Irrefutable proof of Evolution.

Nice explanation. Zero evidence, but nice idea. Evolution on the other hand has tons of evidence, but I guess everyone has the right to speculate.

Hey! Maybe God created us by evolution! He can do anything right? Maybe even use natural processes to create complex beings? Maybe evolution is God's method of creation.

 

I predict, as a creationist, that evolutionist are never going to make a man from a monkey. Never going to find a monkey man. Which we should, if evolution is true.

I predict that. And everyday as I see no monkeymen running around, I am confirmed that my prediction is the correct one. It works. My assumption must be correct that God indeed created man on the 6th day as Genesis declares.

Quantrill

 

Interesting post, although, I don't know if I would call it irrefutable proof. The only things I would consider to have irrefutable proof of things that you can observe in nature in the present time. Who is going to have more knowledge of some ancient extinct bird? The scientist whom only has a couple of bones to go off of, or the caveman that actually had the opportunity to study it in nature?

With all that said though, I do believe evolution is true because based off the evidence we have, it is the most likely scenario. Also, a bunch of scientists more intelligent than I am say it's true.

 

What do you mean by that?

 

Have you considered that the reason why there are no "monkey men" running around because they died off millions of years ago?

 

It's my opinion and it's faith.
And why should physics be mentioned in the Bible? You're silly.

It's my opinion. And man cannot fully know the mind of God. That's my opinion too.

And you won't because we didn't. That's my opinion too.

Troll and insult someone else. It doesn't work with me, so you're wasting your time.

 

If you want to have blind faith that evolution with all its evidence is somehow wrong and your Hebrew creation myth is true, that is your business. But don't say that a belief in creation is more logical than a belief in evolution.

I predict as a non-atom believer that we will never turn uranium into many hydrogen atoms. We have never done it. Therefore I'm right!

You see, in order for an idea to be scientific these predictions have to be specific, and testable. You can't predict that a crazy thing won't happen and then when it doesn't happen yet, your theory is confirmed. That is just not how science works. You have to make a prediction for which there would be no good reason for it to be confirmed if your theory was false.

We do not have the scientific knowledge or desire to manipulate DNA to create monkeymen therefore this sort of thing would not happen anyway. Also there is no good reason why natural selection would select people who lost brain power and gained ape-like features. These people would be mentally disabled and would be less likely to pass on their genes. Because of their ape-like characteristics, they would not be very attractive for the opposite sex, meaning they won't pass on their genes.

So we would expect your prediction to be true even if creationism was false. So your "prediction" doesn't support your idea in any way. Also your prediction can never be confirmed. Just because we have not seen a monkeyman yet does not mean there will never be one.

If evolution was true we should find the ancestors to humans. Guess, what. We did. And in abundance too. That is a real prediction.

 

Two words. Homo habilis.

 

I'm familiar with Dr. Leakey's discovery. Could you elaborate on your post?

 

Homo erectus is an undeniable transitional fossil between humans and apes and a strong confirmation of the prediction evolution makes.

We also homo erectus, the autralopithecines and many many more confirmations. We also have transitional fossils for whale evolution.

 

You said, "In the time it was written, it would not have been possible to present God's complexity. Man would not have understood it at all," indicating that the bible was written only for a certain group of people and/or for only a certain time period.

 

So its a crazy thing to expect a monkeyman to be seen running around? My prediction is very specific. If evolution is true, we should be able to see these. Not just one, somewhere. Though you can't find one anywhere. But they should be everywhere. I mean, thats evolution.

Yes I see the ancestors of humans all the time. They are other humans. Conclusion there is no evolution. Genesis is correct.

Quantrill

 

Yes, even you have the right to 'speculate'.

No, God created Adam directly in a mature state, and he created Eve from Adam.

Evolution is contrary and contridictory to God.

Quantrill

 

You have much kinder words than what I have for it. Ha.

Considering I was taught ID and believed it until I was 17-18, I have absolutely no use or respect for ID. The difference between the arguments of ID and evolution is incredible.

Evolution argues for its case with evidence, ID does the opposite in just poking supposed holes in evolution and filling them with god. Its silly.

 

I will agree your prediction is specific but it fails in that it is not testable and it should be expected to be true if evolution were true and creationism is false.

Why if evolution is true would we necessarily see ape-men running around? Keep in mind significant evolution only happens in a certain direction if natural selection allows it.

We don't find ape-men but we have found people born with tails that grew itside their bodies.

 

My position is supported by tons of evidence.

You of course have the right to cross your fingers and have blind faith that the first humans were created by some sort of non-matter life form. Just realize your position is not supported by evidence.

 

Why should evolution stop? We still have apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, man. Yet no monkeyman. Not one.

Oh, I see. Evoution only works back there where no one can see it. But we can find it under a microscope, somehow somewher. Or we can dig up some bones and attach a tail to it and proclaim we found it. But for some 'reason' it doesn't exist now.

Quantrill

 

Not so. Try reading a book called "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder to see what I mean. The modern day translation is pitiful compared to ancient rabbincal translations that say the 6 days of creation were not six literal days. They made this translation based soley on their expertise in Hebrew and was all pre-modern science extrapolations. In addition, they made such claims as humanoids being in the garden with Adam and Eve. Basically their contention was that manking evolved and it was only when God breathed his spirit into Adam that he became "human".

 

I don't cross my fingers. And life created the first man and woman. God did Who is very much alive.

My position is supported by evidence. But its evidence you do not have access to.

And, my faith is not blind. It is very specific and real.

Quantrill

 

Oh, evolution is still working today. but that does not mean we can be confident about the direction of evolution.

The fact that you have no idea why evolution would not stop people from evolving into monkey-men does not mean that in fact evolution will not stop them from evolving into monkey-men. The exact workings of the forces of evolution are very complex and so are not very predictable right now, so you cannot tell us what will or will not evolve.

Another problem is that not only do you need natural selection to not stop the evolution of monkey-men, you also need it to encourage and guide the evolution of monkey-men. You have provided no evidence to support this idea.

Another point is that the great apes are slowly going extinct because of human activity. Natural selection is not selecting apes right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4202734.stm

 

I see, so its secret evidence.

I'm feeling sort of suspitious about all this. Would you mind describing this evidence for me?

 

I do not believe we are evolved from apes.

 

I get the impression you are saying the Bible has no relevance in modern times. I disagree.

 

Well, if you are willing to say that we didn't evolve from apes despite the evidence, then you are making a faith statement. If you are crossing your fingers and having blind faith that human species was independently created by a non-matter life-form, then that is your right, although I disagree with you on the topic of faith.

I will not debate a exclusively faith-based position because debate requires reasoning and evidence while your position does not seem to be based on these things. I cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Just realize that your position is not based on any evidence and so does not need require belief from a rational standpoint.

 

Suit yourself. It's not commonly accepted as fact. We'll just have to disagree.