And again where is the evidence FOR creationism?
Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You need to educate yourself about evolution, because that is not what the theory ofevolution says at all.
more to the point is that the quotes above (many of which are exceedingly old) are opinions, not scientific evidence.
Let's be very clear Shiloah. In the scientific community there is no controversy as to evolution being
a fact of nature. In fact, there's more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. It's only a very
loud minority of creationists that seem to think evolution didn't happen and try to discredit it. None
of their "science" has ever been able to pass a legitimate scientific peer review. I wonder why?
It's been pointed out that this is a false dichotomy before. Why do you keep repeating these intentional falsehoods?
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. The study of that is called abiogenesis.
Fossil Gaps 6
“...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.” Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.
“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.” Ibid., p. 266.
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.” Ibid., p. 12.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
G
Grey
Guest
Just keep posting the same things Pahu, doing no original research never hurt anyone right...
Pahu gives facts, and in return receives such gutter snipping!
It's embarrassing to a cognitive discourse.
Why are such gutter snipes polluting this forum?
The general base I.Q. here is three digits;.....sadly, none of these three seem to measure up.
It's embarrassing to a cognitive discourse.
Why are such gutter snipes polluting this forum?
The general base I.Q. here is three digits;.....sadly, none of these three seem to measure up.
I'm not picking on you,.....but good grief! - (They are just as wide today: 7/17/13)
Read and find a compelling argument to refute Pahu's claims. (That's usually the way things are done in a forum.)
Rick maybe you've missed the last 50 pages but
Pahu's claims don't count because none of this
stuff has passed a legitimate scientific peer review.
If you really think this stuff is based on facts you're
wrong. The only thing that is a fact is that evolution
is true. There is no controversy in the scientific
community about this.
All you have to do is copy Pahu's claims then Google
them. All the info comes from faith based intelligent
design websites - not legitimate science ones.
Iron, I've studied it for myself.
The hypothesis of 'evolution' is not a science.
In fact, it has held science back.
There are too many references to list.
Even leading 'evolutionary' scientists have stated the same.
Nothing personal, but Darwin hit a dead end. Science has had 150 years of research to disprove the 'simple single cell' theory, also the myth of 'beneficial' mutations.
It's so clear.
The hypothesis of 'evolution' is not a science.
In fact, it has held science back.
There are too many references to list.
Even leading 'evolutionary' scientists have stated the same.
Nothing personal, but Darwin hit a dead end. Science has had 150 years of research to disprove the 'simple single cell' theory, also the myth of 'beneficial' mutations.
It's so clear.
Please list the leading evolutionary scientists and any references if you have them.
Ever heard of Ken Miller or Francis Collins? They are Christians but they keep their
religious belief separate from the fact of evolution.
And I've already pointed that the "no beneficial mutations" argument has been refuted.
This is even claimed by AIG - Christian website
Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis
Feedback: Are There Beneficial Mutations? - Answers in Genesis
I'll post a video that will explain in detail the myriad problems with evolution from Darwin's perspective, because we've argued enough.
Let me ask Still how to do it, O.K. Iron?
G
Grey
Guest
Abiogenesis isn't evolution, and most mutations truthfully are neutral. Thats why change occurs over a long period of time.
D
danschance
Guest
Now IronTricycle,
Parts of evolution are factual, like microevolution or in other words, variation within a species. Other parts are purely mythical, like everything happened from nothing. It is called the theory of evolution. Stop assuming you have already won parts of an argument and show me some ole fashioned honesty, K?
nothing to do with evolution.
and who's claiming anything happened from nothing?
The theory of evolution has good company with atomic theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and that strange theory that says illness and disease are caused by organisms to small to be seen with the human eye
nothing to do with evolution
and who's claiming anything happened from nothing?
the theory of evolution is a foundational theory of science like atomic theory, and the theory of relativity and tectonic plate theory and the theory of gravity.
and that bizarre joke of a theory that claims that illness and disease is caused by microscopic organisms, things to small to be seen with the naked eye.
G