Doubts About Evolution Widespread

[progressive hunter]

Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/sep/05/questioning-evolution-is-neither-science-denial-nor-the-preserve-of-creationists

The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

Doubts about evolution widespread even amongst non-religious people

The doubts are growing even among the non-religious. I am not a Creationist or subscriber to Intelligent Design, but , after reviewing the available evidence, I have doubts of my own.

not sure if youve seen this, but this is a good series that details not just the flaws but the outright lies taught by evolution,,,

be forewarned he is a baptist and gets the holyer than thow attitude, just skip over those,,,he also provides all the footnotes to back it up


The Creation Seminar (Kent Hovind) - YouTube

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Kent hovind

he went to the beach too

 

[gtopa1]

lol. Ask 100 people what Evolution is and 98% will answer something about humans being descended from apes. The theory itself is not well known at all nor that it is related to a series of mechanisms at the biochemical level. It's a great theory but it is being adapted as new data comes to light. The general thrust is probably on the right track but far more important is the study of genetics and how it affects health. Evolution has zero bearing on belief in God.

Greg

 

[james bond]

Speciation is the term you’re befuddled with. And yes, speciation is a part of the evolutionary record.

The creation scientists and I accept speciation as God's way of having so much biodiversity. Thus, you are wrong once more. Where you also go off the track is it causes macroevolution. There is a difference between species and families, especially unrelated families but evolution thinks everyone has a common ancestor..

 

[Hollie]

Speciation is the term you’re befuddled with. And yes, speciation is a part of the evolutionary record.

The creation scientists and I accept speciation as God's way of having so much biodiversity. Thus, you are wrong once more. Where you also go off the track is it causes macroevolution. There is a difference between species and families, especially unrelated families but evolution thinks everyone has a common ancestor..

Well gee whiz. It’s hard to imagine how creation science charlatans could get through the day without you agreeing. You should understand, however, that speciation shows no signs of supernatural / magical intervention.

But all seriousness aside, Creationism should not be tagged with the label: “Creation Science”. Why? Because "creationists’ hypotheses" do not involve the advancement of "creationism". Shouldn't a branch of science have some theories? You'd think so. But creationism has no theories. A theory is a scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon or event-- an explanation that makes specific predictions, that is substantiated by a wealth of physical evidence and experiments, the results of which must be duplicable by a third party, and must be potentially falsifiable.

For example, nowhere in creationist literature will you find the sentence: "The explanation of the Creation Scenario is..." Nor will you find the phrase: "The Supernatural Designer used the following creative processes and methods in making living organisms..." Nor will you ever hear a Flat Earther /creationist say the following: "We have just unearthed evidence that reveals clues as to the method by which supernatural methods put living organisms on this planet." They offer no explanations of how it was done. They have found no physical evidence which can shed any light on this problem. Very simply, creationism is not a part of science. Why doesn't creationism offer evidence in support of their notions? Why should they? They don't need proof-- their idea of creation is already fully explained in the book of Genesis. They don't offer creationism to convince bible-thumping Christians... those are people who don't need convincing. Creationism is used for an entirely different purpose.

 

[progressive hunter]

Speciation is the term you’re befuddled with. And yes, speciation is a part of the evolutionary record.

The creation scientists and I accept speciation as God's way of having so much biodiversity. Thus, you are wrong once more. Where you also go off the track is it causes macroevolution. There is a difference between species and families, especially unrelated families but evolution thinks everyone has a common ancestor..

Well gee whiz. It’s hard to imagine how creation science charlatans could get through the day without you agreeing. You should understand, however, that speciation shows no signs of supernatural / magical intervention.

But all seriousness aside, Creationism should not be tagged with the label: “Creation Science”. Why? Because "creationists’ hypotheses" do not involve the advancement of "creationism". Shouldn't a branch of science have some theories? You'd think so. But creationism has no theories. A theory is a scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon or event-- an explanation that makes specific predictions, that is substantiated by a wealth of physical evidence and experiments, the results of which must be duplicable by a third party, and must be potentially falsifiable.

For example, nowhere in creationist literature will you find the sentence: "The explanation of the Creation Scenario is..." Nor will you find the phrase: "The Supernatural Designer used the following creative processes and methods in making living organisms..." Nor will you ever hear a Flat Earther /creationist say the following: "We have just unearthed evidence that reveals clues as to the method by which supernatural methods put living organisms on this planet." They offer no explanations of how it was done. They have found no physical evidence which can shed any light on this problem. Very simply, creationism is not a part of science. Why doesn't creationism offer evidence in support of their notions? Why should they? They don't need proof-- their idea of creation is already fully explained in the book of Genesis. They don't offer creationism to convince bible-thumping Christians... those are people who don't need convincing. Creationism is used for an entirely different purpose.

maybe they spent to much time at the beach

 

[Moonglow]

Speciation is the term you’re befuddled with. And yes, speciation is a part of the evolutionary record.

The creation scientists and I accept speciation as God's way of having so much biodiversity. Thus, you are wrong once more. Where you also go off the track is it causes macroevolution. There is a difference between species and families, especially unrelated families but evolution thinks everyone has a common ancestor..

We are all basically composed of the same elements both humans and animals.

 

[progressive hunter]

Speciation is the term you’re befuddled with. And yes, speciation is a part of the evolutionary record.

The creation scientists and I accept speciation as God's way of having so much biodiversity. Thus, you are wrong once more. Where you also go off the track is it causes macroevolution. There is a difference between species and families, especially unrelated families but evolution thinks everyone has a common ancestor..

We are all basically composed of the same elements both humans and animals.

thats almost like the guy that made everything used the same box of parts

and yes I am assuming his gender,,,sue me

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a Fact

God is a Theory

Then why do they call it Theory of Evolution?

The concept that evolution occurs is undeniable and an established fact

Simple creatures existed before complex creatures. That is a fact

How and why evolution occurs is still a theory

God is, at best, a theory
Most likely a fable

When you say "complex creatures," are you referring to birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys? These are the only two examples of macroevolution. Or are you referring to the dogs from canids, cats from pseudaelurus and natural selection? None of former has been observed nor have had success via experiment.

OTOH, we have today's population size of 6.5 billion fits reproduction from 8 human beings Noah and his family after around 4,500 years. We have the universe in a flat shape and expanding without no letup in sight as stated in the Bible or from God's word. We have marine fossils on the top of Mt. Everest which fits the evidence of a global flood.

I’m talking about the evolution of simple creatures
Single cell, to mollusks, to crustacean, to fish, reptiles, birds, mammals

And much, much, much, much later .... man

The only fact that I know of is that these creatures exist. However, the single cell, to mollusks, to crustacean, to fish, reptiles, birds, mammals are all theories because ToE cannot explain nor show how it happened as "descent with modification." This is the part of the basic definition of evolution.

We can see leaves grow and fall from a tree, but we do not see a mountain erode after millions of years. We see how genes play a part in inheritance over generations and how animals produce diversity, but we do not see the so called "descent with modification" over long-time. Long-time is another requirement because then no one can see how it happened or whether it happened, but because of it and descent with modification can be explained that it happened this way. This is what you are saying and believe. It's not fact, only a theory.

An introduction to evolution

Don’t need to explain how it happened
Only remark on the fact that it did

Life on earth became more sophisticated over time

 

[Moonglow]

Speciation is the term you’re befuddled with. And yes, speciation is a part of the evolutionary record.

The creation scientists and I accept speciation as God's way of having so much biodiversity. Thus, you are wrong once more. Where you also go off the track is it causes macroevolution. There is a difference between species and families, especially unrelated families but evolution thinks everyone has a common ancestor..

We are all basically composed of the same elements both humans and animals.

thats almost like the guy that made everything used the same box of parts

and yes I am assuming his gender,,,sue me

I don't have your name and address for my attorney..God is probably a binary...

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Hollie]

Quackery.

 

[harmonica]

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek energizer !!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhahahahah
and people doubt EVOLUTION ???!!!!!!!!
they think is evolution unbelievable???--but think ''energizing'' humans IS believable??!!
hahahahhahahahhaah

The quantum mechanics people believe quantum particles pop in and out of existence and that's how they form universes and cosmic inflation just happened to put Earth in the right place with its sun and moon. As for humans from dust, the atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes we are from stardust. Yet, he can't explain how we started to live. We needed God's breath of life for that. So far, no one has been able to create a living adult human nor bring a dead person back to life.

so you do believe a fully formed human just appeared??

 

[progressive hunter]

Quackery.

at least hes not on the beach

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Designs Of Nature "

* Obvious Anachronism *

If one were asserting that evolution is inconsistent with empirical evidence , why would creation in full form be more probable than an extraterrestrial construction or a consequence of natural probability ?

Every Day Polynomial Fact : Coincidence Of Natural Luck Or Extraterrestrial Construction ?

 

[james bond]

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek energizer !!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhahahahah
and people doubt EVOLUTION ???!!!!!!!!
they think is evolution unbelievable???--but think ''energizing'' humans IS believable??!!
hahahahhahahahhaah

The quantum mechanics people believe quantum particles pop in and out of existence and that's how they form universes and cosmic inflation just happened to put Earth in the right place with its sun and moon. As for humans from dust, the atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes we are from stardust. Yet, he can't explain how we started to live. We needed God's breath of life for that. So far, no one has been able to create a living adult human nor bring a dead person back to life.

so you do believe a fully formed human just appeared??

It's funny that atheist scientists can say universes came into existence from nothing, but a human being made from dust and God's breath of life is difficult to believe. There is evidence for it because we all return to dust. It is better than believing humans came from apes when apes, chimps and monkeys can't even walk bipedal and we do not see any become ape-humans. Their cranial capacity hasn't changed either and we cannot agree on what an ape-human looked like. And in terms of how humans reproduce, you cannot adequately explain how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction. Isn't your atheist science more science-fiction haha?

 

[Hollie]

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek energizer !!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhahahahah
and people doubt EVOLUTION ???!!!!!!!!
they think is evolution unbelievable???--but think ''energizing'' humans IS believable??!!
hahahahhahahahhaah

The quantum mechanics people believe quantum particles pop in and out of existence and that's how they form universes and cosmic inflation just happened to put Earth in the right place with its sun and moon. As for humans from dust, the atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes we are from stardust. Yet, he can't explain how we started to live. We needed God's breath of life for that. So far, no one has been able to create a living adult human nor bring a dead person back to life.

so you do believe a fully formed human just appeared??

It's funny that atheist scientists can say universes came into existence from nothing, but a human being made from dust and God's breath of life is difficult to believe. There is evidence for it because we all return to dust. It is better than believing humans came from apes when apes, chimps and monkeys can't even walk bipedal and we do not see any become ape-humans. Their cranial capacity hasn't changed either and we cannot agree on what an ape-human looked like. And in terms of how humans reproduce, you cannot adequately explain how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction. Isn't your atheist science more science-fiction haha?

It’s religious quacks who say “scientists can say universes came into existence from nothing...”

Scientists don’t say “universes came into existence from nothing...”

 

[rightwinger]

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek energizer !!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhahahahah
and people doubt EVOLUTION ???!!!!!!!!
they think is evolution unbelievable???--but think ''energizing'' humans IS believable??!!
hahahahhahahahhaah

The quantum mechanics people believe quantum particles pop in and out of existence and that's how they form universes and cosmic inflation just happened to put Earth in the right place with its sun and moon. As for humans from dust, the atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes we are from stardust. Yet, he can't explain how we started to live. We needed God's breath of life for that. So far, no one has been able to create a living adult human nor bring a dead person back to life.

so you do believe a fully formed human just appeared??

It's funny that atheist scientists can say universes came into existence from nothing, but a human being made from dust and God's breath of life is difficult to believe. There is evidence for it because we all return to dust. It is better than believing humans came from apes when apes, chimps and monkeys can't even walk bipedal and we do not see any become ape-humans. Their cranial capacity hasn't changed either and we cannot agree on what an ape-human looked like. And in terms of how humans reproduce, you cannot adequately explain how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction. Isn't your atheist science more science-fiction haha?

Chemical reactions are explainable

A magic fairy in the sky is not

 

[rightwinger]

The creation of life is quite easy to explain

 

[harmonica]

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek energizer !!!!!!!!!! hahahahahhahahahah
and people doubt EVOLUTION ???!!!!!!!!
they think is evolution unbelievable???--but think ''energizing'' humans IS believable??!!
hahahahhahahahhaah

The quantum mechanics people believe quantum particles pop in and out of existence and that's how they form universes and cosmic inflation just happened to put Earth in the right place with its sun and moon. As for humans from dust, the atheist scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes we are from stardust. Yet, he can't explain how we started to live. We needed God's breath of life for that. So far, no one has been able to create a living adult human nor bring a dead person back to life.

so you do believe a fully formed human just appeared??

It's funny that atheist scientists can say universes came into existence from nothing, but a human being made from dust and God's breath of life is difficult to believe. There is evidence for it because we all return to dust. It is better than believing humans came from apes when apes, chimps and monkeys can't even walk bipedal and we do not see any become ape-humans. Their cranial capacity hasn't changed either and we cannot agree on what an ape-human looked like. And in terms of how humans reproduce, you cannot adequately explain how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction. Isn't your atheist science more science-fiction haha?

so-- that's a yes....??
a fully formed human just ''appeared''.......?this is your '''theory''?? [ hahaha ]

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Many Wells "

* Keeping Inline Facts *

It’s religious quacks who say “scientists can say universes came into existence from nothing...”
Scientists don’t say “universes came into existence from nothing...”

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE).