Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

Evidence for evolution: "Humans and apes have similar bone structures, therefore, one evolved into the other". -Evolutionists

Evidence against evolution: "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" -The Bible (Gen 1:24).

So, who do I believe? Well, after visiting the local zoo, I observed pregnant animals "bringing forth after its kind".

But, maybe my observations at the zoo was a mere fluke, so I went to visit my local farm where I observed the same thing; pregnant animals "bringing for after its kind".

Well, Bob; I am gonna have to go with the Bible on this one, because what the Bible says actually fits the observational data.

So, to make a long story short; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No exceptions.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #132]

So, who do I believe? Well, after visiting the local zoo, I observed pregnant animals "bringing forth after its kind".

But, maybe my observations at the zoo was a mere fluke, so I went to visit my local farm where I observed the same thing; pregnant animals "bringing for after its kind".

Well, Bob; I am gonna have to go with the Bible on this one, because what the Bible says actually fits the observational data.

So, to make a long story short; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No exceptions.

This ia a gross misassessment of time frames FTK ... you're orders of magnitude out on the time scales of evolutionary change. An ape didn't give birth to a human one day, or a fish to an amphibian, or an amphibian to a reptile. Evolution works by genetic changes over a huge number of generations that eventually result in new species with different characteristics more suitable to survival in the environment that prompted the genetic changes in the first place.

This takes far longer time periods than observing one pregnant animal giving birth at a farm or a zoo, which will always result in the birth of the same animal (albeit with some number of genetic mutations that may not produce phenotype changes in just one generation). These mutations, over time, may be favored by natural selection to produce new characteristics that allow for increased chance of survival and offspring if there is a change in the environmental conditions (eg. predator/prey mix, food sources, etc.). The speed of this process depends on the magnitude of the environmental changes (forcing functions), but it is very, very much longer than one generation as you suggest by the farm and zoo visit examples.

[Clownboat]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

Evidence for evolution: "Humans and apes have similar bone structures, therefore, one evolved into the other". -Evolutionists

Evidence against evolution: "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" -The Bible (Gen 1:24).

So, who do I believe? Well, after visiting the local zoo, I observed pregnant animals "bringing forth after its kind".

But, maybe my observations at the zoo was a mere fluke, so I went to visit my local farm where I observed the same thing; pregnant animals "bringing for after its kind".

Well, Bob; I am gonna have to go with the Bible on this one, because what the Bible says actually fits the observational data.

So, to make a long story short; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No exceptions.

We have millions of years of history you could attempt to examine, but you went to a zoo and a farm and feel you now understand millions of years of the earths biological history?

A zoo and a farm? You have not put in any work if we are being honest, just went to places that we take our children.

This is a danger of many religions. They supply easy answers to questions, and followers then can pretend they know the answer and wont have any reason to learn what is really going on (like with evolution).
One of the main reasons religions must indoctrinate. It would be one thing to convince one of my children that animals spoke in the bible, another to get a thinking adult to believe such a claim.

This world is full of wonder. It is a shame that some look at it all and instead of wondering 'how', they just insert their preferred god concept and the answers said god concept supplies.

If off to go to my local army base to look at rockets... so I can be an expert on rockets.
I'll be available for questions when I return.

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.

---IMAGE---

Thoughts?

.

Evidence for evolution: "Humans and apes have similar bone structures, therefore, one evolved into the other". -Evolutionists

Evidence against evolution: "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" -The Bible (Gen 1:24).

So, who do I believe? Well, after visiting the local zoo, I observed pregnant animals "bringing forth after its kind".

But, maybe my observations at the zoo was a mere fluke, so I went to visit my local farm where I observed the same thing; pregnant animals "bringing for after its kind".

Well, Bob; I am gonna have to go with the Bible on this one, because what the Bible says actually fits the observational data.

So, to make a long story short; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No exceptions.

As DrNoGods points out, "This is a gross misassessment of time frames." In fact, it's so bad that I don't believe it's worth anyone's time trying to set you straight. At least not my time.


..........Have a good day.


.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #132]

I'm not even sure if there's any point to piling on further, but:

Evidence for evolution: "Humans and apes have similar bone structures, therefore, one evolved into the other". -Evolutionists

Yes, that's right. That's all we have to go on. The scientists of the world stopped looking any further when they noticed the similar bone structures....

If that's really what you think, I'm not sure there's much hope in having a debate. It's one thing to misunderstand the volumes of science behind evolutionary theory, it's another to willfully ignore it.

That roughly like saying:

Evidence for Jesus: A ripped front page from a JW tract was found lying on the ground. -Christians

[brunumb]

It's one thing to misunderstand the volumes of science behind evolutionary theory, it's another to willfully ignore it.

What you are up against is what I call Pulpit Science. The indoctrinated theist does not really want to fend off challenges to their faith that things like the theory of evolution pose. Just thinking about the issues may induce cognitive dissonance. The solution is to pare away all the important details that give sense to the theory until what is left is something the believer can instantly identify with and understand. So we get the like of "dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats" and the believer can respond "I know that, that makes sense, evolution must be false". No effort or work required. Just an appeal to confirmation bias without unduly challenging the intellect.

[We_Are_VENOM]

As DrNoGods points out, "This is a gross misassessment of time frames." In fact, it's so bad that I don't believe it's worth anyone's time trying to set you straight. At least not my time.
Have a good day.

Evolution (macroevolution) is false, PERIOD. And since it is a false theory, time frames become irrelevant because to say it happened over millions of years is just as absurd as saying it occurred in a day or two.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Yes, that's right. That's all we have to go on. The scientists of the world stopped looking any further when they noticed the similar bone structures....

If that's really what you think, I'm not sure there's much hope in having a debate. It's one thing to misunderstand the volumes of science behind evolutionary theory, it's another to willfully ignore it.

Who is ignoring it? Evolutionists are the ones who are constantly babbling about the so called "fossil record"...and what is the fossil record? Pretty much bone fragment and skeletal remains of once living organisms...and once these remains are "put together" and it even remotely resembles an animal living today; evolution!!

Isn't that how it goes? I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

That roughly like saying:

Evidence for Jesus: A ripped front page from a JW tract was found lying on the ground. -Christians

Cute.

[We_Are_VENOM]

We have millions of years of history you could attempt to examine, but you went to a zoo and a farm and feel you now understand millions of years of the earths biological history?

That is all that is needed. No need to complicate matters by attempting to make your faith-based scientific religion (evolution) harmonize with basic observations in nature.

A zoo and a farm? You have not put in any work if we are being honest, just went to places that we take our children.

Either way, the observations are the same; dog produce dogs, cats/cats, etc.

This is a danger of many religions. They supply easy answers to questions, and followers then can pretend they know the answer and wont have any reason to learn what is really going on (like with evolution).

Easy answers to questions? Hardly. Theologians are constantly in discourse with one another trying to get a handle on the tough questions regarding theology and doctrine.

You, of course, may not be aware of this...but it happens...and I speak from personal experience.

One of the main reasons religions must indoctrinate.

It would be one thing to convince one of my children that animals spoke in the bible, another to get a thinking adult to believe such a claim.

It would be one thing to convince my children that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today haven't been observed to do (evolve on a macro level). It is another to get a thinking adult to believe such a claim.

This world is full of wonder. It is a shame that some look at it all and instead of wondering 'how', they just insert their preferred god concept and the answers said god concept supplies.

This is false. The idea that people of faith are somehow anti-science is false. I marvel at the structure/order of the universe and wonder "how", despite my belief of a divine hand behind it all.

Heck, I know cameras are products of intelligent design, but I still marvel at how such devices are able to "freeze" images in time.

It amazes me as to how creationists are always accused of using God of the gaps reasoning, by folks who uses "Nature of the gaps" reasoning.

If off to go to my local army base to look at rockets... so I can be an expert on rockets.
I'll be available for questions when I return.

You don't have to be an expert on rockets to understand the fact that rockets don't owe their existence to an evolutionary process beginning with sticks of dynomite.

[brunumb]

I mean, I know us religious folks aren't as bright as you naturalists are, but we will do our best to try to follow along you guys here.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the latter part of that statement because your descriptions of the evolutionary process are patently wrong and demonstrate no apparent effort to study the subject to the necessary level of understanding.