Evidence for Evolution? (page 2)

heathen

I am surprised he didn't make mention of piltdown man .lol .The evolutionists think they can pull anything out their ass and have everyone swallow it .I have to laugh when I watch nature shows on discovery channel and they try to convince viewers that diversity in animals is proof of evolution .

LucidSky

Damn it! Will you guys quit posting other people's arguements and write ones yourself!

hooberus, tell me why you believe in special creation. Where would you draw the line? For example, did a horse and donkey have a common ancestor? I would say "yes".

heathen, I think diversity is merely indirect evidence for evolution but not proof, (yes, I am about to jump to conclusions...) but do you believe that Noah packed all that diversity into his ark?

heathen

I would say the probability of noah building an ark and loading with animals is far more comprehensible than life forming through evolution.Although I'm not a practicing religionist I have considered that when God is thrown in the equation that we must examine all possiblities.I have looked at the theory of evolution and there are way too many unknown variables to conclude that life formed by chance and the evidence of all these mutations, be it micro or macro is non existant.

IronGland

Could that be because your research is nonexistant?

LucidSky

Heathen: I don't believe evolutionists claim life formed through evolution. Life may or may not have formed by chance -- I have no idea. There are unknowns to the theory, but as a model it continues to be validated by the current evidence and new discoveries. Otherwise it would have been thrown out long ago.

How can you say that micro-evolution is non-existant?

hooberus

Lucid said:

"Damn it! Will you guys quit posting other people's arguements and write ones yourself!"

Sorry about the long posts Lucid. My first long post was a segment taken from a longer document. I tried to keep it as brief as possible. However since it delt well with the primary issue you initially raised (speciation) I decided to post it. The second much longer segmant I posted was a response to rems post.

Lucid said:

"hooberus, tell me why you believe in special creation. Where would you draw the line? For example, did a horse and donkey have a common ancestor? I would say "yes"."

Yes most creationists would probably agree that the horse, donkey, and zebra, probably came from an original bara-min or created kind which contained the genetic information for all three. I'll shortly list why I believe in special creation.

hooberus

Lucid said:

"Heathen: I don't believe evolutionists claim life formed through evolution. Life may or may not have formed by chance -- I have no idea. There are unknowns to the theory, but as a model it continues to be validated by the current evidence and new discoveries. Otherwise it would have been thrown out long ago."

Lucid there is a lot of "current evidence" and "new discoveries" which go against macro-evolution, however these are either ignored or new hypothesis (no matter how unrealistic) are formed to re-interptet these to fit into a macro-evoultionary framework.

Also your statement "Otherwise it would have been thrown out long ago." seems logical. However since many scientists are so committed to naturalism at all costs they have no other choice than to keep on believing in macro-evolution regardless of the evidence to the contrary. They have no other alternative.

heathen

Based on information I have looked at ,not saying I did extensive research or anything but alot of scientists are saying that the fossil record does not show micro evolution .In fact you would have to believe that new forms of animal life came along suddenly without a long line of decendants. The way I see it the laws of genetics are are way too confining for such a senario.Inherited traits are encrypted in the dna and cannot be altered by ( this is where one of those unknowns come in). I also can't see how people who wish to believe creation would even want to argue that God may have used evolution .IMO

LucidSky

Sorry about the long posts Lucid.

hooberus, just wanted you to be aware my attention span is only about 3 paragraphs or less!

Can you tell me what evidences are weighing against macro-evolution? I am still looking for answers. I don't, however, believe that anything is wrong with adapting theories to fit new discoveries -- religion and science both do this.

Yes, atheist scientists could be just as zealous about naturalism as a creationist. I would think the least biased scientist would be someone who is neither atheist nor theist.

LucidSky

heathen - It would't matter if the fossil record doesn't show micro-evolution -- it has already been observed happening! New species have been created that could no longer interbreed with other members. Viola! a new species -- micro-evolution.

Evidence for Evolution?

Share this