Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Scrotum]

I love it when Harv tries to Unify Science and Christianity.. haha

I don't want either taught in my schools. If you have no evidence for Evolution, then get it out of the schools. I am tired of my tax dollars paying to destroy some kids belief in the bible, just because. If you can provide evidence, then fine, if you can't quit lying to the kids, making them believe this is true, when it's not.

know that is what you believe, but why am I paying for it to be in your public school? Beleif makes for good religion, but not science.

You seem to have missed he point. You say above that ´If you have no evidence for Evolution.....´... The REASON its taught is BECAUSE we have evidence. IF YOU, a singular person go against the scientific reaserch made by thousands of people during decades, Fine, just give them your evidence/lack of for proving that Evolution is bunk.

Dont just sit there SAYING its wrong, show them, and they WILL remove it, very easy.


Evolution is not a Religion, you seem to confuse the two. And You being 22, are you paying taxes now? Your not going in schools? Or do you mean VAT? (thats what you know as Sales Tax, which most americans do not know that they pay).



So i guess you have proof that Evolution is bunk, GIVE IT TO US, dont post ANYTHING until you posted your evidence, we expect next post to include your EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION BEING BUNK, if not, mean your just a scoffer, have nothing, just want to fight and no proof for your assertions. Its up to you man, you can solve it all, just put down your evidence in next Post.

Is all on you now.

[Curious]

Will someone give me one form of evidence.

Here's a link with at least 29:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Seriously, the evidence you seek is there. Starting new threads continuously won't make it go away.

If you want an example you can get a handle on, consider the evolution of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics were once the miracles of science. They were usually very effective in treating bacterial infections. But the bacteria are evolving resistance to the drugs faster than we can discover new ones. This process has been accelerated by the all-too-widespread use of antibiotics in medicine and in industrial-scale meat and dairy industries.

Most hospitals are awash in multi-resistant bacteria and this is costing lives. Now, if science is all wrong, we would expect creationists to have a solution to this problem. Why don't they?

DanZ

Not that I disagree with evolutionary theory, but this example is not strictly speaking evidence of evolution. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria has always been present. When antibiotics are taken, those bacteria most susceptible are destroyed first. If every bacteria is not destroyed then those which survive are the most resistant. These bacteria are then able to reproduce free from competition and subsequent generations are resistant. This is not evolution but a shift in the existing population densities of particular strains of bacteria.
Bacteria are however also able to swap genetic material between one another, even between those of different types and this might be regarded as a process leading to evolution. This is still only a transference of a pre-existing trait though and not evidence of a new trait or function evolving. Mutation of bacteria is definately evidence of evolution but it could be argued that in most cases this is an epi-genetic change ( pre-existing but formerly "switched off").
On the whole, the theory of evolution is pretty good at explaining variation between similar species where existing traits gain ascendency through necessity, but it really falls down when it tries to explain how a fish could eventually become a man.

[BigChrisfilm]

Well, of course there's a great deal of scientific evidence for biological evolution, however there's also very good scriptural evidence for evolution.

1. Humans are beasts:

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. (Eccl. 3:18)

This is one reason you need to read scripture in context friend. It is not saying we are only animals, it is saying that the currupt courts are nothing but beast. Go back and read that again please.

2. God commanded the Earth to bring about life:

And God said, Let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit-trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind. And God saw that it was good. (Gen. 1:11-12)

This is not saying that the earth was creating the plants themselves.

God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. (Gen. 1:20)

* Here we see that the waters brought forth creeping creatures (e.g., anthropods and amphibians) and even flying things (i.e., "fowl" means anything that flies, e.g., flying fish). Btw, anthropods and flying anthropods came onto land prior to land animals. (Flying anthropods account for most of the flying creatures.)

I still don't think this is saying that birds come from the water. There is a comma there for a reason.

And God said, Let the earth give birth to all sorts of living things, cattle and all things moving on the earth, and beasts of the earth after their sort: and it was so. (Gen. 1:24)

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

You have a bad translation there friend. Use the KJV only.

From a Christian perspective, this argument is made stronger by Pauline theology:

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. (I Cor. 15:46)

* Paul argues that the spiritual is akin to the physical. That is, we can learn from physical historical facts to understand the spiritual historical facts

I agree, for all the things of God are clearly seen by his creation, so that we are without excuse.

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (II Cor. 3:18)

* Paul shows that we spiritually evolve into God's image. This matches nicely with Genesis where humans (who are beasts according to Ecclesiates) are transformed (evolved) into the image of God

No no, like I said before, that verse is not saying we are animals, and this verse does not say we evolved from beast. It says our spirituality evolves into being more like Christ. If you want to call that evolution that is fine, but when you start twisting it into beast to humans, you have lost your way friend.

Paul also talks about the spiritual type of natural selection that is happening in the world:

the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Rom. 8:20)

* So, the natural world is subject to decay and bondage while being transformed (evolved) by God. The earth has been the cause in bringing about this transformed life, and that eventually the creation will be liberated by the spiritual children of God that arose from the world.

This, I think, is good reason for why a Christian ought to be an evolutionist.

No, I think you have provided no reason for me to be an evolutionist. All of this resting on the assumption you made with the man are beast comment. Please go back, read all the chapter, and if you still don't understand, I will post a better translation for you.

[BigChrisfilm]

Will someone give me one form of evidence.

Here's a link with at least 29:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Seriously, the evidence you seek is there. Starting new threads continuously won't make it go away.

If you want an example you can get a handle on, consider the evolution of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics were once the miracles of science. They were usually very effective in treating bacterial infections. But the bacteria are evolving resistance to the drugs faster than we can discover new ones. This process has been accelerated by the all-too-widespread use of antibiotics in medicine and in industrial-scale meat and dairy industries.

Most hospitals are awash in multi-resistant bacteria and this is costing lives. Now, if science is all wrong, we would expect creationists to have a solution to this problem. Why don't they?

DanZ

This is an example of Bacteria LOSING information. That is the opposite for evolution friend. Need something better than that to make me believe I came from a rock.

[BigChrisfilm]

Will someone give me one form of evidence.

Here's a link with at least 29:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Seriously, the evidence you seek is there. Starting new threads continuously won't make it go away.

If you want an example you can get a handle on, consider the evolution of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. Antibiotics were once the miracles of science. They were usually very effective in treating bacterial infections. But the bacteria are evolving resistance to the drugs faster than we can discover new ones. This process has been accelerated by the all-too-widespread use of antibiotics in medicine and in industrial-scale meat and dairy industries.

Most hospitals are awash in multi-resistant bacteria and this is costing lives. Now, if science is all wrong, we would expect creationists to have a solution to this problem. Why don't they?

DanZ

Not that I disagree with evolutionary theory, but this example is not strictly speaking evidence of evolution. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria has always been present. When antibiotics are taken, those bacteria most susceptible are destroyed first. If every bacteria is not destroyed then those which survive are the most resistant. These bacteria are then able to reproduce free from competition and subsequent generations are resistant. This is not evolution but a shift in the existing population densities of particular strains of bacteria.
Bacteria are however also able to swap genetic material between one another, even between those of different types and this might be regarded as a process leading to evolution. This is still only a transference of a pre-existing trait though and not evidence of a new trait or function evolving. Mutation of bacteria is definately evidence of evolution but it could be argued that in most cases this is an epi-genetic change ( pre-existing but formerly "switched off").
On the whole, the theory of evolution is pretty good at explaining variation between similar species where existing traits gain ascendency through necessity, but it really falls down when it tries to explain how a fish could eventually become a man.

Correct. Micro Evolution is a FACT. It happens. This is switch and bait. They throw all kinds of Micro Evolution at you, and then want you to believe something that has nothing to do with what they have just explained.

[BigChrisfilm]

I don't want either taught in my schools. If you have no evidence for Evolution, then get it out of the schools. I am tired of my tax dollars paying to destroy some kids belief in the bible, just because. If you can provide evidence, then fine, if you can't quit lying to the kids, making them believe this is true, when it's not.

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, so it is not reasonable to ask that all sectors of society have their kids not taught science just so that people can preserve their religious beliefs. However, in my view, the Christian parent has a Christian responsibility to teach evolutionary theory to the child as they grow up. By the time they reach the age where evolution is taught, this should not happen where evolution is a problem for their religious beliefs.

Evolution is NOT part of the Scientific Method, because it can not be observed, nor tested. Explain to me why it is, because you have clearly got brainwashed into thinking this theory is true, when it isn't.

[BigChrisfilm]

I love it when Harv tries to Unify Science and Christianity.. haha

I don't want either taught in my schools. If you have no evidence for Evolution, then get it out of the schools. I am tired of my tax dollars paying to destroy some kids belief in the bible, just because. If you can provide evidence, then fine, if you can't quit lying to the kids, making them believe this is true, when it's not.

know that is what you believe, but why am I paying for it to be in your public school? Beleif makes for good religion, but not science.

You seem to have missed he point. You say above that ´If you have no evidence for Evolution.....´... The REASON its taught is BECAUSE we have evidence. IF YOU, a singular person go against the scientific reaserch made by thousands of people during decades, Fine, just give them your evidence/lack of for proving that Evolution is bunk.

Dont just sit there SAYING its wrong, show them, and they WILL remove it, very easy.


Evolution is not a Religion, you seem to confuse the two. And You being 22, are you paying taxes now? Your not going in schools? Or do you mean VAT? (thats what you know as Sales Tax, which most americans do not know that they pay).



So i guess you have proof that Evolution is bunk, GIVE IT TO US, dont post ANYTHING until you posted your evidence, we expect next post to include your EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION BEING BUNK, if not, mean your just a scoffer, have nothing, just want to fight and no proof for your assertions. Its up to you man, you can solve it all, just put down your evidence in next Post.

Is all on you now.

First of all, you have given me no proof of evolution. So it isn't up to me to disprove something that doesn't exist. Give me 1 peice of evidence please, and then I will have something to work with. Otherwise, how do you go about proving the non existence of something?

[Wyvern]

First of all, you have given me no proof of evolution. So it isn't up to me to disprove something that doesn't exist. Give me 1 peice of evidence please, and then I will have something to work with. Otherwise, how do you go about proving the non existence of something?

First off I think you need to tell us what in your eyes constitutes evidence. You have already disavowed the fossil record and you have also admitted that what you call micro-evolution exists.
I can't help but think that for you the only acceptable evidence would be if you directly saw an animal give birth to a radically different new species. If this is the case you are not looking for evidence of evolution, you are looking for evidence of god since evolution does not work that way.

[harvey1]

This is one reason you need to read scripture in context friend. It is not saying we are only animals, it is saying that the currupt courts are nothing but beast. Go back and read that again please.

I don't see how you can say that. Here's the whole chapter:

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; 3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; 7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. 9What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth? 10I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. 11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. 12I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. 13And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God. 14I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. 15That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past. 16And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there. 17I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? 22Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

This chapter lays out a few issues:

1) There is a time under the sun for each event (vs. 1-8)
2) The human situation and the value of work (vs. 9- 13)
3) God's actions are eternal (vs. 14- 15)
4) God's judgment is biding (vs. 16-17)
5) Men are beasts (vs. 18- 21)
6) Rejoice in the work before us (vs. 22)

There is no simile mentioned. The scripture says exactly this: men are animals.

This is not saying that the earth was creating the plants themselves.

It says that the earth caused the plants to exist. What could be clearer?

I still don't think this is saying that birds come from the water. There is a comma there for a reason.

There's no commas in the original text.

You have a bad translation there friend. Use the KJV only.

Okay, let's use the KGV:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Gen. 1:24)

Again, it is the earth doing the bringing forth of the creatures.

No no, like I said before, that verse is not saying we are animals, and this verse does not say we evolved from beast. It says our spirituality evolves into being more like Christ. If you want to call that evolution that is fine, but when you start twisting it into beast to humans, you have lost your way friend.

I think you ought to read Eccl. 3:18 very carefully. There is no simile. You ought to believe what the scripture says rather than what you want it to say. It seems that many people are offended by the fact that humans came from the dust of the ground. But, this is in fact what the scriptures say. If you say otherwise, then you've lost your way my friend.

[BigChrisfilm]

First of all, you have given me no proof of evolution. So it isn't up to me to disprove something that doesn't exist. Give me 1 peice of evidence please, and then I will have something to work with. Otherwise, how do you go about proving the non existence of something?

First off I think you need to tell us what in your eyes constitutes evidence. You have already disavowed the fossil record and you have also admitted that what you call micro-evolution exists.
I can't help but think that for you the only acceptable evidence would be if you directly saw an animal give birth to a radically different new species. If this is the case you are not looking for evidence of evolution, you are looking for evidence of god since evolution does not work that way.

Well, why should I believe it? You act as if there is so much to choose from that you need to figure out just what I want before you can give me some. The fact is, there is none. Just one peice of evidence that we come from a different kind than a human. How about that.