Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: sn0rch
I look at the evidence for evolution, and I accept it.

And you accept it based on what? Have you observed or tested any of this information your self? Or did you just take their word for it because it was written in a science book which was also written by men?

to the OP...

since your religion is a PERSONAL matter of FAITH...

why are you trolling the science community?

you KNOW how this is going to play out.

or did you actually expect the science team to say

OH GOSH YOU'RE RIGHT!

lets chuck our collective progress and instead dig a 2000 yr old metaphysic from the middle east. YEAH!!!

dead ideas beat the hell out of collective progress..


OR OR OR OR

JUST MAYBE

your religious philosophy is largely irrelevant to modern thinkers.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
Every single organism is created, then evolves then improves itself thereby evolving some more.

Show evidence of an organism being created then.

Show me spontaneous or supernatural or whatever you call it, moment of creation from a Creator.

originally posted by: sn0rch
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

snOrch: 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.

Never has a land fish (that I know of become a whale mammal) or a whale mammal grow legs. Fish have not evolved at all; like the simian as it relates to its better half the human the same fish to whale metaphor remains as well.

anyone who has ever dated THAT GIRL will understand that faith can be misplaced...

didnt you believe in THAT GIRL?

yeah you did, but it played out in reality like it played out ANYHOW belief got trumped..


this can happen with ideas as easy as it can happen with the opposite sex..

FAITH CAN BE MISPLACED.

our collective progress is where your faith belongs

If evolution was real , and man evolved
from monkeys , .... why are there still monkeys ?


shouldn't they have all evolved into people ?

and all those ameobas , shouldn't they be dolphins by now ?

creation please

a reply to: radarloveguy

you must be in third grade

second line

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

Nope. The nature of our DNA (you must understand what a miracle this is) is not happenstance/accidental. This could never have evolved naturally.

Why not? You can't just say it is so and expect everyone to scratch their heads and say "Oh, damn... that guy over there must be right, he said it out loud on the internet and everything is true once its on the internets!".

Oak trees die off as soul groups and are at the bottom tier of base awareness; just above rocks/mineral elements.

And this metaphysical fluff and buff has exactly what to do with the evidence ofr or against evolution?

There was a hand in all of this and it was not natural selection. Lucy was found; a 3.2 million years ago breathing relic then; and was not near being as 'evolved' as the Neanderthal or the next being Cro-Magnum. The swiftness of the progression cannot be evolution.

It was over 2.5 MA between A. Afarensis and the divergence between H. Heidelbergensis and H. Neanderthalensis. How exactly is that a "swift progression"? And FYI, "Cro-Magnon" was not the next being. It wasn't even an actual separate species or subspecies. It's nothing more than a descriptor for the first H. Sapiens Sapiens to enter Eurasia 40+ KA. There are some slight morphological differences but genetically they are indistinguishable from "us".

HSS and HA were contemporaries and not so much a progenitor to successor scenario. HSS evolved in East Africa and HN evolved in Europe and Western Asia, but both from H. Heidelbergensis thus the shared immediate ancestry. HN diverged a little earlier in the timeline but more so because of environmental stressors in Europe at the time whereas the E. African clime was a bit more stable. Especially compared to Europe and North Africa.

As seems typical on ATS, people believe in something based on incorrect impressions of what the data actually states or from not caring enough to know the truth and look into the matter for themselves.

Why did the Simians (living beside us) not evolve at the same pace as a different branch of hominids?

What pace is that exactly? They weren't "living beside us". They were inhabiting completely separate ecological niches, their environmental pressures were nothing like ours were or Tigers were or Alpacas for that matter.

We as modern humans shouldn't EXIST AT ALL for another 10 million years.

Why exactly is that? We are here, I think that speaks contrary to your position.

You don't see the beauty of the human body; how it functions. It is a universe self contained that is so perfect in function and it actually has consciousness; and knows what it is and understands a higher being has to exist to have created this perfection. Coded DNA strands are so complicated as not to be accidental happenstance. The beauty of this human form/function suggests a higher thought/creator being exists.

So basically, you can't fathom how it all could be possible so therefore it isn't possible? Well done then!

originally posted by: radarloveguy
If evolution was real , and man evolved
from monkeys , .... why are there still monkeys ?


shouldn't they have all evolved into people ?

and all those ameobas , shouldn't they be dolphins by now ?

creation please

Its just simple logic. The amoebas should at least have more than ONE cell by now (come on its been at least a half billion years).

ok one more post and im done with this

(until it gets posted again in 2 days by another lost religious soul)

the fact that YOU have no scientific training IS NOT OUR FAULT

imagine that I am always posting that meteorology is FULL OF SH#T,

no science AT ALL with the weatherman

BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THOR.

i dont NEED your BS weather guy...

I ALREADY KNOW where the rain comes from...

IT COMES FROM THOR!!!

you can make all the science talk you want

it wont matter to me

because i have the holy books of STAN LEE!!!


THOR LIVES

there is no weatherman

originally posted by: Parthin96
...there is a crapload of scientific evidence for evolution, and you know it.

On the contrary...

Your scientific evidence is nothing but a 'crapload' of lies and false theories.

This is why there are so many scientists who started out as evolutionists and later abandoned their views when the evidence led them in a different direction.

This shows that mainstream science is based on lies and false theories. The mainstream scientists, all hold on to Darwins theory because they really don't have a clue where everything came from. As they say, "ignorance is bliss" and there's a lot of blissful imbeciles in the scientific community! There isn't one single shred of evidence to support evolution. We have mountains of, cheap scientific thrash theories on the subject but not one single piece of evidence.

a reply to: Murgatroid

like i said


THOR LIVES!!

Just once I'd love to see the evidence Creationists have to offer to prove a Creator. Not some story or idea but some evidence.

They spend all their time trying to take down science, even though the benefits and proofs of science are everywhere around us. Repeatable, verifiable, predictive science.

Yet they spend zero time showing evidence of creation and there is zero evidence to be found for it anywhere around us. Nothing repeatable, verifiable, predictive (not accurately anyway), nothing. Just stories. Not one useful practical thing has been given to us from Creationists. Nothing.

a reply to: peter vlar
I know how it was all possible; the creation of this incredible ecosystem with the human as its most delicate and vulnerable protagonist. Predators surrounding it, (including its own specie). Oh those other things, how it invented/duplicated the making of fire all by itself, (knowing what water was not pure and ferment grain instead to drink); and that rascally the growing of crops, when to plant what to plant (WHAT ARE SEEDS) and animal husbandry. How it taught itself to build using measurements/geometry and TOOLS. This was one SMART APE; smarter than the Chimp or average bear boo-boo.

a reply to: mOjOm
You cannot offer the alternative either. Proof that a creator does not exist. Here is what I understand regarding the Evolutionist ideology. You do not think you are in anyway remarkable. You are accidents of cell mutations only. You do not value the miracle you are and so do not value others as you believe everyone including yourselves to be accidents or mutations of nature. What a sad realization this is: as you are bound only to what mutations occur in the future. Within this thinking you MUST actually acknowledge the remote possibility of your de-evolving (at this moment).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: mOjOm
You cannot offer the alternative either. Proof that a creator does not exist.

That's not how it works though and you know it. You claim there is a Creator so it's on you to provide evidence for it not the other way around. I'm not making a claim, you are, so it's your job to back up your claim.

originally posted by: uwascallywabbit
a reply to: radarloveguy

you must be in third grade

second line

... no I'm not ,
but are you ?

Answer the Questions ... if you can , you can't
and you won't .

a reply to: vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing...

even a freshman in philo 101 knows better than to try and prove a negative...

HAVE YOU ANY TRAINING?

aside from religious crap i mean
edited to be less of a d*ck

by training i mean can you define syllogism? can you define fallacy? can you name the common fallacies?

have you read the big (non bible) guys like socrates? hume? (insert 12 thinkers here)?

a reply to: radarloveguy

omigod u responded?
awesome

what questions did you need answered?

do they revolve about the bit where your religion is out of line with modern discovery?

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Whats the point it is obvious from your OP that you will not accept the evidence people show you, many have put evidence in many threads you have been in already.
A time lapse video? come off it.
No point teaching folk who refuse to learn the basics.