So you believe in evolution..

[power]

Hello,

I realize many of you do not believe that God exists because you believe evolution is a proven fact, so I would like to open your eyes to a few things.

First, when I refer to evolution not being proven, I am referring to "macro evolution", which is defined as changes above the species level. Micro evolution, which is change below the species level, is a definitely a proven fact and has been observed. (if you don't know the difference between micro and macro evolution, or like some atheists, you believe they are terms invented by creationists, please take some time to research)

What Darwin observed in his studies of the Galapagos finches was micro evolution. He observed that the lengths of their beaks changed to adapt to their environmental conditions. From there he made the assumption that if a species could change over time to adapt to its environment, eventually it might change enough to become an entirely different species. From there he made the further assumption that all life has a common ancestor.

The problem with this theory is that the fossil record did not support it. He admitted this when he said:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

So, the relative poverty of the fossil record at the time was blamed for this lack of transitional forms. Overr one hundred years later and not much has changed. We now have access to billions of fossils and those transitional forms that darwin hoped for have failed to manifest themselves.

What we observe in the fossil record is stasis. That is, that species enter the record suddenly and fully formed, show no changes, and then suddenly leave the record.

For this reason, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was introduced, which basically states that evolution happens so fast that we cannot see it in the fossil record.

That being said, I know many of you will probably claim that there are plenty of transitional fossils (most have roundly been debunked) or that *every* fossil is a transitional form (please do more research), but the fact is not even a single one is bullet proof. If you do your research you will find that none of these so-called transitional forms have any true ancestry. Meaning, they fill in the blanks with their imagination.

Specifically, I'll bring a few things to your attention:

1. Living fossils

Army Ants - unchanged over 100 million years

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May...y.bpf.html

Coelacanth - unchanged over 400 million years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/302368.stm

Sturgeon - unchanged over 250 million years

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...121902.php

Seems kind of fishy when evolution isn't happening over hundreds of millions of years, doesnt it?

2. Soft tissue and blood cells found in T-Rex fossils

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6ZCc7Ea2...re=related

Biological material could survive hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, but definitely not millions. This is evidence that dinosaurs were around not too long ago.

3. Cambrian Explosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKMKYd0WSV0

Since the Cambrian explosion, no new phyla have entered the fossil record. All of the major body types appeared suddenly, and creatures were both immediately diverse and complex.

So, if anyone has any answers to any of this, I am all ears. The evidence as it is demonstrates that life did not gradually evolve. Macro evolution has simply never been observed. Darwin made an important discovery with micro evolution, but that is far as it goes. Macro evolution is simply not science, since it cannot be observed or tested.

So, if you're basing your disbelief in God over your belief in evolutionary theory, you need to rethink your position. We haven't even started talking about the problems with abiogenesis yet.

[Erinome]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-10032.html

I am not basing my disbelief on evolution. If evolution were proven to be untrue, there would have to be some sort of plausible alternative. Slapping goddidit on something is unthinking the thinkable, and has never been an answer for anything ever, ever.. ever ever.

Probably because there are no such things as gods, but hey, what the fuck do I know?

Here ya go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

---

Please do take your time, and browse around that first link. We made it just for you. It's almost like... we're your gods.

Wow.

Trippy.

[power]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-10032.html

I am not basing my disbelief on evolution. If evolution were proven to be untrue, there would have to be some sort of plausible alternative. Slapping goddidit on something is unthinking the thinkable, and has never been an answer for anything ever, ever.. ever ever.

Probably because there are no such things as gods, but hey, what the fuck do I know?

Here ya go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

---

Please do take your time, and browse around that first link. We made it just for you. It's almost like... we're your gods.

Wow.

Trippy.

I am not basing my disbelief on evolution. If evolution were proven to be untrue, there would have to be some sort of plausible alternative. Slapping goddidit on something is unthinking the thinkable, and has never been an answer for anything ever, ever.. ever ever.

You're admitting here that you just assume apriori that life happened on its own and don't consider any alternatives. It reminds me of this quote:

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin
harvard professor of zoology and biology

You seem convinced that God creating the Universe and life itself is impossible, so I'll just ask you the obvious question: why?

As far as your links go, I've studied the other side of the debate comprehensively. If you would like to engage in a discussion, you could start by using your own words and arguments, if you have any.

As far as your trex link goes, there is nothing there that explains it away. You didn't reference the correct link (it was discovered in 2005). What you've linked is just an attack on creationists who feel this is a big deal. Which it is. What your link doesn't do is dispute the evidence, which is that we shouldn't find soft tissue in 65 million year old fossils if they're really that old.

Bottom line, doesn't it even pique your curiousity that soft tissue has been found in bones at least 65 million years old? If I were a true believer in your theory, I think that would raise a lot of questions which don't have easy answers.

[leo-rcc]

I realize many of you do not believe that God exists because you believe evolution is a proven fact,

No, many of us do not believe that any god including yours exist because there is 0 evidence for one.

With regards to the ToE, if you admit that micro-evolution as you call it does exist, what mechanism is there for "macro-evolution" not to occur? After all, "macro-evolution" is just many "micro-evolutions" combined over millions of years.

[LastPoet]

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with Atheism. An Atheist is a person that rejects the claim that a god or gods exist, nothing else can be inferred from it. The word 'god' isn't even correctly defined, and for those several religions that exist in the planet that make claims about such a thing, they all fail to produce evidence towards a god or gods.

On the other hand, it is possible to believe in god and evolution, (e.g. the catholic church accepts evolution).

It peaks my curiosity, but I do know that there exist lots of mummification process that allow that. This is where your bias kicks, you want your concept of god to be true so much you'd equate that as a problem to all of evolution.

[Ace Otana]

I realize many of you do not believe that God exists because you believe evolution is a proven fact,

Actually I don't believe in god because there is no evidence or reason to.
God's existence has not yet been demonstrated. Even if evolution was untrue, I'd still lack belief in god. You could disprove the whole thing and I'd still be an atheist. Disproving evolution does not prove god.

[power]

I realize many of you do not believe that God exists because you believe evolution is a proven fact,

No, many of us do not believe that any god including yours exist because there is 0 evidence for one.

With regards to the ToE, if you admit that micro-evolution as you call it does exist, what mechanism is there for "macro-evolution" not to occur? After all, "macro-evolution" is just many "micro-evolutions" combined over millions of years.

Nice try though.

Micro and macro evolution are terms used by biologists, like so:

natural selection, long viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of evolution. Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.

SM Stanley Johns Hopkins University
Proceedings, National Science Academy Science
Vol.72 p.648

The first reason that micro doesn't lead to macro is because of the DNA code barrier. A dog, for instance, only has the genetic information that will produce another dog. To create something else, information will need to be added. Evolutionists propose this happens by mutations.

The neo-darwinian idea of mutations adding genetic information is falsified by two things. The first is gene depletion, which is the scientific princple that mutations are caused by the loss or sorting of genetic information.

The second is natural selection itself, which works against this neo-darwinian idea because natural selection works to preserve the gene pool and weeds out the genetically weaker mutants.

So, there isn't a logical pathway for macro evolution to occur. This is why after breeding thousands of generations of fruit flies they have never produced a different species. Simply put, macro evolution has never been observed.

[Erinome]

Hot DAMN. First let me say, Minimalist, when you're right, you're fucking right.

You're admitting here that you just assume apriori that life happened on its own and don't consider any alternatives. It reminds me of this quote:

Who says I haven't considered any alternatives? Do you think I would believe something without considering many options? Do I look like an apologist to you?

There is no viable alternative, so far.

we take the side of evolutionary science because we have a prior commitment to materialism. it is not that the methods..of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation..on the contrary..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

richard lewontin
harvard professor of zoology and biology

Because it would be irresponsible to do so. There is no evidence for gods, besides the evidence people want to see. It doesn't make it true. What matters to me is what's true. It's my only commitment.

You seem convinced that God creating the Universe and life itself is impossible, so I'll just ask you the obvious question: why?

Because if you look at the world objectively, and without bias, it's plainly a bunch of made up fairy tales- especially when you combine those observations with scientific reasoning. Evolution is true. I'm sorry you can't handle it, but it doesn't make it any less true because it offends your religious sensibilities.

As far as your links go, I've studied the other side of the debate comprehensively.

Obviously not.

If you would like to engage in a discussion, you could start by using your own words and arguments, if you have any.

No offense to you, I'm sure you're a very nice deluded person, but I have typed my fucking fingers to the bone in this forum, arguing with my own words about the very bullshit in your OP. That's why I made that thread, so when creatards like you come swizzling in here with you're "knowledge", asking for evidence, all my tired ass would have to do is shoot you a linky.

It gets pretty fucking old after a while.

As far as your trex link goes, there is nothing there that explains it away. You didn't even reference the correct link (it was discovered in 2005), which shows you probably didn't even watch the video or take the time to understand the issue.

I watched it when the last slow person... I mean, apologist posted it. You've got nothing new. Science discovers something new every day. How did a boring ass delusion like yours even make it past the 20th century? That's the burning question, I think.

What you've linked is just an attack on creationists who feel this is a big deal. Which it is. What your link doesn't do is dispute the evidence, which is that we shouldn't find soft tissue in 65 million year old fossils if they're really that old.

Yes. Science is out to get your dogma. Raawwwrrr.

Are all Christians paranoid schizophrenics?

Bottom line, doesn't it even pique your curiousity that soft tissue has been found in bones at least 65 million years old? If I were a true believer in your theory, I think that would raise a lot of questions which don't have easy answers.

Sure it does, but just because something isn't readily explainable doesn't mean goddidit.

Anyway, you're hypothesis has been disproven:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/science/13dino.html

The findings, Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues wrote, “suggested that, under certain conditions, remnant organic constituents may persist across geological time.”

Thanks to this discovery, evolution now has a stronger case than ever.

Did you know it is considered to be a universal fact among the scientific community at large?

[Zen Badger]

How old is the universe Power?

[power]

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with Atheism. An Atheist is a person that rejects the claim that a god or gods exist, nothing else can be inferred from it. The word 'god' isn't even correctly defined, and for those several religions that exist in the planet that make claims about such a thing, they all fail to produce evidence towards a god or gods.

On the other hand, it is possible to believe in god and evolution, (e.g. the catholic church accepts evolution).

It peaks my curiosity, but I do know that there exist lots of mummification process that allow that. This is where your bias kicks, you want your concept of god to be true so much you'd equate that as a problem to all of evolution.

Personally, I believe what the bible says about the evidence:

Romans 1:18-20

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

What this is saying is that there is a general revelation that God gives from the Creation itself. So this isn't really about a lack of evidence, because you and everything else around you is evidence of a creation, but rather the question is why you are suppressing the truth about it.

Mummification cannot preserve soft tissue for millions of years..it is simply impossible for it to survive that long. I am definitely interpreting this as being evidence that the age is not correct. This is because of my worldview. Everyone has a bias, because everyone has a worldview. As aleialoura said earlier, she expects there to be some kind of naturalistic explanation, whether evolution is true or not. That is the bias of a worldview, in her case, a naturalistic one.