Evolution: Fact Or Fiction

Whats your religion?

Atheist	39.3%	[ 1138 ]
Protestant	16.9%	[ 489 ]
Catholic	14.1%	[ 407 ]
Hindu	1.3%	[ 37 ]
Muslim	1.8%	[ 53 ]
Jew	2.3%	[ 67 ]
Buddhist	5.1%	[ 149 ]
Greek Orthodox	0.7%	[ 21 ]
Pagan	14.2%	[ 412 ]
Egyptian	4.2%	[ 122 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2895 ]

[TrueSacredRahXephon]

drowningpool212

Now my evidence comes from Brain Greene who is one of the leading physicist on string theory and times arrow. Evolution statisticly is inprobable and could not of happened with out a intellagent desginer

Your evidence for a biological theory comes from a physicist?

[Phorcys]

TrueSacredRahXephon

drowningpool212

Now my evidence comes from Brain Greene who is one of the leading physicist on string theory and times arrow. Evolution statisticly is inprobable and could not of happened with out a intellagent desginer

Your evidence for a biological theory comes from a physicist?

I don't see why a physicist cannot provide evidence disproving a biological theory if the evidence is relevant.

However, I completely disagree with the notion that evolution is statistically improbable and cannot accur without a guiding hand. I would like very much to hear the argument behind this assertion.

[TheMessioma]

Behold, I have randomly generated a number between 1 and 1000000000, even though the chances of me getting the result I got were only ONE IN A BILLION.

HOW THE HELL COULD I HAVE POSSIBLY GOTTEN THE RESULT WHEN CHANCES OF GETTING THAT RESULT WERE SO SMALL?

This, of course, ignores the fact that Evolution is not completely random

[maybecca]

TheMessioma

Behold, I have randomly generated a number between 1 and 1000000000, even though the chances of me getting the result I got were only ONE IN A BILLION.

HOW THE HELL COULD I HAVE POSSIBLY GOTTEN THE RESULT WHEN CHANCES OF GETTING THAT RESULT WERE SO SMALL?

This, of course, ignores the fact that Evolution is not completely random

OMG, you got an even number! That makes it one in TWO billion! And ends in a 6, which is a one in ten chance, to one in TWENTY billion!

Mmm, Creationist Statistics biggrin

[CuAnnan]

drowningpool212

Ok entropy is the probability of a certian thing happening. It was founded my steamers who used the second law of therodynamics as it is acually named, says that the probability of life evolving (cant spell) is equivalent to a Boeing 747 being created from a gust of wind blowing threw a junkyard. Or a meteor falling to earth creating Rome. Now my evidence comes from Brain Greene who is one of the leading physicist on string theory and times arrow. Evolution statisticly is inprobable and could not of happened with out a intellagent desginer

Wow you're full of s**t.
Provide your cite that Brian Greene supports ID.

Brian Green

String theory is a work in progress. It is science because in its decades of development it has always adhered to the well-established methodology of theoretical physics. So far, we have not revealed enough about string theory to extract detailed predictions that are within reach of today’s technology. If, however, we believed that this latter goal of testing string theory were permanently unattainable - as it most certainly is for ID as currently presented - we would no longer work on the theory.

[Symos]

Evolution must exist in some form. Even if you beleive in Adam and Eve, evolution must be there.

Consider this. Adam and Eve must be of the same 'race' right? Where did the different coloured skins come from? The only explanation is humans evolved to suit the climates of the world.

[TrueSacredRahXephon]

Phorcys

TrueSacredRahXephon

drowningpool212

Now my evidence comes from Brain Greene who is one of the leading physicist on string theory and times arrow. Evolution statisticly is inprobable and could not of happened with out a intellagent desginer

Your evidence for a biological theory comes from a physicist?

I don't see why a physicist cannot provide evidence disproving a biological theory if the evidence is relevant.

If you were being charged with murder, would you use a ballistics expert to refute DNA evidence?

[maybecca]

Symos

Evolution must exist in some form. Even if you beleive in Adam and Eve, evolution must be there.

Consider this. Adam and Eve must be of the same 'race' right? Where did the different coloured skins come from? The only explanation is humans evolved to suit the climates of the world.

I've seen it claimed that black skin was a curse, originally. *shrugs*

[Symos]

Then what about asians then?

[maybecca]

Symos

Then what about asians then?

Um. Can't remember, if I find any sites on the topic again I'll let you know?

[Xenentos]

Read this you all might see the light...

FOSSILS are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth’s crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and have taken on their shape.

Why are fossils important to evolution? Geneticist G. L. Stebbins noted a major reason: “No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.”1 So, living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else. Instead, they are all complete in form and distinct from other types. As geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed: “The living world is not a single array . . . connected by unbroken series of intergrades.”2 And Charles Darwin conceded that “the distinctness of specific [living] forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.”3

Thus, the distinct varieties of things now alive offer no support to the theory of evolution. That is why the fossil record became so important. It was felt that at least fossils would provide the confirmation that the theory of evolution needed.

What to Look For

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.”4 As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”5

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”

I got more where that came from, jsut bring it on.

[Redem]

Xenentos

Read this you all might see the light...

Really. How interesting.

Ooo another copy and paste job. Without citation. Cute.

Xenentos

Why are fossils important to evolution? Geneticist G. L. Stebbins noted a major reason: “No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms.”

given the lenght of time required for this to happen it is hardly a surprise. We've only been looking for a short time.

Xenentos

1 So, living things on earth today are not seen to be evolving into something else.

Not true, species evolve all the time. It's easier to see in short lived life forms, and those that reproduce rapidly. Such as bacteria, where we can observe evolution, and see what happens when we alter the environemnt.

Xenentos

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Now then. Fossilisation is an extremely rare even. Rare enough that for meny species we have found mere handfuls of specimens. Even if we count incomplete ones, that alone suggest that there will be many species that are not going to be preserved at all. Gaps are not surprising.

Xenentos

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

There are, for most of that. Google is your friend.

Xenentos

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.”4 As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”5

A complete fossil record is not going to exist, and finding that which does exist will take time.

None of the criticisms are really... relevant to reality.

Xenentos

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

There would be no fossils at all actually. Especially of such a variet of creatures as we have found so far.

Xenentos

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”

Indeed. Now. Prove that happened. You can't? Well boohoo for you.

Xenentos

I got more where that came from, jsut bring it on.

Great. More uncited copy&paste work I presume.

[jaden kendam]

"What to Look For

If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.”4 As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”5 "

Then explain the Archaeopteryx? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/

[Xenentos]

redem

Great. More uncited copy&paste work I presume.

Uncited mabey, mabey someone i knew wrote up, for a school paper, either way, does it really matter where the info coems from, what matters is if its factual.

Lol, question were are your facts to back up your statements?

and so I go on mostly on the thing about fossils:

However, is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of whether it is creation or evolution that finds support? Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was “wrong” with the fossil record in his time? It did not contain the transitional links required to support his theory. This situation caused him to say: “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”

Darwin attempted to explain these huge problems by attacking the fossil record. He said: “I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, . . . imperfect to an extreme degree.”9 It was assumed by him and others that as time passed the missing fossil links surely would be found.

Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.” And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”

After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.” The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.” What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”

[Xenentos]

deadmanjake

Then explain the Archaeopteryx? http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/

A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures