5 best proofs of evolution

[Jonl1408]

Hey I am a teenager that randomly came across this conversation while I was researching, and I felt led by the Lord to say something. First of all, I believe that to have an argument that will actually benefit the two parties involved you cannot just throw dirt on the other person's belief system, I am not going to do that, and I really don't like hearing of people who do(including and espescially Christians who believe in a Creationist viewpoint, the Bible says we are to be a light to the world, not judges!) Second, there really is no solid proof for either of the two viewpoints, or the Evolutionary theory, would not be a theory, but if you would like to know why I believe in Creation, it is because it fits better, Charles Darwin once said that evolution takes more faith to believe in than Creation. If you go back to the origins of both viewpoints, that is to say that if you asked a Creationist where God came from, or if you asked an Evolutionist where matter came from, you end up with either an eternal Intelligent Designer(God) or eternal matter. It takes much less faith to believe in an eternal Intelligent Designer than eternal matter. Many people believe that because Evolution is taught in schools and pushed by the media, that science proves the Evolutionary theory, but that is not so, there are so many gaps in both viewpoints that people on both sides use against each other for example: if a Creationist asked an Evolutionist why there are no transitional forms, of course the Evolutionist will answer that we just haven't discovered any yet, just as the Creationist would defend his viewpoint with an answer that cannot be proved. The thing is there are so many things in this earth that suggest an intelligent designer, rather than random chance. I know that there are lots more things that could be said on both viewpoints, but I am only a teenager and I am trying not to turn this into a lengthy dissertation, so I will leave it at that. I would like to hear anything you have to say, and if you find anything that I said that is wrong, just send me a message and I'll correct my mistakes
Thanks, God Bless You

[biohazard]

Are you telling us that there is no solid evidence for gravity, because there is the Theory of Gravity --- which of course would not be a theory if it had any solid proof?

I would also like to point out that evolution is not a belief system, just like it is not a belief system that the Earth is round or that genomic DNA undergoes random mutations that may or may not give rise to new, beneficial, or more often, harmful traits that are then subjected to the natural selection.

I am sorry to rain on your parade but unlike the theory of evoltuion, creationism does not have any single piece of evidence or phenomenon supporting it. Just because you feel intelligent design is somehow more believable or logical does not make it true. It amazes me how creationists happily accept things like quantum mechanics that are probably beyond the understanding of 99.9% of the mankind, but have hard time accepting evolution, which is well-understood, well-supported by evidence and easy to understand even for school children.

If there was an intelligent designer, why so many things are so very badly designed in the first place? Or was the designer just a sick old bastard who tossed a few thousand genetical illnesses in humans and other animals just for the fun of it? Well, at least if you look at the god in the bible, this would not be a big suprise...

[Jonl1408]

First of all Gravity has been a law for many years now so I don't know where you got the information that it was still a theory, but Gravity has proof, which made it a Law. I am saying that if there is no proof for a Theory or Hypothesis then it remains that, a Theory or Hypothesis. To answer your second part Creation has lots of proof, people tend to disregard it though, such as the fact that until recently some of the kings in the Bible had not shown up in archaeological digs and such, until archaeologists found writings speaking of them. The reason that evolution is widely accepted, is because it has been taught in schools for about a hundred years now, but that is only because it is the best way to spread propaganda, not because it is true. During the World War Hitler used propaganda in schools to gain support for his actions, even though they were evil.

As to your comment about diseases, have you ever wondered why nobody had cancer till recent years, excepting a few. In Leviticus in the Bible God gives food laws, that are designed to keep you from getting sick, but people break them every day and put things into their bodies that definitely shouldn't be there. Did you know that you can get religious exemptions for immunizations? Do you know why? Because some people object to having aborted "fetal tissue" in their bodies, not to mention that some immunizations have mercury in them, which is a known toxic substance, and others that aren't so common. If you look up the food laws in the Bible, and look at the people groups who actually eat that way, they are some of the healthiest people on the planet. Other diseases like AIDS are caused by sin, and man can't blame those on God. The thing is that diseases are what you get if you don't follow his laws. This website promotes a diet that follows God's food laws to a T , and hundreds of people have been cured of cancer by staying on this diet, in fact many of them were given months to live http://www.hacres.com/library/testimonies/search.
God was the one who prevented these diseases in the first place, we humans are the ones who created them by our lifestyle, and what were the badly designed things that you were talking about?

[Jonl1408]

Major Problems with Evolution
unknown chemicals
unknown processes
unknown life forms
unknown reproduction methods
unknown atmospheric composition
unknown oceanic soup
unknown time and place
Also according to Evolution: The Big Bang caused Order?(how can disorder cause order)
also higher forms of life cam from lower forms of life which came from matter coming together?
If there were millions of years of evolution where are the trillions of transitional forms?
(archaeologists have only found a few disputable ones)

[biohazard]

Also according to Evolution: The Big Bang caused Order?(how can disorder cause order)

What has this to do with evolution? Evolution does not try to explain how the universe begun, nor does it answer how life begun. Evolution is the process by which living organisms evolve and differentiate when they are subjected to natural selection, and the theory of evolution is the scientific interpretation of that phenomenon.

Not every single detail about evolution is know, just like we do not know everything about gravity. Or the birth of the universe, or how life begun - even though there are theories regarding those as well.

[canalon]

Jonl you are a bit confused:
- The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are not related.
- Order can arise from disorder, it happens all the time, it just requires energy. Buy a jigsaw puzzle and solve it and you just demonstrated that it can happen. Your lack of understanding of entropy is demonstration of your ignorance, not a problem with the theory of evolution.
- Yes, biologist do not have a perfect (not even close admittedly) idea of how, where and when life came from, but that is not problem in terms of evolution since:
*The theory of Evolution deals with how life adapts and change over time, and
*It does not deal with how life appears in the first place
*Hence it works also in computer simulation, and would probably be useful to understand non terrestrial life forms that have appeared and evolved independently
-The theory of evolution and all science that annoys creationist is accepted because it allows us (scientists) to make predictions and model how our world work which are grounded in facts, not myth or fictions. And it works. Religions have little (or more accurately, no) practical value.
-The fact that lawmakers panders to the stupid and uninformed and jeopardize public health making ad hoc regulations to satisfy their electors is not a scientific proof of anything. Except maybe of the trust we can put in our elected officials to put the common good before their particular interests.
-The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to convince anyone that this diet has any value, you better provide some better proof.
-Archeological evidence are proving that the Earth is older than 6000 years old, why would you rely on them when it is confirming your fantasies and not the part were it shows that they are just that, fantasies? And they show that 6000 years ago, the life expectancy was probably not that great, and certainly not up to Bible standard (multiple of hundreds years).

[Jonl1408]

okay, I agree I was wrong about the big bang being connected to evolution, but I do not agree with the statement that archaeology disproves the Bible.

The book of Daniel in the Bible speaks of many events, which include the battles of Antiochus Epiphanes, which happened after the time the Book of Daniel was written, that is to say the 6th century B.C. Therefore skeptics claim that it was written in the 1st century B.C., after the events it foretells, and that it was faked to have been that old, but there is one important fact that made the Book of Daniel stand out, it claimed that Belshazzar was the last Babylonian king. The historians of the 1st century and before, until recently had always claimed that Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, and therefore they all agreed that the Book of Daniel was false. This all changed in 1854, when the Nabonidus Cylinder, and The Nabonidus Chronicle were found. The Nabonidus Cylinder, records a prayer from Nabonidus for his son Belshazzar, the Nabonidus Chronicle states that Nabonidus was in Tema with his army, while his son, Belshazzar, stayed in Babylonia as co-regent. The Book of Daniel also states that Belshazzar rewarded Daniel for a favor, by naming him 3rd in the kingdom, why name him 3rd, why not second?
Could it be because Belshazzar himself, was 2nd in the kingdom, since his father was gone? Here is a link on the subject, http://chriswatsonlee.wordpress.com/200 ... chronicle/.


There is also the story of Sennacherib, in which he came to take the city of Jerusalem. To take the city of Jerusalem, he had to also take the city of Lachish, which was nearby. There is a hexagonal prism named Sennacherib's prism, because it tells of him and his conquests, this prism tells of the siege of Lachish, but says nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, in fact it tells of Sennacherib going home after the siege of Lachish. There is even an archaeological find in the British Museum, of tons of stone panels from the South-west Palace of Sennacherib, that all depict the siege of Lachish, in great detail, and even what he did to the prisoners afterwards, but they found nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, which was his main target. What happened, why does he say nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, why do the records say he went home and never invaded Israel again? The Bible says that Sennacherib camped around Jerusalem, and in one night his whole army was destroyed by the Angel of the Lord. Since Sennacherib says nothing of this, skeptics claim that the Bible is false, but if you had just had your whole army destroyed in one night, and you think that you are the mightiest king ever,
( check what his prism says at http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html)
would you put it down in the history books to be laughed at? Most people would not, they would do exactly what Sennacherib did, go home have them write down stories of the battles you did win, and blot the night that your whole army was destroyed from the history books. These stories were in the Bible before any archaeological evidence had ever surfaced. These are just two examples, but I don't have time to write down all of the archaeological finds corroborating the Bible.
Thanks for reading this, and God Bless

[canalon]

You should read more carefully. I did not say that the archaeological evidences are disproving the Bible. That would be stupid and factually wrong.
But archaelogy and paleontology and geology all demonstrate clearly that if the historical framework is correct for the near past, the deep past (creation myth, the flood...) are at best poor memories of historical event (a big local flood vs a world wide event) or complete myth (the 2 accounts of creation).
What I am saying is that you are Cherry-picking facts that fit your world view, but reject the ones that do not, like an billions year old earth, fossils dating etc.
If evolution is taught in school in science class that is because it has been proved to be useful to understand the biological world again and again. The details are still not all clear, but the basic tenet explained by Darwin and Wallace, plus more than hundred year of biological sciences have clearly demonstrated that the theory of evolution is the best model to explain life as we know it and how it came to spread on our planet (lacking data on other planets). While creationism is just repeating a myth found in an old book without any proof.

As an aside, since you are obviously a christian, would you have any proof that your particular myth of creation is any more relevant, factual and real than any of the hundreds of other creation myth proposed by other religions? That the christian bible is more the true word of god than the Qur'an or the popol vuh?

[Jonl1408]

The "facts" that you say that I am rejecting, have been disputed over and over, and that is why they have never been confirmed, because there is no proof to back them up. First of all I would have to say that the Jewish faith has been around longer than any other viewpoint or religion still standing today. I also want to say that the Jewish faith has the most split off religions(Christianity, Roman Catholicism etc..). The only difference between the Jewish faith, and Christianity, is that Christianity acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Messiah. also the Bible has the most detailed history of any other religion, and as I said had proof of historical figures, that even 1st century B.C. historians, had not heard of. The Bible also foretold events in detail before they happened. As to Christianity being a myth in an old book, it was a very active myth for at least 2-3000 yrs.

As a side note, the comment about the jigsaw puzzle earlier, doesn't fit, because it came from order, and you use order to put it together. To answer your other comment too Christianity, is not just a religion, it is based on history and science, because the Creator of the world is the Deity not some statue.

Also Jesus Christ is still living and working in the lives of people, and no other religion can claim that of the of the men who started their religions. God was alive before He formed the World and He is still alive today and loves you and I more than we can imagine! True peace and satisfaction can only be found in Him and His unconditional love! All you have to do to receive it is believe on Him for salvation! I will pray that the Lord will work in your heart and show you personally his truth. May God bless you!

[JackBean]

you're completely ignoring not only the science, but also other religions as budhism (which is older than Christianity) or Islam

[Jonl1408]

First of all, I have shown many proofs for creation, by science, but if you want more then I will post more. Second buddhism, was founded in 460 B.C. by Siddhartha Gautama, the Jewish faith started way before that, the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., and the Jewish faith had been around way before that. I will give you this link on the Fibonacci numbers, so you can read about it for yourselves, http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html
If you want scientific proof, think about the second law of thermodynamics, if you read anything I say read this, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html
P.S. I also should have specified the Jewish faith, instead of Christianity, because ultimately Christianity goes back to the Jewish faith, although as I said earlier the only difference, is that most people of the Jewish faith do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

[canalon]

First of all, I have shown many proofs for creation, by science, but if you want more then I will post more.

I fail to find them in this thread, and I have not seen them in any other. Would you care to summarize?

Second buddhism, was founded in 460 B.C. by Siddhartha Gautama, the Jewish faith started way before that, the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., and the Jewish faith had been around way before that.

And so what. The Judeo christian tradition is old. So are the sumerian, greek and roman pantheon. And animism. Do that make them more true? Less true? How do you objectively measure that the "trueness" of one creation myth compared to another?
By the way the greek philosophy is still alive and kicking and discussed and fundamental to many important and current problems, such as ethics.

I will give you this link on the Fibonacci numbers, so you can read about it for yourselves, http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html

It does not prove anything. There is a lot of affirmation and very little data. But since I have no reason to believe that the author is a liar, I will assume that his staistics about the golden ratio are true (although it might not be, and they have at least some references) , I still do not see how that prove anything. The numbers from the golden ratio might be everywhere how is that a proof of intelligence? Or just confirmation bias and our brain finding patterns where there are not (a common occurence)?

If you want scientific proof, think about the second law of thermodynamics, if you read anything I say read this, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... amics.html

Oh a beginning of an explanation, and some science. It is a bit sad though that they are not really good at science. The fatal blow according to them is that:

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

But the thing is that in fact it would if the plant was not in a dynamic state. When the energy flow is stopped, the plant start to degrade, or rather stop fixing the permanent degradative mechanisms. And if you wait too long it won't restart because it is already too damaged too. In this respect it is very similar to a nuclear reactor: if you cut all source of power for too long, you will need more than just flipping back the switch to restart the plant, because the decay and its effect will have not stop. We have a timely demonstration unforlding in Japan. But if you can prevent those degradations, or slow them enough, then the flow of energy can be stopped for a long while without ill effects. Seeds, spores and a few other similar thing are doing exactly that. And when you provide them with energy and water, they restart.
So what makes life possible is a continuous supply of energy that allow it to locally decrease entropy, at the cost of the general increase of it in the universe. I suggest that you read and understand physics before using it. And not just the pop-culture "entropy=disorder" part.