I am a Young Earth Creationist, and I do not believe that evolution is science (aka I do not think the theory is scientific proven or even tested well). I know that there have been scientists that would violate the process of the scientific method or would use irrelevant experiments and irrelevant data to make evolution seem probable, so we sometimes can't tell which source is actually giving legitimate data in supporting evolution.

So here is your chance. If you are a believer of the theory of Evolution (Macro-evolution, not micro-evolution), I would like to know, what is your FAVORITE proof for evolution? I would to hear about these evidence, and those who do not believe in the theory of evolution can examine it and see whether these evidences would sway you to the other side, or if you have a rebuttal to that proof.

May the debate begin.

I'm not going to debate on this but I thought it would be interesting to note there is a $250,000 reward for proving evolution here: http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=66

tRIUNE : I love how you quoted Dr. Dino.

Isn't he in jail? http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/dr-dino-still-in-prison/

geeogree : The reward though is offered by Dr. Kent HovindMy mistake, I feel like an idiot, there the same person, (duh).

well, it sounds like he would be using "God's Money" to pay for this proof.... cause he apparently isn't giving any of it to the government.

geeogree : Absolutely, I agree. He does have some interesting points, so to speak, in his argument. That's a trip how he was evading his taxes 'in the name of God.'

This is my favorite proof of evolution just look at how we have evolved over the years They seriously should have given the humans clothes cause now it looks like we are online pedophiles lol.

JigSaw : soooooo how is that proof? It's just an illustration.

play4fun : That is like saying how is the bible proof when it's just text in a book. Proof is what you make it.

The illustration proves that this creature(s) exists, we all know humans and monkeys and cavemen exist. It proves they share similar attributes that have been altered over time. It shows monkeys walk on all fours just like a baby would do in its early years. It doesn't take science to know how something evolves during growth.

We start as sperm and evolve into bones, blood, and flesh. So anything is possible here. To deny that picture as proof means that you deny humans, monkeys, and cavemen from existing. They all exist you just need to put the pieces together like shown in the illustration I provided.

JigSaw : Ummmm....no, an illustration is an illustration. It shows what the concept means and gives us an understanding of what Macro-evolution is...but it does not prove it. It does not even prove humans, monkeys and cavemen exists. You have other pieces of evidence to do that, but not this illustration.

The difference is documentation. If I bring in a photograph of Big Foot, it would give me credibility because it was a testimony picture, or a "I was there" picture. However, if I draw a picture of Big Foot is like, it only illustrates what I think Big Foot is like, but it does not prove that it exists.

(OFF TOPIC)
As for the Bible, it is a documentation of eyewitnesses. It is written not to show the concept, but to document what actually happened so that people can believe. Like the story of Jesus, Luke wrote in the beginning of that Gospel to Theophilus:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

Let's move on since I just want to address your Bible comment.


If you tell a scientist, a historian, or a judge, that proof is all I want it to be, they will just laugh at you. You cannot make up something to support your claim, it has to ACTUALLY be proving your point.

Again, we are talking about Macro-evolution. No one is denying Micro-evolution, which is a change in a minuscule level, not a change from species to species. So let's get back to listing out your favorite evidence of the process of evolution.

I like how one piece of evidence is ignored (concept) yet when you are shown pictures or video you will still deny it exists. Or you flip flop and say oh the bible is real cause the people who wrote it were giving testimonials and throw me a random quote trying to convince me it's proof, yet when you yourself have not witnessed any of what they have, proved they existed, etc...

"If you tell a scientist, a historian, or a judge, that proof is all I want it to be, they will just laugh at you."

There is a major problem with all three of those occupations. None of them are perfect, they are human. Just because someone is labeled a scientist or judge or historian does not make them correct. They can go ahead and laugh because that is what people do when real truth is shoved in their face while they try to deny it.

JigSaw : Think of an biography, written by someone who is close to the person, or someone who had extensive research to write the biography. I don't have to witness what happened to the person when someone close or someone who researched this person extensively. That is enough. In the same way, the Bible is itself written with eye-witness accounts. If you actually want to argue about the Bible again, why don't you go back to this thread and tell me what you think. https://www.vizzed.com/vizzedboard/thread.php?id=12193

Again, your picture is a drawing. I gave the analogy earlier. How bout we put it in a more personal level. What if I say that you are an old man, and made a drawing of an old man of you. That does not prove that you are, especially that I have never seen you before. It's not until you show me a photography of yourself that can prove that you are not an old man. Again, the evidence has to be legitimate that can actually prove your point. That picture does not.

"There is a major problem with all three of those occupations. None of them are perfect, they are human."

You are missing the point. These occupations demand a certain piece of evidence to support their claims or decisions. If the evidence is not valid, a scientist cannot support a theory, a historian cannot show the cause and effect of past civilizations, a judge cannot convict a criminal for being guilty. So for you to say I can make up my own proof to support my claim, I would say that everyone will laugh at you.

Try something else. When you think of evidence, you think of logic, testimonial, experiment, an object, etc, to prove the process of Marco-evolution. Think of the greatest piece of evidence that convinced you to trust evolution.

Dinosaurs...My favorite, also studies of the earth and how it's formed and still changing.
I believe in creationism, just don't understand why people gotta be so hard core about bible vs. science, I enjoy both. And I liked the illustration too, I don't understand how u can believe in micro evolution without believing it can have long term effects with noticably greater changes. Well, except for the people reading the bible so literally, I think they are misinterpreting though. BTW this is closely related to my #1 question to ask god when I see him.

fightorace : wait a sec...are you saying that you believe in Creationism and Evolution? They are mutually exclusive. If you believe that God can create through the process of evolution, that is called theistic evolution, not creationism. Rea Here is the thread discussing whether Evolution and the Bible are compatible: https://www.vizzed.com/vizzedboard/thread.php?id=12596, which there I answered the question about why read that part of the Bible literally. This is not about Bible vs. Science, this is showing how Bible and evolution is incompatible. (I'm a science major, so I agree with you that Bible and science are not against each other)

Can you be more specific about dinosaurs and the study of how the earth is formed.

As for your question about micro-evolution, we cannot make that assumption that because there is change within a species, that there can be a change from one species to another species. Micro-evolution has been documented that it happens, marco-evolution has not.

JigSaw : ...Really? You actually call that DRAWING evidence? That's like saying if I grabbed a pencil and sketched a UFO abducting my brother that it really happened. Evidence is concrete proof, something that could only be found if it were true, not a human's interpretation.

play4fun : look your post proves my point I couldn't even finish it cuz of all the teckinkal schtuff you were throwing at me. Why so serious what I mean is and maybe its not your definition of creationism vs evolution because what I'm saying is and I don't care about rebutall this is how I feel It's not open for discussion that I believe god created all that existed, but at the same feel I can believe in the fact that evolution occured on this planet, and for me *the part not open for disc.* I have no problem believeing in those two things being fact.

MEN.
If that doesn't contain any clue as to our ancestry then I don't know what does.

fightorace : I did not even go into anything technical. Theistic evolution is the normal term. You can look it up and that is what it actually means. And I was only explaining your question about micro-evolution.

I think this is important on two standpoints. As a Christian, it is important because it is discrediting the work of God so it is important to defend that point. It is also focusing on whether if we are interpreting the Bible correctly.

In an academic point of view, we need to make sure that we are not believing these "facts" just because we were told this way in school. I've heard so many people telling me that evolution is a scientific fact, but when asked what makes them believe it, their points break down. I know of a professor who use to teach Philosophy in a university that asked the class a similar question: "What evidence do you think best supports evolution?" and he went on the board and wrote the number 1. No one came up with anything. and then the comment came out, "because that is what I was taught in my biology class." So we need to make sure that we are being deceived about what is fact and what is not. We need to look into the claims and see if the claims are true. Analysis it.

And my claim from the other post is, Bible and evolution cannot both be fact, because claims between the two are against each other.



Annette : Could you elaborate?

I believe in small changes of certain species. But evolutionists usually say that mutations lead to large changes in time and that leads to new species, but I don't know any mutations that are helpful and could lead to change except for the X-Men. Though no one can prove that God is real either. I am Christian but if evolution is ever actually proven, then I will believe it.

I think utimatly this whole discussion breaks down to who is interpreting the bible correctly. And what I mean. Is based on that I'm not to worried about views on evolution vs. creationism because I do believe the bible to be the word of God. Now maybe I have this part wrong but I don't think misinterpretation of this part of the bible was high on Gods list of things he doesn't like.

-------------
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Man I love being a turtle!!! TMNTII