The Theory of Evolution

[Opivy]

Its funny, I'v re-read your post and I came up with the hard evidence being 'because science wouldn't let a theory like that exist without backing or hard evidence'. Well where is the hard evidence?

(I'v read the thread.)


-BTW I want to add that gravity simply isnt a theory. Its a LAW that we have simply discovered.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

I'm not going to pretend like I know everything about evolution. I'm a biolgoy major and ive given biological evidence. Anything else I would be making up or have to do some research. Frankly I dont care enough to do either.

Like I said you want hard evidence then search the web or look at zylark's post. He obviously knows a lot more about the sciences then me.

It's not that I havent given any evidence, its that you are too quick to discredit it. Ive seen post that give numerous evidence for evolution , like mine they are quickly discredited.

So what is your belief Opivy? Do you believe God created all organisms at once like the bible implies?

[Opivy]

They are discredited because there is no evidence shown yet.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

So what is your belief Opivy? Do you believe God created all organisms at once like the bible implies?
Reply With Quote

I am pretty much on the fence. I find what some of the bible says hard to swollow and I am not religous at all. I do find a lack of evidence for evolution and alot of assumptions. Personally I think being created by a more intelligent being seems more probable.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

No evidence? Explain to me why there is no evidence and what evidence is lacking?

Maybe I'm wrong Opivy, Darwin most have been smoking some dank ass weed and come up with evolution without any evolution at all! Then more scientist, including geologists and palentologists all smoked weed as well and were like this theory sounds good, we don't need to use these fossils and bones as evidence. Then recently with the advancements in genetics, those scientists were taking some pretty strong acid and figured that our genetic similarties with mammals and other organisms didnt need to be used as evidence.

If you are going to claim that evolution has no evidence, then you are close minded and/or blind. I'm not going to lie and say evolution explains everything, b/c it doesn't.

These assumptions are based on fossil records among other things, such as genetics and morphology. For the law of gravity and the law of thermodynamics you have to assume many things.

You can't get past the fact the evolution allows an intelligent creator so why should I even bother going on Opivy?

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

"This time line is how evolution assumes the animals time on earth would have been. It also fits well with the geologic findings in the layers of the earth. (Further down, the older) But this could also have been explained by a flood. So who is to say that these creatures all existed at different time periods? There is definately no overwhelming evidence of it. Just a theory still."

There is no overwhelming evidence? HA. Try all the dating techniques we use today? Cottons claim that they are inaccurate, but if this were in fact then why would this technique still be used? Is it some kind of evolution conspiracy? Here's a link to a Christian site that shows how and why the dating techniques are accurate, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Now about your flood Cottons, if water came from under the ground, even about a mile down, the temperature is above boiling. The water would start off a vapor and any form of it would be superheated. So it would be raining boiling water.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

There is no overwhelming evidence? HA. Try all the dating techniques we use today? Cottons claim that they are inaccurate, but if this were in fact then why would this technique still be used? Is it some kind of evolution conspiracy? Here's a link to a Christian site that shows how and why the dating techniques are accurate, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The dating techniques are flawed. Radiometric dating assumes that the rate of decay remained constant(as does carbon dating), which ofcourse in the unobservable past is hard to believe. Now once again you use science letting it exist as your defense. There are lots of factors that could speed up the rate of decay and mess these dating techniques up.

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Opivy explain these factors that speed up decay and mess it up. You see how quick you are to dismiss anything. I have provided a link to a credible nonbias website, a Christian website nevertheless. Go back to "Why Evolution is Wrong" thread and read zylark's response to cotton's claim that the dating techniques are wrong. There are different techniques that are used for different things.

And yes once again I'm using science as my defense. Obiovusly Opivy you don't have a good understanding of science. Since you are so damn sure the the dating techniques are flawed and that I'm wrong explain to me why then we still use these dating techniques are so inaccurate.

What about ice dating that uses no radiation at all, is that flawed as well? Do you even know what that is Opivy, I'd be surprised if u did.

[u4ia]

Interesting article I read today..

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science....ap/index.html

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

What about ice dating that uses no radiation at all, is that flawed as well? Do you even know what that is Opivy, I'd be surprised if u did.

I dont know what ice dating is. I never evan brought it up. See what I mean about sidetracking? Why is everyone so ready to jump onto me with claims of stupidity.
I am speaking of the two dating techniques which I do know about. Carbon dating and Radiometric dating. They are inaccurate and later on I will read Zylarks post to humor you.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

And yes once again I'm using science as my defense. Obiovusly Opivy you don't have a good understanding of science. Since you are so damn sure the the dating techniques are flawed and that I'm wrong explain to me why then we still use these dating techniques are so inaccurate.

Once again pointing the subject more towards me instead of the subject we are discussing. Okay, I dont know why they are still used. Why dont you tell me Mr.Scientist? You seem to know alot more about it than me. You also seem to be so positive that these dating techniques are accurate. There are thousands of things that could speed up the rate of decay on a specimen so don't evan ask me to list them.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Opivy explain these factors that speed up decay and mess it up. You see how quick you are to dismiss anything. I have provided a link to a credible nonbias website, a Christian website nevertheless. Go back to "Why Evolution is Wrong" thread and read zylark's response to cotton's claim that the dating techniques are wrong. There are different techniques that are used for different things.

Wow a non-biased Christian site? Thats a hard find, i'm going to have to check this out.


-Me, quick to dismiss? I think you are quick to swollow information. I still see the only hard evidence presented as "Read Zylarks post" -wow a good one. And lets not forget "Why would science let it exist if it wasn't true?" Think outside the box pal.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by u4ia

Interesting article I read today..

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/scienc...t.ap/index.html

Interesting. Cool find but one thing. This is thought to be the transition between a carnivorous dinosaur and vegetarian right? Still just a dinosaur. No proof for speciation here.

[u4ia]

Originally Posted by Opivy

Interesting. Cool find but one thing. This is the thought to be the transition between a carnivorous dinosaur and vegetarian right? Still just a dinosaur. No proof for speciation here.

Evolution involves very small changes over millions of years. You're never going to find an example of a species transforming into something completely different. It just doesn't work that way.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by u4ia

Evolution involves very small changes over millions of years. You're never going to find an example of a species transforming into something completely different. It just doesn't work that way.

Your probably right. We'll probably never find an example of a species transforming into something different because its not possible! This is why evolution is wrong...

[DaZEED&ConFuseD]

Why would you argue something you don't know much about Opivy, for example, dating techniques? Not at all dating techniques uses radioactive decay. So how about you don't bring stuff you can't back up.

What are you hoping to see when you see something evolve Opivy? It's not like it would be some significant change, but something very small.

Your probably right. We'll probably never find an example of a species transforming into something different because its not possible! This is why evolution is wrong...

Wow that is an intelligent statement there Opivy. It's cool when you actually have something intelligent to say, but when you said that, it just sounded dumb.

[Opivy]

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

Why would you argue something you don't know much about Opivy, for example, dating techniques? Not at all dating techniques uses radioactive decay. So how about you don't bring stuff you can't back up.

I know the very basics of how these techniques work and I know for a fact they assume the rate of decay remained constant. Now you tell me if you think the rate of decay for everything they use this technique on remained constant.

Originally Posted by DaZEED&ConFuseD

What are you hoping to see when you see something evolve Opivy? It's not like it would be some significant change, but something very small.

I dont know the exact order evolution believs that we evolved up from. Can you give me a quick rundown real quick? Explain to me how a simple single celled organism could possibly stem into all the species of animals we have today? Where is the hard evidence supporting this? There should be half mutated animals dead all over the place, especially since this has been going on for billions of years. How come we find lots and lots of fossils of higher evolved creatures but no half mutated fossils? There should certainly be many of these around the earth.

-A fossil theorized to be the transition between carnivorous and vegetarian dinosaurs proves nothing of the sort. It is still a dinosaur right?

[Opivy]

Since this seems to be a branch of the larger thread I'm going to restate these questions.

Originally Posted by Opivy

If the age of the universe stated above is true .....

Why has jupiter's moon Ganymede not cooled down?
Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, indicating it is still hot.

How bout saturn?
Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?

Comets?
Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?