Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

I agree that one doesn't need the Bible to be a creationist.
I once believed totally in Krishna Consciousness and they also believe in creationism, although a very old world and cyclical creationism (see for example A.C Bhakitivedanta Swami Prabhupada's classic Life Comes From Life, The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust: 1979).

However, the more I've been drawn to the creationist/intelligent design debate in order to disprove evolution to myself, the more I've actually found myself rooting for evolution!

Perhaps there's a slight chance I might be wrong, and a great creator Godhead will come down and visibly announce itself, but then I might be wrong for futurity, because I see no evidence whatsoever for such a being in the past or present (except for a lot of contradictory and questionable anecdotes).

For me evolution is not about abiogenesis, or how life came from inorganic to organic matter.
Here there might be a God (even if a deist being), although there's also no proof or evidence of how He might have created it all from chemicals to plants and animals, or whether He first made a chicken or an egg, except that He just waved some magical wand and did it.
It really explains nothing.
So, evolution to me is more about explaining the diversity of species, and I no longer believe God just put them here to start of with, like the first non-recyclable plastic set of toy farm or jungle animals.

I think evolution was a long (and often imperfect) process of natural selection over millions of years.
If microevolution can produce so many different looking forms of cats and dogs just through selective breeding, then imagine what millions of years can do.
I can well imagine how dogs and bears once had a common ancestor.
I can believe that DNA and fossil records show that horses and giraffes once had a common ancestor, and recently I saw a documentary where alpacas mated with camels with a bit of laboratory help.
Why are these species still so related (yet not of the same kind, by any goalpost shifting) that they can produce a new species?

Besides, why do we have so many intermediate known fossils already showing transitions between reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals?
www.talkorigins.org...

I think the earth would have been somewhat overcrowded if all these species shared the planet over a few thousand years.
It would have been an ecological disaster over a matter of months, if not days!
Just the transitional fossils of the horse alone would have left vast tracts of the earth stripped of vegetation if they were all created at once, along with all the dinosaurs and modern animals.
chem.tufts.edu...
But human evolution from a common ape ancestor would mean that recorded history must have been a bit like the Planet of Apes, with all kinds of now fossilized hominids living with modern man.
Bigfoot notwithstanding, we have nothing in any cultural history to suggest such a time in ancient manuscripts (dating back at least 5000 years) or oral history.
No, I think they were all transitional forms, found in their correct strata, and they weren't created at once, but rather evolved into each other through microevolution until macroevolution had occurred and they were separate species who could no longer interbreed.

Well, that's my two cents.
I'm not very scientific, but without going into tit-for-tat links and blogs, that's what convinced me so far ... unless they can prove a creator, or He comes down and visibly introduces and explains Himself.

I'm open minded on this entire subject.

This...

The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This has always intrigued me because even if this did occur, whats the likely hood of that life form being able to survive!
That lightning strike would have needed to not only create life, but also that life would need all the traits necessary to exist within its randomly selected environment!
Even if that did happen I cant help but think it would very quickly die!

Lol makes me laugh that the OP put "Even without the Bible" in hios heading like the Bible could prove it also.....lol.
OP can you expalin to me why modern genetics have PROVED that we and fellow great apes Chimpanzees share a common ancestor?.
We have proved it we are related to other Great Apes....why put them down? by denying their place next to us in the great evolutionary family tree.

BTW we have seen evolution happen in our life time...from lizards to moths.
If you are from the states please stop dumbing down everyone...It will be the USA's undoing teaching kids lies.

a reply to: wonderworld

Good luck with this one lol, even though the head evolutionist refuted his very own idea they still continue to push this crap and now they have even changed it into something else just to keep the bs story going. Going by most of the evidence that is proof of evolution, a pimple forming on my forehead is an evolutionary breakthrough.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm open minded on this entire subject.

This...

The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This has always intrigued me because even if this did occur, whats the likely hood of that life form being able to survive!
That lightning strike would have needed to not only create life, but also that life would need all the traits necessary to exist within its randomly selected environment!
Even if that did happen I cant help but think it would very quickly die!

That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and isn't part of evolutionary theory.

Here OP this is real proof because it is done by scientists not cheats and frauds.

What a very odd thread!

The posters here are interested in evolution, so I'd like to ask for a lesson in it. I am seriously asking out of ignorance. Just looking for a little clarity, so I'm hoping you can clear up errors in my thinking. It seems to me that:

1.) Science doesn't really have an answer for how life (or consciousness for that matter) arose from non-living material.

2.) Once life began, the current belief is that cells went through mutations every now and again.

3.) Most of the mutations ended up killing off the creature, but every now and then the mutation survived and continued to reproduce.

4.) Eventually, the mutations were passed on from one generation to the next, resulting in a different animal. This, to me sounds like the infinite monkeys situation, except that instead of requiring the monkeys to produce Shakespeare's works, they only have to produce some piece of literature.

5.) If you do this long enough, we will eventually have humans with super tough skin, psychic abilities, vision into the infra-red and ultra-violet, and any other desirable trait you might want.

Do I have this down pretty much correctly?

originally posted by: wonderworld
This is just one of many ways to see the truth without using the Bible. This one is not a religious thread, unless you personally want to apply it. This is scientific data only. I had to crop some of this to fit but you can see the entire article on the links below.

Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible

Hi wonderworld; both Darwinism and Creationism are disproved by my own family; studied since 1976 by the University of Arizona's Genetics and Anthropology Depts. I and all siblings went to school there (upon matriculation blood is taken from all the students entering). What they found with us is there is no 'N' marker within the DNA for inbreeding EVER occuring. No Adama and Eva no flotsam/fish/mammal that became mankind (we are infamous anomalies as in HOW can this be; no 17th cousin removed or produced a 23rd?) that's impossible no, it is possible it turns the whole idea form of a singular event upon its head (shout out to Charles1952 and boymonkey74).

Also OP I think you should watch ID on trial...it shows the low cheating methods ID/creationists used to try and keep the truth out of schools.



ID/creationists failed to prove any of their claims and the science involved was explained away by actual scientists...guess what evolution won.

a reply to: wonderworld

So, quoting huge chunks of text from ucg.org (the "United Church of God") and "Biblelife.org" equates to "proving evolution is false - even without the Bible".

Mm hmm.

There's a reason religion and facts don't mix.

a reply to: charles1952

5.) If you do this long enough, we will eventually have humans with super tough skin, psychic abilities, vision into the infra-red and ultra-violet, and any other desirable trait you might want.

Do I have this down pretty much correctly?

Only if such mutations confer a significant reproductive advantage.

And given that in today's rather artificial western world, just about anybody no matter how dumb and ineffectual can successfully reproduce, I wouldn't hold your breath.

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: wonderworld

Good luck with this one lol, even though the head evolutionist refuted his very own idea they still continue to push this crap and now they have even changed it into something else just to keep the bs story going. Going by most of the evidence that is proof of evolution, a pimple forming on my forehead is an evolutionary breakthrough.

How is that an evolutionary breakthrough? Please, demonstrate to us your flawless grasp of evolutionary theory.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
What is abiogenesis and don't direct me to a link to explain it as I wont bother.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm open minded on this entire subject.

This...

The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This has always intrigued me because even if this did occur, whats the likely hood of that life form being able to survive!
That lightning strike would have needed to not only create life, but also that life would need all the traits necessary to exist within its randomly selected environment!
Even if that did happen I cant help but think it would very quickly die!

That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and isn't part of evolutionary theory.

No, but it WAS presented in OP's opening post

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm open minded on this entire subject.

This...

The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This has always intrigued me because even if this did occur, whats the likely hood of that life form being able to survive!
That lightning strike would have needed to not only create life, but also that life would need all the traits necessary to exist within its randomly selected environment!
Even if that did happen I cant help but think it would very quickly die!

That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and isn't part of evolutionary theory.

No, but it WAS presented in OP's opening post

Exactly, and that is why the OP's article is flawed. I've point this out in two prior posts in this thread on the 1st page which the OP has conveniently ignored.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

the hypothesis that life can come into being from nonliving materials

It's amazing to me that people ask questions yet aren't willing to click a link and read a sentence...

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I want to know who the "head" evolutionist is...does he have that title on his door?. lol.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What is abiogenesis and don't direct me to a link to explain it as I wont bother.

Well this is a bit offtopic but ok... Abiogenesis simply put, without all the science speak, is the process where organic matter arose from inorganic matter. There is a lot of chemistry involved and it hasn't been sufficiently reproduced in a lab setting. That is why it remains a hypothesis. I must stress that it has NOTHING to do with evolution, which has upgraded to theory territory. They are two completely distinct and separate ideas, but creationists keep trying to lump them together into a strawman argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk
I'm open minded on this entire subject.

This...

The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This has always intrigued me because even if this did occur, whats the likely hood of that life form being able to survive!
That lightning strike would have needed to not only create life, but also that life would need all the traits necessary to exist within its randomly selected environment!
Even if that did happen I cant help but think it would very quickly die!

That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis and isn't part of evolutionary theory.

No, but it WAS presented in OP's opening post

Exactly, and that is why the OP's article is flawed. I've point this out in two prior posts in this thread on the 1st page which the OP has conveniently ignored.

Like I said "I'm open minded on this subject", and I'm not a god believer.
OP (right or wrong) included it in his thread so I commented on it because I wondered what others might have to say about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They have to find ways to make science look ridiculous because their only other option is to make creationism look probable.