Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: Quadrivium
yet if you read through it, you see that most of what they base the research on is assumptions and speculations.

Then by all means give us a breakdown of the methodological flaws in the study.

Link to evolution

Rapid Evolution
Watch the continuous process of evolution starting with a single E. coli bacterium.

Now imagine how much changes over millions of years.

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

We may not have full understanding of the process yet and how the life we see today has evolved exactly but it is surely apparent that most animals and plants have evolved from now extinct species as the planet has changed.

In fact it seems to me that apart from humans we have very few 'missing links' so i could maybe accept humanity isn't evolved purely from apes but that to me points to outside interference from another entity.

originally posted by: johnb

In fact it seems to me that apart from humans we have very few 'missing links' so i could maybe accept humanity isn't evolved purely from apes but that to me points to outside interference from another entity

'Missing links' is a term usually only used by creationists with the impression that we should have a complete sideshow of fossils from amoeba to human, and any gap in this line would disprove or discredit evolution. Of course this is a complete fallacy as fossilization is a highly improbable event, and most creatures that have ever lived do not become fossils.

We have a rich record of over 6000 fossils from early human species with many being discovered every year.

Not sure where or why the insertion of an 'entity' is required though.

originally posted by: josehelps
It's only crazy to people that either can't understand it, or don't want to understand it, or are to busy with something else clouding their minds. We already have a historical document telling us that what I'm telling you is correct. Hate to tell you, you are wrong.

Can some of you genius Evolutionists explain to me why it is that primates didn't hold on to our language, or why we didn't hold onto any of their language? I'll give you a hint, because evolution never existed.

Because language evolves too... Oh and what primates are talking again?

Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

a reply to: Prezbo369

i could maybe accept

I did use the maybe word - not saying i believe we were engineered/created as Occam's razor would imply evolution is the most accurate theory.

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: Prezbo369

i could maybe accept

I did use the maybe word

- not saying i believe we were engineered/created as Occam's razor would imply evolution is the most accurate theory.

Indeed but the main meat of your post and my reply was in regards to 'missing links'.

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

still a god of the gaps argument. a possibility born of speculation is not a probability born of evidence.

So if creationists believe the Bible is the literal word of God...

It begs the question..

Do they also believe in a geocentric model?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

still a god of the gaps argument. a possibility born of speculation is not a probability born of evidence.

One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all. No easy and convenient labels change this fact.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

still a god of the gaps argument. a possibility born of speculation is not a probability born of evidence.

One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all. No easy and convenient labels change this fact.

presupposition seems to apply pretty well. which, incidentally, science doesnt do.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
So if creationists believe the Bible is the literal word of God...

It begs the question..

Do they also believe in a geocentric model?

MSM lied to us about that too. and by MSM, i mean every esteemed highly reviewed and thoroughly respected scientist in the history of ever. because god.

4

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs
Barcs, the very link you provided (and others like it) is why many in the ID camp do not take evolution seriously. It's not so much the site as it is those who push this information as "proof" for evolution. Those who worked on the experiments did a good job I am sure, yet if you read through it, you see that most of what they base the research on is assumptions and speculations.
I am not surprised, such is the "proof" for evolution.

LMAO! I posted a direct link to a peer reviewed scientific research paper with experiments on measuring genetic mutations and the rate in which they occur. Your only response is denial. I said it was proof that genetic mutations happen and that the rate can be measured. You said "Who is to say we have "x" mutations a generation?" and I answered your question. Try not to spread any more ignorance please. If you'd like to address the paper itself and show me where they are wrong and what exactly they are assuming, this discussion can continue, but you can't keep simply denying the evidence every time it's posted without an explanation. I want to see where this "farce" is. I'm just trying to stay on topic here. I posted the evidence, now it's your turn to counter it.

Denial is NOT a counterpoint and that certainly isn't the only research paper about genetic mutations. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of them. Thinking that mutations will suddenly stop happening is like thinking the earth will suddenly stop revolving around the sun without any external influence.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

still a god of the gaps argument. a possibility born of speculation is not a probability born of evidence.

One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all. No easy and convenient labels change this fact.

presupposition seems to apply pretty well. which, incidentally, science doesnt do.

Sorry, but you are engaging in denial. Saying "Sure everything exists, but I disregard that it may have been created" is hand waving.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

still a god of the gaps argument. a possibility born of speculation is not a probability born of evidence.

One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all. No easy and convenient labels change this fact.

Right one CAN make that argument, but that just hand waves away the evidence for god by pretending it is ALL evidence for god. This tells us nothing. But if it makes you happy to believe such, then by all means. But make no mistake, TzarChasm is correct in that it is still the god of the gaps argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: jaffo
Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, you know. Just saying...

They are with biblical creationism. Man being formed as separate from other animals and such.

Creationism generally refers to a biblical recounting of things.

Yes, but there is nothing between the two which would preclude or prevent a created being from evolving.

still a god of the gaps argument. a possibility born of speculation is not a probability born of evidence.

One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all. No easy and convenient labels change this fact.

Right one CAN make that argument, but that just hand waves away the evidence for god by pretending it is ALL evidence for god. This tells us nothing. But if it makes you happy to believe such, then by all means. But make no mistake, TzarChasm is correct in that it is still the god of the gaps argument.

Labels do not make arguments, no matter how much you like them. Saying "All of creation is not evidence that it was created because I say it is not" is the epitome of hand waving. It is an arbitrary designation as to what does and does not constitute evidence. And I am not at all saying I believe it to be true that all was created. I am just a fan of being genuine about an argument and this is an argument that is full of arbitrary boundaries and convenient little labels that people try and use as proof or as the end of a discussion.

a reply to: jaffo

Which gods? How many gods? Greek gods? Roman gods? Norse gods? Pagan gods? Hindu gods? Which ones specifically? How do you even determine how many gods and which?

a reply to: jaffo

No, in order for the evidence to be valid, we need a control to compare it against. By saying all of creation is evidence of god, we are leaving no room for a control group to compare that evidence to, to validate it. It is a useless statement and tells us nothing. Like I said you are perfectly ok to believe as such, but at the end of the day it IS the god of the gaps argument.