Evolution Cannot be Proven

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Best bet: Either there is a God or there is not. If I believe there is, I am safe after death. If I believe there is not, I am not safe after death, but I don't have to answer to any God in this life.

Death is a lot longer than life. I'll take God for the dirt nap.

You're using Pascal's wager, which was actually proposed largely as a joke.

Okay, there are literally hundreds of religions on Earth. Assuming you figure the largest religion is the one most likely to be correct, you have two choices: Islam and Christianity.

Choose wisely, because if you don't worship Allah and honor his prophet Muhammed, and he happens to exist, he's going to be pissed and send you to hell, where angels will torment you throughout eternity.

On the other hand, if the Christian god is real, and you don't accept Jesus into your heart, he will be equally pissed and send you to hell where you will spend eternity bathing in a lake of sulfur.

They both have a roughly equal amount of followers, though admittedly the Muslims seem more devout. But how are you going to decide where you're going to place your bet?

It's not a question I think about. I say that both the Christian god (I'm sure similar issues apply to Allah as well, but I'm not as familiar with Islam) can be all but proven non-existent, if the claims of the Bible and common Christian doctrine are considered.

Consider these statements:

-God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. (all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful).

-God is entirely good. He's so great, in fact, that he can't even bear to look upon sin (and yet still somehow manages to direct the affairs of the world... odd). He's the most just being in existence, presumably unable to tolerate injustice.

-This world is full of suffering. Millions of children (in Africa, India, China... even the US) starve to death yearly, while we in America live it up and thank God for granting us that promotion at work, or something equally mundane.

You think about all of those statements, and tell me wherein the problem lies, and how you explain it.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

What if our definition of 'God' is incorrect? What if He/She/It is not some supernatural being sitting on a throne in 'Heaven'? I myself have a much more scientific outlook on the Divine.

Imagine if you were born without any of your five senses. From your point of view, you would be a being of pure thought and pure energy. You would ponder things, but would not be able to experience them. Now imagine that you had the ability to create those senses from pure will alone.

The Big Bang.

Science has recently discovered that everything in the universe is made of energy and that it is all connected.

God.

Einstein postulated that energy never disappates and organized energy never disorganizes.

The Soul.

Quantum String Theory only works if there are at least 13 dimensions, and it is currently the only theory that works in respect to these particles.

Heaven or The Afterlife.

'God', in order to experience all that can be experienced would therefore not want to design the universe or simply poof it into existance premade, but would instead create the conditions for those things to happen.

The Big Bang again.

For some reason, people only think of 'God' one way, whether they believe or not. The only religions that would allow such an interpretation of the Divine are the Eastern ones. Does this make the Divine any less awe inspiring? No, in fact it's even more so! A Universal, Multi-dimensional Giant Brain, which we understand about as much as a strand of DNA in one of the cells in your big toe could understand how your brain works. Hell, we aren't even sure exactly how the brain works. With this model of 'God', all science would still be valid, including evolution. Just some food for thought!

Originally posted by Jim Scott
For ID:
God is defined as all powerful. Hence, he can do anything. Hence, he can make the world and the universe look just like it does --- aged. Biblical support: Adam was made aged, the garden was aged, etc.
For Theology:
The world was made aged with fossils, layers, etc. for choice. It the world were made to only look like it were 6000 years old, made in six days, there would be no choice but to believe in God as advertised. God likes to give choice, as in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, hence he tests you to see if you love him. God loves to test you "for the Lord proveth you, to see if you will love the Lord thy God".
For evolution: Scientific evidence shows an aged universe, and natural selection. Scientific evidence shows it is possible to create life without God.

So you're saying that god made everything to look old, meaning that anything that appears older than 6500 years never happened. We look out into space and see a supernovae that appears to have happened 3 billion years ago, but it didn't because nothing before 6500 years ago.

lie
24 dictionary results for: lie1 /laɪ/ noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. –noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

[Dictionary.com]

All of the signs and signals that the universe is older than 6500 years ago are wrong. That means that all these things are deceptions.... lies. Do you think God is lying to us, just to mislead us as a test of love or faith. According to Titus, God cannot lie.

So either either the universe is billions of years old and your god didn't have anything to do with the writing of the bible, or he lies and the universe is 6500 years old (still a problem with Titus).

Use Occam's Razor my friend.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Good Wolf]

evolution can not be proven. no matter how many times people say it is a fact, it will not make it a fact. No one has ever observed one class of creature evolve into another class of creature. Scientists admit that we cannot observe evolution because it takes millions of years. I think the likes of richard dawkins would be pushing examples of observed evolution in our faces if he could. in a recent program he just relied on how jaw bones were formed and admitted evolution cannot be observed.

before people start saying i dont understand how evolution works and that evidence of evolution is taking place all around us. I dont believe getting a tan is evolution. Black people, white people, yellow people etc are all the same species, Human. Changes within species is adaption, no more, no less.

Oh and this has been puzzling me. can anyone here who understands evolution answer. It is held by evolutionists that we are all related through our DNA and that if we share DNA with something else then we had a common ancestor. OK, so since we share varying percentages of our DNA with pretty much every living thing on the planet, we can conclude that everything came from a single common ancestor. How could there be enough genetic material in one life form to evolve into every living thing on the planet, both plant and animal?

Originally posted by Jim Scott
For ID:
God is defined as all powerful. Hence, he can do anything. Hence, he can make the world and the universe look just like it does --- aged.

That would make this god a liar.

The world was made aged with fossils, layers, etc. for choice. It the world were made to only look like it were 6000 years old, made in six days, there would be no choice but to believe in God as advertised. God likes to give choice, as in the tree of knowledge of good and evil, hence he tests you to see if you love him. God loves to test you "for the Lord proveth you, to see if you will love the Lord thy God".

Apparently, when God proved himself to certain people, people still didn't believe. The Israelites still worshipped Baal after God showed them wonders and freed them from Egypt.
Ohh, yeah and Adam and Eve interacted with this God, taking a walk in the woods (Yes, God did walk with them, look it up). And yet Adam made a choice not to obey.

Scientific evidence shows it is possible to create life without God.

Science is not in the business to show whether it's possible or not. All it does is study nature and gain understanding of how nature works through observations and experiments.

CHOOSE THIS DAY WHOM YE WILL SERVE

Who, indeed. There are thousands of gods all over the world.

Best bet: Either there is a God or there is not. If I believe there is, I am safe after death. If I believe there is not, I am not safe after death, but I don't have to answer to any God in this life.

A fearmonger's tactic. I know this is a Pascal's wager, but many people use this today.

If we assume that God exists and that he made the universe. Since the universe is made by God by hand (or equivalent), then why deny it? The bible contradicts what we know about the universe, but the Bible was written by man and there is no disputing that reality. Man, by an atheist opinion or a theist opinion, is not perfect and is subject to poor judgement. So considering that the mish-mash of self-contrasting/conflicting/contradicting parables, fables and psalms that is the bible, was written by bronze age humans who [some]were ignorant of simple realities of the universe, like the non-flat earth, why consider it more true than what we find when studying the universe.

Universe = God made.
Bible = man made.

Why put man's flawed word over the divine work of God, the universe?

Millions of people have thought God has spoken to them. Thousands have wrote about it. Hundreds have contributed to one of a dozen Holy books. All of these books claim to be the only true divine word of God and that the others are wrong. Since they are all written by man and have been continually edited since they were made, the only logical conclusion is that they are all wrong, at least to some degree.

So what should be held as ture-er that these alleged holy books? How about the universe itself, since god didn't use a fallible proxy to do it. Why not study his artwork to try and gain some kind of insight to his divine mind?

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Good Wolf]

Just remember, religion, that is ALL religion is and has been created by man. so it doesnt really matter if you believe in creationism or ID. just live your life right and the mothership will accept you.

Interesting, it would seem in the debate between evolution and ID, it is not the data being argued about, but rather how the data is interpreted.

"Evolution Cannot be Proven"

Just by the title I can see the creator of this thread doesn’t know what they’re talking about. If you want proof of evolution even in the most smallest of instances look at antibiotics - viruses adapted an immunity, that adaption is evolution in progress just as it’s been doing for billions of years.

What other evidence do you need to be persuaded?

reply to post by andre18


Apparently they need 'God' to come down, smack 'em in the back of the head and say 'Don't be an idiot!'

Not only can evolution not be proven, the opposite is true, it has been disproved. Take the new Ben Stein Movie "Expelled"were he gets the worlds top 20 neo-darwinists to admit that the big bang is bull. and Stephen Hawkins says that their had to be Intelligent design but won't say the word GOD.

Science is something that can be proven and shown over and over through experiment and study. If you can't prove your theory or it is disproved the theory is thrown out, at least in all other sciences it is. Darwinism is the one non scientific theory that continues to get shown as scientific although no experiment or study or expert has ever proven it.

Anything to not be responsible to a God who created all that there is, besides if evolution was true then Hitler would have been right by clearing the gene pool of what he considered bad or less evolved creatures. How many of you are willing to say you agree with Hitler and his killings of groups he considered inferior?

reply to post by theindependentjournal


1. Social Darwinism is not the same as Darwinism - the former is unnatural selection, the latter is natural selection
2. Evolution happens. We know this. We can indeed show this in the lab, time and time again. Not just tiny changes, but actual speciation, where one species is turned into another over a course of generations
3. Evolution has not been disproved by anything. It's been changed and tweaked over the years, but Darwin's theory has not been demonstrated to be anything other than sound science. DNA was discovered after Darwin's life, and demonstrates that Darwin was right on the money.
4. Ben Stein is a talented financial analyst, and a terrible biologist. Really awful. He shows his lack of knowledge repeatedly, and won't have a debate with actual scientists, because he's full of crap.
5. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution - it is a completely different theory concerning completely different events happening to completely different bodies in a completely different time. It couldn't be any more different.

But don't let facts get in the way. Continue bleating your nonsense if it gets you through the night.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Why is it that for some of you, how the universe was created is directly tied to your faith. Why do you feel that in order to believe in the Divine you cannot accept science. Your 'Holy Books' perhaps? I can accept what science has been able to prove and still have a very deep faith in the Divine! Is your faith so wrapped up in where we came from that if absolute proof of the origins of the universe and life on earth where to be discovered and it did not match your views, your faith would be shattered?

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Not only can evolution not be proven, the opposite is true, it has been disproved.

Really? What scientific evidence has disproven evolution, which is the backbone of modern biology and medicine? Surely the rantings of a well educated financial analyst does not constitute proof! He has degrees in economics and law. Not one science degree!

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Anything to not be responsible to a God who created all that there is, besides if evolution was true then Hitler would have been right by clearing the gene pool of what he considered bad or less evolved creatures. How many of you are willing to say you agree with Hitler and his killings of groups he considered inferior?

Are you kidding me???? If evolution was true then Hitler was right and justified for murdering millions???? Are you insane????

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


This is what happens when someone swallows the bovine Faeces (BS) of creationist websites and sermons. Offence being the best defence, creationists like this guy use awful strawman arguments to take on evolution(ists- err hate that term), this time we see evolution being equated with Hitler. It's the most disparate attack I've seen in a while.

reply to post by Good Wolf


No kidding! I though I had heard it all, but that just took the cake!

Just saying evolution has been proven is ridiculous. show references of any scientist who says he has observed any living creature evolve into a different creature over any amount of generations.

If the flagellam argument has been shown false, please show references to any lab experiments that show a flagellam performing its function without one of its parts.

If evolution had been proven then there would not be scientists who believe in intelligent design. once shown the fact of evolution they would admit defeat. Intelligent design scientists are very intelligent people who have studied their respective fields thoroughly. They have raised some important questions that evolutionists cannot answer with real science, only science fiction explanations. I find it funny to see the various internet scientists on here with their pretty graphics thinking they understand what they are talking about. All rather sad really.

You are absolutely correct. Evolution can not be proven to those with closed minds.

They reject anything that is not in the Bible. Literal belief in each and every word of the Bible.

But which version of the Bible? They differ significantly from mone version to another. The wording is VERY different from one to the next. So, which version is accurate on a literal basis?

If one or more of them are NOT literally accurate, then none of them are. Since there is NO version of the old testament still in existence that is more than 2,500 years old, and the various intrepretations taken from those early versions differ a great deal, who knows what the wording was of the original?

And how about the contradictions within all versions? One passage says David slew Goliath. Other passages say it was another person entirely.

In the ten commandments, the rule in hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder."

But in all of the English Bibles, that is translated as "Thou shalt not kill." Now tha't a rather significant change in both meaning and purpose. So, unless you can read ancient Hebrew fluently, how do you know that a lot of other things were not changed around?

You don't!!!

Just those two examples prove that you can not accept the Bible literally.

reply to post by OldMedic


When I was a christian, I recognised the fallibility of the bible a a sign. A sign that meant that it was not of God, because he would never let something that he put some much significance on as the bible get torn to shreds and rot with contradictions anomalies lies and inconsistent character as the bible in faact has.

"The God of the new testament was a fairly good guy, the God of the old testament was a prick."
- Lewis Black

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Not only can evolution not be proven, the opposite is true, it has been disproved. Take the new Ben Stein Movie "Expelled"were he gets the worlds top 20 neo-darwinists to admit that the big bang is bull. and Stephen Hawkins says that their had to be Intelligent design but won't say the word GOD.

I can see you swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Read up on that movie. Quotes from almost every scientist interviewed in that movie were taken out of context, their views were misrepresented, they totally ignored actual scientific methodology, and used arguments in favor of ID that have long since been debunked. The movie has gotten awful reviews from basically every reviewer, even conservative Christians, due to its completely mis-informed, propagandist nature.

Science is something that can be proven and shown over and over through experiment and study. If you can't prove your theory or it is disproved the theory is thrown out, at least in all other sciences it is. Darwinism is the one non scientific theory that continues to get shown as scientific although no experiment or study or expert has ever proven it.

Evolution of populations and speciation has been observed literally hundreds of times in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If it weren't thoroughly examined and found to be true on multiple occasions, it would not find acceptance in the scientific community.

Anything to not be responsible to a God who created all that there is, besides if evolution was true then Hitler would have been right by clearing the gene pool of what he considered bad or less evolved creatures. How many of you are willing to say you agree with Hitler and his killings of groups he considered inferior?

Evolution has no goal, there is no true "inferior" or "superior" except in relation to the environment. Committing mass murder in order to artificially select a small portion of the population that has no genetic advantage is completely contradictory to natural selection.

Until you can show proof of what you believe, it is completely foolish to attack someone's belief in a theory.

It works both ways, YOU need to show proof too....where is it???

Do you really think your theory is any better than any other theory?
And that is all you have to hang your hat on....an unproven idea.