Evidence For Evolution

[HeyItsZeus]

Please, all fellow forum goers please post evidence for evolution on this forum for all others to see. I think this is a good idea so "certain people" can stop asking for "proof".

LINKS:

Fossil Evidence
Homologies
Distribution In Time And Space
Evidence By Example
*You can find more on this web-site*



What Is Evolutionary Theory?

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. ... (I believe this is a fairly simple to understand definition) *It is not my definition*

If It's So Good, Why Isn't It Considered Fact?

Link To Web-Site

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Provide proof? Why waste my time?

Such proof is available in Darwin's own books and countless others, from any local library and indeed in science texts in many high schools. There is not now nor has there ever been a debate between evolution and literalist creationists. Evolution is established science,based on evidence which is widely available. Creationism is a religious belief based on faith,not evidence.

Without exception,no theist I've seen on a forum asking about evolution actually wants to learn anything which might challenge their preconceived ideas..

If such people want to learn,let them to go their local library.OR perhaps have a quiet chat with a decent science teacher at their primary school,high school or university.

My overall perception is those inquirers [we get here] are disingenuous at worst,and willfully ignorant at best. I consider willful ignorance far worse than clinical stupidity.

[Minimalist]

Talk_Origins already has all the evidence needed to sustain evolution against these nuts.

The problem is, as Pad says, not a question of evidence but of belief.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Likewise, you can lead a horse's ass to the facts but you can't make him think.

[Tsidkenu]

Provide proof? Why waste my time?

Such proof is available in Darwin's own books and countless others, from any local library and indeed in science texts in many high schools. There is not now nor has there ever been a debate between evolution and literalist creationists. Evolution is established science,based on evidence which is widely available. Creationism is a religious belief based on faith,not evidence.

Without exception,no theist I've seen on a forum asking about evolution actually wants to learn anything which might challenge their preconceived ideas..

If such people want to learn,let them to go their local library.OR perhaps have a quiet chat with a decent science teacher at their primary school,high school or university.

My overall perception is those inquirers [we get here] are disingenuous at worst,and willfully ignorant at best. I consider willful ignorance far worse than clinical stupidity.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosop...w-t335.htm

Science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed.

"Naturalistic science" points to naturalism, whether philosophical or methodological, both of which are essentially the same. Neither of which will allow the supernatural as a cause for anything in this world, even if logical. Natural causes must account for everything. So if scientific findings shows limits in natural causes, it doesn't matter because natural causes must have done everything. This shows that it is not the science that is important, but the reigning philosophy of naturalism. By definition, it will exclude any other possible explanation, whether presuppositional or logical or even rational, including the possibility of the supernatural, so it is true that naturalistic "science", or rather the naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence will always miss a supernatural explanation. Whatever the supernatural is, the naturalistic mind will not accept it. That's why it is true that research today is not about finding real answers, but only confirming a naturalistic philosophy.

naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation.

the essence of science is the testing of hypotheses against the evidence. The definition we just heard is that science starts with the assumption that everything in the world can be explained without recourse to supernatural causes."

Current science leads however logically to God, since the origin of the universe, its finetuning to advanced lifeforms, life, DNA as highly complex information carrier ( information has always a mind as origin ), humans with conscience, sense of moral values, and the ability of communication, thinking and speak, Einstein's Gulf,
on which

http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins-gul...-cross-it/

" On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf." At any rate, no one who has offered a denial , has given even a slightly plausible account of how material objects can be spontaneously enter the realm of articulate and intelligent thought.

all these phenomenas do not find reasonable explanations in natural causes, and lead logically to God as the best explanation.

[Minimalist]

And, just like clockwork, another one shows up singing the same old tune. Or is it the same one?

Fire up The Gauntlet.

[Entropist]

And, just like clockwork, another one shows up singing the same old tune. Or is it the same one?