Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

I know that we need not look at actual ancient men, say Neanderthal man as having come from monkeys. The natural and formerly rapid evolving ability God created us with accounts for all changes easily.

Once we realize that, when we see the ghoulish and godless tales of alternate creations from science, it becomes clear that they merely impose beliefs on evidences methodically, ritualistically.


Pretending that the faith of so called science is any problem to faith in God is a waste of time here. The simple fact of God and creation and the spiritual realities man was witness to throughout all time may be ignored by the ignorant, but not bragged about here.


.

In this part of the forum evidence is king.

Where is your scientific evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

In this part of the forum evidence is king.

Where is your scientific evidence?

Your mountains of nothing isn't evidence.

 

[morse86]

We have 100% hardcore unrefutable evidence of evolution:

Anyone seen a hippo turn into a bird? Case closed.


Anyone who believes a rock turned into a human should be ashamed.

 

[justlookinla]

We have 100% hardcore unrefutable evidence of evolution:

Anyone seen a hippo turn into a bird? Case closed.

Don't forget.....

 

[VProud]

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[morse86]

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That article is a joke. Most of the "specific" examples have actually been debunked by evolutionists already. Hind structures on whales?!?!?

Kent Hovind does a great job going through the evidence...look at some of his debates on youtube.

Of course we may have common attributes...that all the more proves an intelligent designer.

 

[createdtoworship]

That article is a joke. Most of the "specific" examples have actually been debunked by evolutionists already. Hind structures on whales?!?!?

Kent Hovind does a great job going through the evidence...look at some of his debates on youtube.

Of course we may have common attributes...that all the more proves an intelligent designer.

we all have software from the same software house

 

[VProud]

That article is a joke. Most of the "specific" examples have actually been debunked by evolutionists already. Hind structures on whales?!?!?

Kent Hovind does a great job going through the evidence...look at some of his debates on youtube.

Of course we may have common attributes...that all the more proves an intelligent designer.

You managed to read it all that fast?
What, specifically do you feel does not stand as evidence, and why?

Also, that really just proves an unimaginative designer.

 

[lasthero]

Anyone seen a hippo turn into a bird?.

No, but I don't see what that has to do with evolution.

Anyone who believes a rock turned into a human should be ashamed.

I agree. Good thing no one believes that.

 

[Dizredux]

That article is a joke. Most of the "specific" examples have actually been debunked by evolutionists already. Hind structures on whales?!?!?

When was this debunked?

Kent Hovind does a great job going through the evidence...look at some of his debates on youtube.

I am sorry but Hovind and evidence in the same sentence....giggle.

Dizredux

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Your mountains of nothing isn't evidence.

Out of curiosity, what would constitute as evidence for you? This isn't a challenge, but a genuine question.

As I mentioned in the thread you created asking how we were taught evolution, when my family lived in DC my science class attended the opening of the Human Origins Exhibition Hall at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and our teacher implemented their educational materials into our lessons. It was very enriching and enjoyable, and it helped to build a foundation for my education about evolution. If you're ever in the DC area, I very highly recommend checking it out because you really need to see it all in person to take it in. There are many great resources on their website, though, if it's not feasible for you to visit. If you click under the Education tab you can find material. Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

I'm not sure if you're familiar with OpenCourseWare at MIT; it's a publicly accessible web-based publication of content from MIT courses. They have numerous classes on evolution with all the course material available for anyone to review and download. I know they have the course contents for their Human Origins and Evolution classes, which is sort of the rudimentary evolution course, because I've reviewed them for my own classes. Coursera also has some wonderful classes on evolution that are absolutely free and will really explain the evidence in a methodical way.

I don't know if any of this would satisfy a Creationist with cemented-in beliefs, though. One of my friends my age who is a homeschooled fully indoctrinated Young Earth Creationist and has only been taught propaganda against evolution rather than any authentic education on it wouldn't believe in evolution unless Jesus showed up on her doorstep to teach her about it. He'd need to let her examine the holes in his feet and hands and totally convince her he was in fact Jesus, and then proceed with the lessons in order for her to let them penetrate through her anti-evolution defenses and convince her that evolution isn't a "dangerous and evil lie Satan tells people to cause them eternal damnation."

Oh, btw, I apologize for not returning to your thread to answer more questions you asked me. I intended to, but I was taking summer classes plus teaching dance last month and wanted to spend the bulk of my spare time for internet activity on social media instead of here. It just seemed like it would require more time than I could justify for an internet forum when I had so much going on. I can try to go back to it if you wish since I have more free time this week.

 

[morse86]

No, but I don't see what that has to do with evolution.



I agree. Good thing no one believes that.

Sorry, but you do believe humans came from rocks. According to evolutionists, torrential rains fell upon the earth...and the rocks dissolved into the oceans and it became a bubbly soup of life.
Here is one resource that verifies this: The evolution of life, or, Causes of change in animal forms: a study in biology - Hubbard Winslow Mitchell - Google Books

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have 100% hardcore unrefutable evidence of evolution:

Anyone seen a hippo turn into a bird? Case closed.


Anyone who believes a rock turned into a human should be ashamed.

Wrong,anyone that believes your strawman attack should be ashamed, including you. Either you do not understand the theory of evolution or you just broke the Ninth Commandment big time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but you do believe humans came from rocks. According to evolutionists, torrential rains fell upon the earth...and the rocks dissolved into the oceans and it became a bubbly soup of life.
Here is one resource that verifies this: The evolution of life, or, Causes of change in animal forms: a study in biology - Hubbard Winslow Mitchell - Google Books

Wow! A book over 100 years old!


Why don't you find something a bit more up to date?


You do realize that many of the problems of abigenesis have been solved:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube

ETA: Turn up your speakers for the video. I guarantee you that it will not harm you.

 

[justlookinla]

Out of curiosity, what would constitute as evidence for you? This isn't a challenge, but a genuine question.

Scientific evidence is observation and experimentation.

As I mentioned in the thread you created asking how we were taught evolution, when my family lived in DC my science class attended the opening of the Human Origins Exhibition Hall at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, and our teacher implemented their educational materials into our lessons. It was very enriching and enjoyable, and it helped to build a foundation for my education about evolution. If you're ever in the DC area, I very highly recommend checking it out because you really need to see it all in person to take it in.

Actually, for the next few years I plan on being in the DC area at least a couple of times a year. Probably beginning next spring. I'll certainly visit the exhibition if possible.

There are many great resources on their website, though, if it's not feasible for you to visit. If you click under the Education tab you can find material. Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Thanks.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with OpenCourseWare at MIT; it's a publicly accessible web-based publication of content from MIT courses. They have numerous classes on evolution with all the course material available for anyone to review and download. I know they have the course contents for their Human Origins and Evolution classes, which is sort of the rudimentary evolution course, because I've reviewed them for my own classes. Coursera also has some wonderful classes on evolution that are absolutely free and will really explain the evidence in a methodical way.

Yes, I'm familiar with the MIT opencourseware. I usually access it on Roku.

I don't know if any of this would satisfy a Creationist with cemented-in beliefs, though. One of my friends my age who is a homeschooled fully indoctrinated Young Earth Creationist and has only been taught propaganda against evolution rather than any authentic education on it wouldn't believe in evolution unless Jesus showed up on her doorstep to teach her about it. He'd need to let her examine the holes in his feet and hands and totally convince her he was in fact Jesus, and then proceed with the lessons in order for her to let them penetrate through her anti-evolution defenses and convince her that evolution isn't a "dangerous and evil lie Satan tells people to cause them eternal damnation."

Atheistic macro evolution is a lie from satan.

Oh, btw, I apologize for not returning to your thread to answer more questions you asked me. I intended to, but I was taking summer classes plus teaching dance last month and wanted to spend the bulk of my spare time for internet activity on social media instead of here. It just seemed like it would require more time than I could justify for an internet forum when I had so much going on. I can try to go back to it if you wish since I have more free time this week.

No problem. I've forgotten what I asked you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientific evidence is observation and experimentation.

Partially right. And evolution is both observed and experimented on.

Atheistic macro evolution is a lie from satan.

No. It is not a lie. It is not from Satan. And it is no more atheistic than the theory of gravity or germ theory. Why don't you rail against those? You don't like evolution because it shows that your version of God is wrong. Of course it does not say that God is wrong, only that certain crazy beliefs are wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow! A book over 100 years old!


Why don't you find something a bit more up to date?


You do realize that many of the problems of abigenesis have been solved:

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube

ETA: Turn up your speakers for the video. I guarantee you that it will not harm you.

I am assuming the video is re: primordial soup abiogenesis. I haven't watched it but all primordial soup theory is based on the miller urey experiment which I believe created some primitive amino acids. However there are many sources as to the fact that this experiment is overrated and by and large "old news"

here are some of the more obvious problems with the primordial soup theory and the miller urey experiment:
• law of mass action: in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into amino acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides. not the other way around. So this law of mass action proves evolution cannot happen on a chemical level as evolutionary laws of abiogenesis and laws of primordial soup theories suggest.
• water is a solvent of course it breaks things down. That’s not the interesting part. lets start with endothermic reactions, do you know what they are? They are reactions that bond elements. Like when you drop a red die in water, you don't expect to see a little drop still in the water, it bonds to it. Nucleotides don't bond well other nucleotides to make DNA, but they do bond well with the toxic elements produced in the miller urey experiment. So no primordial soup will suffice because the nucleotides will bond to the toxins and be wiped out. They need an endothermic reaction which does not come cheaply, as it requires much needed energy (that would not be there in a primitive soup).
• not to mention the fact that proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids. Miller Urey produced 50/50. So no proteins evolved in miller urey.
• nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides. Miller urey produced none, but if possible it would have produced 50/50. So another limitation of primitive soup theory.
• ammonia and methane: in 70's scientist realized: but ammonia would
only last a few thousand years due to ultra violet radiation. And Methane would produce 10 meters of oil due to ultra violet radiation. so no methane, and no ammonia after a few thousand years. so there would be no necessary chemicals in early biospheres to evolve any life out of primitive soup without the chemicals necessary to reproduce miller urey. Other than this: miller urey no studies have been shown to produce abiogenesis or chemical evolution

chemical evolution, fails. Evolution as a macro-concept fails as well.

 

[dad]

so called former state evolution would still have some type of evidence . fossils etc.

How would you tell what fossils evolved fast or slow? Also, most creatures could not fossilize in the former state most likely. So the ones that could are what we have.

We can't have evolution from ape like creatures to human like creatures with no evidence. That is an argument from silence.

True, obviously. God created man, any evolving came after that.

look up chemical evolution on google scholar and it will reveal abiogenesis to be in fact chemical evolution (evolution none the less ,just on a chemical level, rather than a biological level). We also have stellar evolution as well. So evolution encompasses much more than the biological.

In someones dreams perhaps. Stellar evolution is a croc. Chemicals only exuisted after creation also and life was already here anyhow.


.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am assuming the video is re: primordial soup abiogenesis. I haven't watched it but all primordial soup theory is based on the miller urey experiment which I believe created some primitive amino acids. However there are many sources as to the fact that this experiment is overrated and by and large "old news"

here are some of the more obvious problems with the primordial soup theory and the miller urey experiment:
• law of mass action: in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into amino acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides. not the other way around. So this law of mass action proves evolution cannot happen on a chemical level as evolutionary laws of abiogenesis and laws of primordial soup theories suggest.
• water is a solvent of course it breaks things down. That’s not the interesting part. lets start with endothermic reactions, do you know what they are? They are reactions that bond elements. Like when you drop a red die in water, you don't expect to see a little drop still in the water, it bonds to it. Nucleotides don't bond well other nucleotides to make DNA, but they do bond well with the toxic elements produced in the miller urey experiment. So no primordial soup will suffice because the nucleotides will bond to the toxins and be wiped out. They need an endothermic reaction which does not come cheaply, as it requires much needed energy (that would not be there in a primitive soup).
• not to mention the fact that proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids. Miller Urey produced 50/50. So no proteins evolved in miller urey.
• nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides. Miller urey produced none, but if possible it would have produced 50/50. So another limitation of primitive soup theory.
• ammonia and methane: in 70's scientist realized: but ammonia would
only last a few thousand years due to ultra violet radiation. And Methane would produce 10 meters of oil due to ultra violet radiation. so no methane, and no ammonia after a few thousand years. so there would be no necessary chemicals in early biospheres to evolve any life out of primitive soup without the chemicals necessary to reproduce miller urey. Other than this: miller urey no studies have been shown to produce abiogenesis or chemical evolution

chemical evolution, fails. Evolution as a macro-concept fails as well.

You forgot your links for your claims. Did you use a proper source or a lying creationist source for those claims? Until I see something real they are just Deja Moo.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have 100% hardcore unrefutable evidence of evolution:

Anyone seen a hippo turn into a bird? Case closed.


Anyone who believes a rock turned into a human should be ashamed.

This is just painful, I hope for your sake you aren't so misinformed as to think evolutionary theory would require such Frankenstein mash ups to exist. In fact, this sort of crap is so off it would actually refute evolution if creatures like this existed.