Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Me Myself]

Just made him uglier

 

[dust1n]

I'd say geology destroyed Adam over a century ago.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

*edit*

Re-branding of the creationism movement.

*edit*

Already been falsified. We took apart the bacterial flagellum and found it to still be functional.

*edit*

Numerology is about interpreting meaning where there isn't any. It's nonsense.

*edit*

All I could find is this:
Genesis a surprising confirmation

And all it really seems to say is "the Bible says there were cities, and it turns out that there were". That's hardly compelling evidence of Creation.

 

[outhouse]

*edit*

Only within theistic circles due to closed minds

Evolution is fact as gravity and not up for any "real" debate.

*edit*

All desperate people trying to protect ancient mythology as having a place in reality.

*edit*

Yes, you will be surprised at closed minds that denounce modern science from a standpoint of ignorance on every topic. Its very very sad.

ID is a perversion of creation mythology for the sole purpose to try and keep creation in schools. It failed in a court of law and is outlawed from poisoning the minds of our children.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Adam can essentially just be defined as the first human being to evolved from its predecessor in the genetic chain. First homosapien.

 

[outhouse]

Adam can essentially just be defined as the first human being to evolved from its predecessor in the genetic chain. First homosapien.

They cannot be defined this way in any sense.

They can be defined as mythology though.

 

[Sha'irullah]

They cannot be defined this way in any sense.

They can be defined as mythology though.

Well it depend son your desired understanding. Adam to me is just symbolic as it mens the first of its kind. I know a friend who made a computer and named it adam and called the dual motherboard Eve, inventive symbolism.
I myself have used Adam as a metaphor to refer tot he first male homo sapien.

But for Christians this is easy since the bible does not mention consecutive days and as god created Eve from a rib bone it is easy to assume he created Adam from something pre-existing which is an early ancestor to man (he created them first).
Tat solves evolution for Christians. Not that hard

 

[outhouse]

Tat solves evolution for Christians. Not that hard

False

Theist helped to develop the theory of evolution, and many Christians look at Adam as allegory and mythology.

 

[Sha'irullah]

False

Theist helped to develop the theory of evolution, and many Christians look at Adam as allegory and mythology.

Nothing I said was false because I have not provided you a definitive answer to anything. I just stated a theoretical solution.

If a theist develops the theory of evolution you have proven noting I said false. Also if many Christians view Adam as allegorical then you have actually proven my right in saying so.
Are you seriously reading my comments or trolling?

I just tried providing a way to view Adam as allegorical then you say it is false of me to say such as Adam is allegorical. You are using oxymorons and speaking in circles

 

[Thief]

Evolution is fine....no objection.

But Man is a creature with a quantum leap in development.

Genesis displays an 'interference'.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This belief certainly doesn't go with evolution and the evidence is so strong for evolution that u simply can't reject it.

My goodness there is NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. Evolution is a religious belief. Give me your strongest piece of evidence for evolution since the evidence is SO STRONG.

I read a lot and watched some debates regarding this and everytime evolution comes on top. Keep religious beliefs aside, do u think that science has destroyed
So called image of Adam ?

In what way does evolution come out on top? Have you ever observed an animal producing a different kind of animal? Probably not. No one has. Science is supposed to be about observation, and no one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. Not in this lifetime, not in ANY lifetime.

 

[johnhanks]

My goodness there is NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. Evolution is a religious belief. Give me your strongest piece of evidence for evolution since the evidence is SO STRONG.

[If Gurtej will pardon the interjection]
Jaw tissue from chick embryos can be induced to develop tooth buds. Why should bird cells possess the genetic instructions for making teeth? Unless, that is, they had ancestors with teeth.

In what way does evolution come out on top? Have you ever observed an animal producing a different kind of animal? Probably not. No one has. Science is supposed to be about observation, and no one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. Not in this lifetime, not in ANY lifetime.

No-one's ever seen a galaxy under a microscope either, so are you going to assume they don't exist? Looking for "macroevolution" within a human lifetime is making the same scale error.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Jaw tissue from chick embryos can be induced to develop tooth buds. Why should bird cells possess the genetic instructions for making teeth? Unless, that is, they had ancestors with teeth.

Maybe birds did have ancestors with teeth, but guess what, their ancestors were probably BIRDS. Male lions have manes, other cats don’t. So what, they are still cats. I can believe that long ago in the past there may have been birds that had teeth, but they were still BIRDS. They never changed to a different kind of animal.

No-one's ever seen a galaxy under a microscope either, so are you going to assume they don't exist?

I am not going to past something off as a fact unless I have reasons to believe that it is. Evolution is said to be a fact despite no observational evidence supporting it. No one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animals. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Anything beyond this is religion.

Looking for "macroevolution" within a human lifetime is making the same scale error.

So you are basically saying no one alive today will ever be able to witness macroevolution, yet it is ok to accept it as a brute fact. If that isn’t a religion, I don’t know what is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Maybe birds did have ancestors with teeth, but guess what, their ancestors were probably BIRDS. Male lions have manes, other cats don’t. So what, they are still cats. I can believe that long ago in the past there may have been birds that had teeth, but they were still BIRDS. They never changed to a different kind of animal.

Since you have never adequately been able to define "kind" in any way, this argument is meaningless. You have essentially just dismissed an argument based on an assumption. Moreover, an assumption which is utterly baseless, since you probably cannot define, when asked, what constitutes a cat or a bird in any meaningful, demonstrable way.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Since you have never adequately been able to define "kind" in any way, this argument is meaningless. You have essentially just dismissed an argument based on an assumption. Moreover, an assumption which is utterly baseless, since you probably cannot define, when asked, what constitutes a cat or a bird in any meaningful, demonstrable way.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No one has ever seen an exception to this rule. Since there has never been an exception so far, why are we to believe that there were exceptions long ago when there was no one to see it?

Evolution is a religion. If you want to believe that long ago animals were doing things that animals alive today haven't been observed to do (such as a dog producing a non-dog), then go right ahead and believe it. But to call it "science" is utterly and blatantly false because it doesn't fit the word "science" in any definition I've ever seen.

 

[johnhanks]

If that isn’t a religion, I don’t know what is.

Then you don't know what is.

 

[johnhanks]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No one has ever seen an exception to this rule. Since there has never been an exception so far, why are we to believe that there were exceptions long ago when there was no one to see it?

Because to "see" it we need a tool that lets us view change over tens of millions of years. The fossil record is that tool; and waddaya know, look at the fossil record and we see transitional forms between lobe-finned fish and amphibians, land mammals and whales, and ape-like precursors and hominids, all exactly where they should be in the sequence.

A favourite creationist bleat is "there are no transitional fossils"; this is pure wishful thinking. Transitional fossils are rare at species level, but that poses no problem for evolution because we can see change at that level occurring during our lifetime. At the "macroevolution" level, transitional fossils are plentiful.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because to "see" it we need a tool that lets us view change over tens of millions of years.

A tool that you or no one else has or will have.

The fossil record is that tool; and waddaya know, look at the fossil record and we see transitional forms between lobe-finned fish and amphibians, land mammals and whales, and ape-like precursors and hominids, all exactly where they should be in the sequence.

What are you talking about? There are no transitional fossils and there is no fossil records. All we have are fossils, and the only thing to determine from examining the fossils are "these animals were once living, now they are dead".....there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to find a fossil and conclude this fossil in the dirt is the evolutionary predecessor of today. That is adding your presupposition to the observation. If you start with the presupposition that evolution occurred then how you interpret any evidence will lead you to your presupposition. It is as clear as day.

A favourite creationist bleat is "there are no transitional fossils"; this is pure wishful thinking. Transitional fossils are rare at species level, but that poses no problem for evolution because we can see change at that level occurring during our lifetime. At the "macroevolution" level, transitional fossils are plentiful.

The only change we see is different species and different breeds of the same kind of animal. No new kind of animal is being created. There are no transitional fossils....and even the alleged transitional fossils, how do you know that those fossils aren't just of some type animal that died out?

 

[Breathe]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. No one has ever seen an exception to this rule. Since there has never been an exception so far, why are we to believe that there were exceptions long ago when there was no one to see it?

If we did, that would be a big against for evolution. Not a for.
Evolution doesn't teach this; it's a misunderstanding of what evolution teaches that leads to this misconception.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

So please tell me what those words mean and how you define them as such. I've already explained to you that "dogs" are a subspecies of grey wolf, so we already know that dogs came from something that is not categorized as a dog.

No one has ever seen an exception to this rule.

Why would we expect to? All variation occurs WITHIN that particular taxonomic rank.

Since there has never been an exception so far, why are we to believe that there were exceptions long ago when there was no one to see it?

It's not an exception - everything reproduces a copy of itself, but with variation. The only difference is that you have decided that you believe that this variation is somehow limited, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary in the fossil record, genetics and anthropology. You have yet to demonstrate exactly what mechanism prevents speciation, and you cannot define your terms well enough to provide any kind of test of them. Your words are meaningless and based on ignorance of evolution and of biology.

Evolution is a religion. If you want to believe that long ago animals were doing things that animals alive today haven't been observed to do (such as a dog producing a non-dog), then go right ahead and believe it. But to call it "science" is utterly and blatantly false because it doesn't fit the word "science" in any definition I've ever seen.

The more you repeat lie does not add to its credibility. It's extremely telling that I asked you for a definition to your terms, and you failed spectacularly - instead just choosing to restate your argument, avoiding the fact that you simply do not know what you are actually talking about. You have no definition of "kind", and your argument is based not on facts but on words and phrases which have no practical meaning, so you can make them mean whatever you want. You have already been utterly refuted.