it takes away one of their favorite things about being a creationist… being made specially by their god.

What God can you boast of who has done more? The Bible says...'If anyone boast let him boast in the Lord". What is it you boast of instead?

All they want is to maintain their warm fuzzy feeling of superiority over everything else in the universe. They aren’t defending the bible or even god. They are defending their own selfish feelings.

Clue numero uno....God doesn't need to be defended. If there are feeling involved they equate to the following. When we discuss or debate evolution we're trying to point out YOUR error for YOUR own good. That is why God left the record of the Bible in the first place. Believe me, it wasn't to present a defense on His behave. It has indeed been used for quite the opposite purposes by those who do not believe Him.

--------------------

----------------

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The THEORY of evolution ever happening in the past is filled with nothing but gaps.

You are absolutely correct. This is one of the most favorite of claims levied against the ToE (Theory of Evolution) by creationists such as yourself and it is 100% correct. In fact, as time goes on the number of gaps in the ToE will continue to increase! You see, if you were to show a transition from A to Z with only A and Z as evidence you would have one gap. If you discover R you would now have A, R, and Z effectively increasing your gaps 100% to two. In time, obtain more and more evidence only continues to increase the number of gaps. Knowing creationists and their supporters seem to fixate on only the most simple of concepts and keywords, they and their ilk simply love this gap claim.
Additionally, I’d like to comment on your over emphasis of the word theory. This is also a favorite modus operandi of creationists such as you. Unfortunately, you and your ilk fail to realize this only betrays your ignorance on scientific theories. Make no mistake, we’re talking about a scientific theory here and not what something you would dream up after a night of binge drinking (AKA layman’s theory).

The whole idea is built on an extrapolated hypothesis...that's the thinnest kind of 'scientific theory' possible.

Although you mix the two terms here (once again betraying your ignorance on the subject) hypothesis and scientific theory are two very different things. If you are able to eventually understand that you will undoubtedly want to rethink your negative connotation about extrapolated hypotheses.

Add to that, an immense past of 'evidence that is missing'...you have nothing more than a pipe-dream.

The only place evidence is missing in order to determine that the ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life is between your ears. Not only are you not educated enough about the ToE to make such assertions you are decidedly so. That is possibly the worst thing about you and your ilk.

Thsi is what they call evidence for past evolution? The evidence point to a fabricated dream ....

Let’s compare notes and see which sounds more dream like.
A scientific theory considered as fact by the vast majority of scientists and supported my multiple other disciplines and areas of science.
OR
A myth about men being created from dust with magical entities and talking snakes.

What God can you boast of who has done more? The Bible says...'If anyone boast let him boast in the Lord". What is it you boast of instead?

Just about any religion of the world boasts the same things. Each convinced the others are deceived. None able to see the truth even if it was big enough to cast a shadow on the moon. It’s always science that ends up enlightening religion. Funny that.

Clue numero uno....God doesn't need to be defended.

Clue numero dos… IF there is a god, he doesn’t need 10% of your income either.

If there are feeling involved they equate to the following. When we discuss or debate evolution we're trying to point out YOUR error for YOUR own good. That is why God left the record of the Bible in the first place. Believe me, it wasn't to present a defense on His behave. It has indeed been used for quite the opposite purposes by those who do not believe Him.

Let’s see if you even understand what you are saying at this point. According to you, your particular god left a book for the express purpose that atheists use it for offensive purposes. This sounds like it will lead to some good quote material. Please, do elaborate.

 

[Schroeder]

there is no such thing as "proof" in science. nothing in all of science is proved. the best we can do is provide evidence for a theory, and we always do that in a simple way: we test the predictions of a theory. scientific theories make strong and specific predictions about what evidence we will find in the future. if these predictions are correct, then that is good evidence for our theory. if any of the predictions are found false, then the theory is wrong, and it must be abandoned or changed. evolution has an abundance of evidence that has been collected in this way:

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

i think there is. if it is a Law it is proven if it is said to be Fact it is proven. All you say is it is very close or as close as we can get it. it all fits well anbd sounds good but we just cant prove it, never will im afraid.

this evidence for common descent is as strong as evidence for any other theory in any field of science.

again sounds good proves nothing. and similarieties among fossils and species proves nothing either way. or could egually prove either evolution or divine creation.

dogs were evolved by artificial selection. that is, human breeders deliberately chose certain traits to change in certain ways and bred the dogs accordingly, and not always were they desiring the dog to be stronger. whether or not they are "better" is a matter of opinion. certainly those who bred the dogs might consider the new breeds to be "better". in nature, populations evolve by natural selection, which works differently. rather than traits being chosen by people, the successful traits are those that allow the organism greater success in reproduction. those that reproduce the most, will pass their genes on in the greatest numbers. so evolution by natural selection results in the species being better adapted to survive and reproduce in their environments. so this will not result in species becoming "worse" as you imply.

so dog breeds is a bad example of evolution. those that reproduce better survive is called survival of the species not evolution. so you dont believe animals have any natural preexsisting way to adapted to a environmental change. that it is all done by mutations. All natural selection does is kill weak species or organisms. So yes your right speciation would not nessecaryly make it weaker but better adapted to were they are now living. But could it go back to its origanal environment and do well or survive as easily. Just a guestion, not sure. But speciation is often used as a example of evolution when it is clearly not one. the species merely adaptes is there a mutation that must occur for it to adapt. Or is it already able to do so.

can you show me an example of speciation in nature where the species becomes "weaker"? speciation results in a species that is better adpated to its environmental niche.

i would agree that is why i said it usually doesnt make it Better. it is just adapted to a different environment. i dont think it makes it better or worse.

um... what?



it evolves exactly as we would expect it to. the fact that you don't know that indicates that you do not really understand the theory of evolution. why don't you actually learn about it, before deciding to be adamently opposed to it? wouldn't that be a more honest approach?

But it again clearly shows it does not change form or evolve into anything else. if as you all say we came from simple cell organisms in the beginning, and bacteria is a good example, then why not now. and if not now how then. It as not evovled at all.

how would killing off their hosts help them to survive and reproduce? that just means they would die too.

because how would ramdon mutation now the difference. are bacteria so intelligent to now the difference. if so how did they get this info to now in the first place.

nor does any evidence in all of science prove any other theory. as i have already explained, that's not how science works.

i know theories are ideas not proven or can not be proven. one because we are not capable of it physically or the other because we can go back in time and what is needed to test it is no longer around or takes to much time or cost to much money.ect. But some theories are as much Law as any but cant be proven because there is nno physical matter to test it with.


"

improves" is a subjective term, it's a matter of opinion. evolution suggests that speciation results in species better adapted to their environment, and we do find many examples of this in nature:

a lot is a matter of opiuon on this subject i think, which is why it is so hard to prove one or the other. why is it evolution and not natural ability to adapt. how would anything get the chance to evolve if it couldnt adapt. it would die out to guickly. But if it could adapt why the need for mutations and natural selection.

 

[Valkhorn]

i think there is

I know there isn't.