Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: spygeek
Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability.

If we can never observe it happen then how can honestly say that is how it was done? This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence? Just because some animals look the same as others does not mean they must have evolved from each other, but that seems to be the main evidence for evolution.

smh

What do you honestly propose as the alternative?

Please tell us. If a theory that so far makes perfect sence, given what we can observe, fails to hold weight with you, what does?

Please for the love all things sane, do not tell me god.. please..

a reply to: sn0rch

Primordial soup, your joking right? You don't honestly believe that do you?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You want evidence? Look at the fossil record.

FACT - Absolutely no transitional forms exist anywhere...

The fossil record clearly shows that evolution never happened.

Below is a quote from a famous Evolutionist admitting that there is no fossil Evidence for Evolution.

Luther D. Sunderland, author of "Darwin’s Enigma" wrote to Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. Patterson had written a book on Evolution. Sunderland asked Patterson why he didn’t include any examples or pictures of the fossil evidence for evolution...

Patterson replied:

"....I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them."

Before I am accused of misrepresenting Dr. Patterson’s beliefs, I will say this man still believes in evolution, but he also admits there is no evidence for it..

www.angelfire.com...

This video is honest admissions by evolutionists THEMSELVES about the hopelessness of finding credible transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution can never recover from the obvious objection to it, that there are no credible (in other words ones that have not been proved to be fake or which require a huge dose of faith) transitional fossils in the fossil record when there should be billions of them. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found.

There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: spygeek
Of course not, for it to become a new species of bacteria would require it's isolated development and observation over a period beyond our current capability.

If we can never observe it happen then how can honestly say that is how it was done? This whole idea of one species changing into another is just hogwash, how we can take this stuff seriously without a shred of evidence? Just because some animals look the same as others does not mean they must have evolved from each other, but that seems to be the main evidence for evolution.

Point in fact Raccoons cannot be 47 million year old Lemurs, although resemble one (have a ringed tail, do they have a tooth comb and grooming nail) otherwise THEY HAVENT EVOLVED AT ALL. Why has the 350 million year old shark specie never evolved? Too perfect a form or just not enough time on the planet to change itself into something with legs. Perhaps they would have if they knew the jokes that would come about regarding their specie; "Shark Week" Discovery Channel- the "Sharknado, Sharknado, the second one, and Sharknado Hell NO # 3". Oceanographers (or at least Sea World) should be up in arms about the exploitation of a specie that CLEARLY does not know HOW to evolve and has no advocate to defend it.

The great white sharks are a highly efficient killing machine that has evolved in it's environment to the point where it requires little adaptation to survive. Mutation does not happen for no reason. It helps life adapt to it's environment. Once it's adapted, unless changes occur to affect it's environment, it wont need to evolve.

Apart from this, you do know there are 400 known species of shark?

400 genetic variants... so, again, given the environment, we see adaptations.

Adaptations lead from an aquatic lifeform, eventually coping to live outside of water during droughts, leading to the formation of rudimentary lungs, leading to limbs that not only are used to swim, but also on land, which leads to adaptations for land, and less and less requirement for water, which leads to a land based life form, far removed from the fish that millions of years prior lived entirely in water.

There we see more and more adaptation over time.. that fish, that amphibian, that 4 legged mammal, and so on.

Land is a hostile environment.

a reply to: sn0rch

lol

originally posted by: sn0rch

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: sn0rch

I ain't running with it, I'm flying with it.

Maybe, but most Dinosaurs where considered large, and there were various types of dinosaurs of sizes and structures.

I heard they ate themselves out of existence (problem! they are denuding the rain/hardwood forests faster than the vegetation is able to replenish itself) *destroy this experiment*. My concern is where are the 14 foot feathers (someone will find the perfect limestone specimen).

Where are the 14 foot feathers?

Where are the tiny feathers your budgie had when you were a kid?

They must be somewhere !!

"Dinosaurologists" insist the Tyrannosaurous Rex and others of his caste system (cultural group/predators) had feathers covering some portions of the neck and the tiny useless? front flappy appendages. The Brontasaurus not included as was obviously too heavy to fly even if it had feathers. Though spent much of its time in the water floating around aimlessly (as was too heavy for land managing) being featherless was not able to pass the 'oily feather' syndrome on to modern ducks. The good news is the Hippopotomus is the evolutionary remnant. It has no feathers either but is a lazy floating dangerous creature that hides in Amazon waters waiting to chomp random humans recreationally; its legacy as just a frustrated vegetarian.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

And they did experiment and observer it.
It has already been shown to you.

Common theme of all these threads is OP is looking for our monkeys in the zoo to turn into humans.

You gonna have to remind me where this experiment and observation took place because I don't recall exactly which one your talking about. Nothing will ever change my mind about evolution because when you get down to the nitty griddy of it it's just not possible, that's the way it happened.

originally posted by: weirdguy
It's more believable than a magic man in the sky...

Darwin's 'theory' is so full of holes that it becomes obvious what the real 'faith' is...

I don't HAVE that much faith.

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

I would be an Athiest too if I had that much faith... ~ Mark Lowry

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: sn0rch

Ok, so in other words you only agree with evolution because the idea of a creator or designer is beyond your comprehension right?

Sigh, when I say "it is a theory that makes sense given what we observe around us" how does this imply that I just dont know any better but god is silly?

I look at the evidence for evolution, and I accept it. I don't think there is any other reasonable explanation for the way life has changed over time, from the origins of the planet, that we can observe via ancient fossilised evidence.

I don't think a book written by deluded humans thousands of years ago in an effort to control feeble minded people, is evidence of anything other than the greed and gullibility of human kind.

Religion is a chain. Science is a tool.

I don't believe in pink unicorns on the far side of the moon either, which is the same, if you ask me, as believing in god.

ETA - god is not beyond my comprehension. The idea of god is beyond my rational thinking mind. God does not exist. There is not even a theory behind it. Only blind faith by those who have been fooled by a book written by humans who would control you with fear.

"Dont sin, do what I say or oooga booga hell awaits you !!!"

sad really...

originally posted by: avgguy
Bachelor of science here. There is no absolute proof of macroevolution. It cannot be tested using the scientific method. Microevolution however can be replicated.

Micro and macro is the same process. They are seperated for taxonomic purposes only.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: sn0rch

Primordial soup, your joking right? You don't honestly believe that do you?

Yep.

You don't honestly believe in God do you?

It is obvious you have no intention of discussing the topic, and simply pushing your skewed religious view of things. You asked a simple enough question - one of the 12 times it's asked a year. and instead of answers, you have taken the topic and spread it thinner and thinner the more the thread has progressed.

From evolution has no proof to dismissing the entirety of evolution and .. without actually saying it, saying God did it all.

No.. Sorry. I can show you evidence to support life that is now extinct, and life that has a common lineage.

You cannot show me a single shred of anything that even hints at god. Nada.

You can love Jesus, but there is a crapload of scientific evidence for evolution, and you know it. Stop being willfully blind. No, I'm not going to post some links for you, nor will I post some links to prove the Earth is not flat. Acceptance of science doesn't mean you have to be an atheist.
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: sn0rch

lol

hahahah

I love southpark. Which is likely in indication that we are now in a state of devolution.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

The data and evidenc is there you just refuse to acknowledge it and troll the forums

originally posted by: Cypress
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

The data and evidenc is there you just refuse to acknowledge it and troll the forums

I am certain the Origin of a thread or "OP" cannot or is in any way allowed to troll itself.

originally posted by: sn0rch
Adaptations lead from an aquatic lifeform, eventually coping to live outside of water during droughts, leading to the formation of rudimentary lungs, leading to limbs that not only are used to swim, but also on land, which leads to adaptations for land, and less and less requirement for water, which leads to a land based life form, far removed from the fish that millions of years prior lived entirely in water.

OMG, this is too funny. So your saying that a creature in the ocean or let's say a lake, that once the water starts to dry up something in the brain tells them "I better start adapting new lungs before my whole species dies"? That is just down right crazy. First off, how do they know that all water is about to dry up? And second of all, if the process takes millions of years how in the world would they even be able to make the adaption without dying off first?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: sn0rch
Adaptations lead from an aquatic lifeform, eventually coping to live outside of water during droughts, leading to the formation of rudimentary lungs, leading to limbs that not only are used to swim, but also on land, which leads to adaptations for land, and less and less requirement for water, which leads to a land based life form, far removed from the fish that millions of years prior lived entirely in water.

OMG, this is too funny. So your saying that a creature in the ocean or let's say a lake, that once the water starts to dry up something in the brain tells them "I better start adapting new lungs before my whole species dies"? That is just down right crazy. First off, how do they know that all water is about to dry up? And second of all, if the process takes millions of years how in the world would they even be able to make the adaption without dying off first?

Oh ffs.. this is retarded...

I need to remind you , once more, it takes MILLIONS OF YEARS.

This is pointless.. Have fun in heaven discussing with jesus how great his work was.

Hint: Read your signature. It's entirely valid for you.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Sure, I could look it up and read tons of pages on it, but why? Alot of people on this site claim that there is evidence, I'm simply asking them to show us the evidence they have. Is that to big of a task?

To big a task? I'm sure it would be for me so I will leave you now.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: avgguy
Bachelor of science here. There is no absolute proof of macroevolution. It cannot be tested using the scientific method. Microevolution however can be replicated.

Micro and macro is the same process. They are seperated for taxonomic purposes only.

You actually mean "Taxidermist" purposes; micro meaning fibers to fur ratio and macro meaning the more points (on the antler; say 25) the better. This would be a huge creature deer, antelope, elk.

originally posted by: sn0rch
I don't think a book written by deluded humans thousands of years ago in an effort to control feeble minded people, is evidence of anything other than the greed and gullibility of human kind.

Looking at nothing but the mathematical odds logically defeats Darwinism quite easily...

Darwinism is a mathematical impossibility.

The zero probability of ever happening makes it painfully obvious that we are being lied to.

On the other hand, the odds of Scripture NOT being a divine document are statistically nonexistent.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
One acquaintance once told me he enjoys debunking Darwinism, when I asked him why? He answered with "the math", what he was referring to is that math with biology can't support it. One biological scientist once said the Darwin theory is so mathematically impossible it's odds of happening are like 1 out of the number that represents all the atoms in the universe. Nobody knows what that number actually is. But it's a hyperbole to make a point.

After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.

Mathematical Probability that Jesus is the Christ

Incidentally, and amazingly, probability experts tell us the mathematical odds of just forty-eight prophecies regarding one person (i.e. Christ) coming true as foretold are one in ten to the 157th power!

Is the Bible a fairy tale?

The chances of just 48 out of the 456 prophecies being fulfilled in one person are 1 in 10 to the 157 power.

That's — 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"All this illustrates why it is absolutely impossible for anyone to have fulfilled the Messianic prophecies by chance. In fact, a leading authority on the probability theory, Emile Borel states that once we go past one chance in 10 to the 50th power, the probabilities are so small it's impossible to think they will ever occur."

LINK

"...once we go past one chance in 10 to the 50th power, the probabilities are so small it's impossible to think they will ever occur....Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening.... This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel....

Here is one last illustration of the immensity of the number 10 to the 157th power and why the science of probability shows we are dealing with the miraculous… Imagine one ant traveling at the speed of only one inch every 15 billion years. If he could only carry one atom at a time, how many atoms could he move in 10 to the 157th power of years?

He would, even at that incredibly slow speed, be able to move all the atoms in 600,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion universes the size for our universe, a distance of 30 billion light years! Again, by the laws of probability, all of this means that it is simply impossible for 48 prophecies to be fulfilled by chance. LINK