Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2126620)

...

Theories are not proven. They are either accepted or not.

Originally Posted by Gpsma (Post 2126683)

Amazing that people still believe in some god...a sky daddy..that controls everything.

Originally Posted by Blueblaze (Post 2126636)

I am amazed that a human being can watch a virus evolve from deadly to harmless in a mere three years, and still claim that there is no proof for the "theory" of evolution.

And I am amazed that a human being can understand that the same virus is comprised of the same chains of the same proteins found in a human cell nucleus, and yet, insist that we have no common ancestor with that virus -- because when Darwin first noticed evolution and described it in 1859, he didn't include all the answers to every question about evolution in his book.

And I am astounded that the same person will then point to his Holy Book, which was written 3,000 years before the discovery of DNA, and tell you that evolution cannot possibly be true because it is not mentioned in his 3,000-year-old Holy Book. He'll then go on to tell you that there has not been enough time for evolution to work because the Universe is only 6,000 years old. He knows this because he added up the ages of all the people mentioned in his Holy Book, and that's the number he got.

Simply astounding!

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe (Post 2126691)

You are incorrect, I believe. When a theory is "proven," it becomes a scientific LAW. Like the theory of gravity became the law of gravity. Same with physics and others.

Originally Posted by Rich Iwaszko (Post 2126616)

hi,
the theory of evolution has never been proven. There is no missing link. Yet we teach it in schools. Why? In Darwins book, he left a bail out to his theory. It was the one thing he could not answer and he admitted it would be proof his conclusions were incorrect. Pre Cambrian fossils showed no signs of evolution to explain the over abundance of many animals in fossils in the Cambrian period. Animals just showed up out of nowhere in the Cambrian period. Why do we continue to believe this incorrect theory as well as aliens, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. Are we all that dumb or are we just looking for entertainment. Regardless, Darwins theory should not be taught in schools as it is not fact. Just tell them we don't know. We have enough fiction in the world today. Science is fact not fictional theories.

Originally Posted by Whitley (Post 2126637)

It is not even "A" missing link. There would be hundreds of links, transitional fossils, to fill in the evolution gap, and thousands of samples of each link. We have never come up with one. Some say there exists missing link(s) because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. That is the point. We have fossil records of of pre anthropoidal yet nothing from then to modern man. We made a jump yet there is no fossil record to fill in the gap.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 2126695)

Yes, viruses can evolve. And species can evolve but there has never been any absolute proof of one species evolving into another.

Originally Posted by blueblaze (Post 2126728)

don't be silly. There are thousands of examples of one species evolving into another one. We have fossils and we have dna studies. In fact, we can trace mitochondrial dna back to "lucy", an ape that walked upright in africa 3 million years ago, proving that we share a common ancestor. Not only that, 98% of human dna is identical to chimpanzee dna.

Just because you aren't aware of a thing does not mean that it does not exist.

Originally Posted by thirdoffive (Post 2126665)

we do.

Maybe even three or four...

Originally Posted by decadeofdave (Post 2126711)

i feel like i walked into a mensa meeting.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive (Post 2126623)

So is the choice between evolution and creation? Did things "just happen" and then bumbled along haphazardly from there, resulting in the world we have today? Sorry, I don't buy it. The reason is as follows.

"Most people know about DNA (aka deoxyribonucleic acid) as the molecule that holds the information, i.e. the genetic codes, within our bodies. What some people don’t realise is that this equates to a seriously large amount of information being stored within a single biomolecule. DNA molecules can store up to 215 petabytes, or 215 million gigabytes, of data in a single doubled stranded molecule, making it one of the highest storage density mediums in the world. Simply put, the information storage devices within our bodies are much more capable than we can currently create, so there has been a lot of focus in trying to harness the power and data storage capabilities of DNA for our own man-made data storage systems." (Electro pages: storing information and data with DNA). ONE petabyte contains 500 billion pages of standard printed text. Multiply that by 215... I am not sure I can comprehend a number that large. That number is contained in a "database" if you can call it that, that exists on a submicroscopic level. Asking somebody to believe that that "just happened" is beyond ludicrous. The watch proves the existence of the watchmaker

That said, I'm not convinced that the fossil record is solid proof of anything. So few living things become fossils; conditions have to be just right for fossilization to happen. I recall hearing something recently that may be one in 100,000 animals or plants become fossils, and even with the ones that do become fossils, there is no guarantee that they will be found, or that they will not be destroyed in some natural event such as a flood, volcano, or whatever. To me, expecting the fossil record to be a reliable chronology of development is like depending on a calendar with maybe five numbers on it to be the reliable chronology of the number of days in a decade.

But we can use reasoning. We know, or think we know, two things. Fossils exist, and the earth changes. Oftentimes those changes in the earth are widespread and drastic. Assuming the existence of a creator God, we can also assume intelligence and foreknowledge on the part of that God. If God created the physical environment to change, as it does, then is it not reasonable to assume that God also provided the life he created to adapt according to the changes of the physical environment? Again, assuming the existence of that God, the answer cannot be no. The proof is that we are here.

I have never seen evolution versus creation as an either/or thing. In my mind they exist together working perfectly in tandem. They always have.

Originally Posted by Gpsma (Post 2126683)

Amazing that people still believe in some god...a sky daddy..that controls everything.