Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[Heathen Hammer]

But scientists and millions of others who think for themselves, examine the evidence, and are not cowered by the endless propaganda from the ToE faithful do not accept this fraud. Your choice of words that "creation is outlawed from poisoning our childrens minds" reminds me of totalitarian thought control that "outlaws" all dissent from the party line.
You state "Evolution..is taught in every major university around the world." I wonder why?

You're not thinking for yourself, you're believing false dogma over fact. Because you want it to be true.

No amount of fervor will change the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The theory is a description of what the evidence is explaining.

 

[rusra02]

Oh, come on! You're not trying to tell us that it's all a conspiracy, surely?

The problem, as I see it, is that satan is trying to divide mankind so as to create doubt about the existence of Almighty God .. it is NOT a simple case of one or the other is true.

It really depends on how we define "Evolution" .. in it's simplest form, it is taught in basic Biology, explaining about genetic inheritance..

Did you get your 'blue eyes' from your pa? :candle:

You are correct that the definition of "Evolution" varies. However, for sake of clarity, my use of the word "evolution" is what most people think when the word is used. To call variation such as eye color "evolution" muddies the water, in my opinion. Evolutionists claim they see evolution occurring constantly, and this statement is misleading.

Is theToE propaganda a conspiracy? It has become an incessant drumbeat into the minds of people from early childhood onward. Alternative evidences often are not permitted even to be discussed. Even in this forum, any who dare challenge this theory are often maligned and ridiculed. Despite it's serious weaknesses, the ToE is defended vehemently by powerful scientific and academic institutions.
I am reminded of Revelation 12:9, that describes Satan as "misleading the entire inhabited earth."

 

[rusra02]

You're not thinking for yourself, you're believing false dogma over fact. Because you want it to be true.

Everything you say here can (and does) apply to believers in evolution.

No amount of fervor will change the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The theory is a description of what the evidence is explaining.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Obviously, I believe evidence for evolution is anything but overwhelming, and the evidence for Creation is overwhelming. Time and again, the "evidence" for the evolution theory has been wrong, misinterpreted, and even fraudulent.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am reminded of Revelation 12:9, that describes Satan as "misleading the entire inhabited earth."

True .. but that might include "you and I", as well :yes:

I think we should be more specific .. if you want to say that you are not an ape, for example, I would agree with you

However, claiming that we have no genetic similarities would NOT be true! Atheists who wish to divert people from the truth of Almighty God's existence, can only do this if you wish to take Scriptures in a completely literal way.

eg. God created Eve from Adam's 'rib' .. did God cut it out with a hacksaw?
No .. how Almighty God created Adam & Eve doesn't alter the fact that He did!

"Almighty God is the Evolver, the Shaper from Nought!"

 

[McBell]

If the ToE isn't up for debate, there wouldn't be serious debate.

what serious debate are you talking about?

I sure have not seen any serious debate against evolution.
I see some debate over how exactly evolution works, but the only debate I have seen against evolution are either strawmen, or people simply ignoring the facts in order to preserve their beliefs.

 

[nnmartin]

I see the Adam and Eve story as allegorical - sure God may well have allowed the scientific conditions to arise on Earth for evolution to occur but that's not to say it is an unguided process as I've said many times before.

The time and space concept in the ordinary sense does not relate to the Garden of Eden - I feel that Adam and Eve before they ate the apple were the perfect archetypes - created by God in the past and also the future at the same time - the example of what mankind nowadays must strive towards - perfect innocence, love , at one with each other , nature and God.

Evolution, DNA and abiogenesis are but mere crumbs of knowledge given to us by the Lord to help understand our world. But in the end evolution is guided by the Divine Power to take us back to a Garden of Eden like paradise.

 

[nnmartin]

.
I see some debate over how exactly evolution works, but the only debate I have seen against evolution are either strawmen, or people simply ignoring the facts in order to preserve their beliefs.

What are the strawmen this time around as I've pretty much just jumped straight to the end of this thread....

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Obviously, I believe evidence for evolution is anything but overwhelming, and the evidence for Creation is overwhelming. Time and again, the "evidence" for the evolution theory has been wrong, misinterpreted, and even fraudulent.

No, it really isn't the same.

Even WITH fraudulent evidence included, it's still overwhelmingly FOR evolution.

You are, simply stated, dead wrong again.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

People like Rus will simply never understand it. It's too dangerous to their world view. He will just go on like this, in defiant ignorance, until he perishes.

 

[Krok]

No, it really isn't the same.

Even WITH fraudulent evidence included, it's still overwhelmingly FOR evolution.

You are, simply stated, dead wrong again.

Yeah, it's funny how they ignore all the fraudulent "evidence" for creation, but ignore all the evidence for evolution.

 

[Krok]

I see the Adam and Eve story as allegorical - sure God may well have allowed the scientific conditions to arise on Earth for evolution to occur but that's not to say it is an unguided process as I've said many times before.

Any empirical evidence for this, or just wishful thinking?

The time and space concept in the ordinary sense does not relate to the Garden of Eden - I feel that Adam and Eve before they ate the apple were the perfect archetypes - created by God in the past and also the future at the same time - the example of what mankind nowadays must strive towards - perfect innocence, love , at one with each other , nature and God.

You're welcome to keep on indulging in wishful thinking, just don't expect other people to believe your wishful thinking. Other people don't "feel" what you do.

Evolution, DNA and abiogenesis are but mere crumbs of knowledge given to us by the Lord to help understand our world. But in the end evolution is guided by the Divine Power to take us back to a Garden of Eden like paradise.

Again, your welcome to your fantacies. Don't think that other people are gullible enough to share in your wishful thinking. Some people actually think the Elephant God did it.

In the end, nnmartin, you need to provide empirical evidence that any god or gods or spooks exist, before you will convince anybody with even a little brain that your chosen god did it. Something which doesn't exist in real life can't do anything.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, one would think the final outing of a fraudulent specimen or something, by the disciplines themselves, would be a cause for a grudging nod to the self-policing of the science community, but, no, it's a desperate appeal to dismantle the entire thing.

Too bad his religion's never accomplished that even once. They simply burn anyone who raises a question to death.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Evolution, DNA and abiogenesis are but mere crumbs of knowledge given to us by the Lord to help understand our world. But in the end evolution is guided by the Divine Power to take us back to a Garden of Eden like paradise.

Absolutely :candle:

 

[johnhanks]

According to this link, after Piltdown man was "discovered", "For the next 40 years, Piltdown Man remained a key member of the human family tree". This demonstrates how readily ToE faithful accept any crumb they can find.

Kate Bartlett is not a scientist but a TV producer with a vested interest in hyping her programmes with the kind of assertion you quote. For all but a few chauvinistic Brits, Piltdown man was never more than a side issue in the field of hominid palaeontology.

As to Tiktaalik, I thought I had responded that controversy surrounds this so-called link. Here is one source but there are many others. Again, you can Google as well as I can.

I assure you I googled most assiduously, and the sites that came up claiming to debunk Tiktaalik were pitiful: that's why I asked you for one you thought convincing.

Your link is no better than the others, I'm afraid: it admits that Tiktaalik shows tetrapod features, then goes on to dismiss them on utterly spurious grounds: the mobile neck because it is shared by species not thought to be tetrapod ancestors (so what?), the pectoral fins because they aren't exactly like Acanthostega's (does the author know what 'transitional' means?), and the whole thing because

this is not an animal that falls plumb in the middle between Panderichthys and Acanthostega

- as though nothing could be transitional if it didn't fall "plumb in the middle".

Once again, we see the sorry spectacle of creationists flailing away with desperate obfuscation in a vain attempt to maintain the fiction that there are no transitional fossils.

 

[camanintx]

Your claim that Evolution is fact as gravity is propaganda, pure and simple.

The definition of biological evolution is any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. When scientists say evolution is a fact, it is because they have actually observed genetic changes being passes down over several generations.

Your definition of evolution is more accurately referred to as "common descent". This is a theory for obvious reasons because no one was around to observe the changes from goo to you by way of the zoo. However the mechanisms upon which common descent is based have been observed and are considered fact.

You state "Evolution..is taught in every major university around the world." I wonder why? Who runs these universities? Any efforts to teach anything but evolution will certainly be met by intense and bitter opposition by ToE adherents.

Since a majority of those universities are run by people who believe in God, the idea that they are suppressing opposing ideas that God did it is simply laughable.

Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" exposed the bullying and career damage done to any honest professor or scientist who dares question the ToE party line.

The only career damage demonstrated in the movie "Expelled" is the kind that happens when people fail to do the job they were hired to do.

 

[riley2112]

Any empirical evidence for this, or just wishful thinking?
You're welcome to keep on indulging in wishful thinking, just don't expect other people to believe your wishful thinking. Other people don't "feel" what you do. Again, your welcome to your fantacies. Don't think that other people are gullible enough to share in your wishful thinking. Some people actually think the Elephant God did it.

In the end, nnmartin, you need to provide empirical evidence that any god or gods or spooks exist, before you will convince anybody with even a little brain that your chosen god did it. Something which doesn't exist in real life can't do anything.

something which does not exist in real life can't do anything? Are you just throwing that out to and expecting everyone to believe it or is this also just wishful thinking. What evidence do you have to support that.:no: Because something that did not exist in real life made it possible for us to be here. My evidence? I am here.:yes:
Just saying. If you expect evidence then at least show some when you disagree.

 

[Krok]

A long word sald again. I'll start with the first one.

something which does not exist in real life can't do anything?

Yes. It seems like you're starting to get it. Something that does not exist in real life, can't do anything, because it doesn't exist. Do you have any empirical evidence to the contrary?

 

[riley2112]

A long word sald again. I'll start with the first one.
Yes. It seems like you're staring to get it. Something that does not exist in real life, can't do anything, because it doesn't exist.Do you have any empirical evidence to the contrary?

The dictionary definition of empirical evidence is evidence relating to or based on experience or observation. Do you agree with the definition?
The universe started (Big Bang, Creation, whatever you believe,) So at one time there was nothing, Do you agree with this so far. If you do then something which existed in something other than real life did something. Again, my evidence is, we are here. The only way I can see this to be wrong would be if your definition of real life if different than mine. That being possible , how would you define real life? Also I would like to hit you with the same question that you are asking.Do you have any empirical evidence to the contrary?

 

[riley2112]

Or have I just missed a post somewhere. That to may be possible.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually the Big Bang does not propose that before the Big Bang there was nothing. Instead it says that there was an infinitely dense quantum "something" that expanded into the universe.

wa:do