1. Religion & Spirituality

Discuss in my forum

Austin Cline

Forum Discussion: Proving Evolution is True

By February 27, 2013

Follow me on:

A popular creationist claim is that scientists cannot "prove" the truth of evolution. In a sense, they are right -- but only insofar as scientists cannot "prove" the truth of any scientific theory. Somehow, though, this doesn't stop creationists from accepting most to all of the rest of science. Particularly telling is how creationists will not apply the standards they demand of evolution to the science of criminal forensics or just to criminal justice. This is especially interesting given how common it is for creationists to be staunch "law & order" believers.

A forum member writes:

Creationist: You can't prove evolution is true, 100%.

Me: But evolution has been proved true beyond a reasonable doubt. It's like in court, to prove a defendant is guilty, the jury needs to decide that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is true.

Creationist: A ha! But innocent people are sent to jail all the time!

Me: Okay, but imagine a different court. In this one, a juror has to first pass years of tests to prove that he knows about the law and the case at hand. Then, he and a million others who also passed the test hear case after case after case. A million different defenses are launched against the truth of the claim. Every single of the million jurors after every single of the million cases concluded that there was no reasonable doubt that the claim was true. A single juror, in one case, could say "Not true" and the defendant would go free. But that never happened, and still never happens to this day. Because this defendant gets a million trials every day. And still, not one "Not true" has been found.


That's the case that evolution is true.

[Creationist: Yeah but someday we'll find a Not true, but for you it'll probably be too late. Enjoy hell loser.]

[Me: :-\ ]

If creationists were credible, serious, and reasonable, then they would apply their standards broadly and consistently. They would demand from all of science the same things they demand of evolution. They would demand the same levels of proof from criminal forensics and criminal justice (where people's liberty and lives are at stake) as they demand from evolution. The fact that they don't says a lot about their true nature and motivations. Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.

Comments
June 20, 2007 at 9:24 am
(1) tracieh says:

There are many interesting aspects to what happens in the dialogues between creationists and those who, until a better theory is found, accept evolution.

The basic premise of evolution is that genetic variation occurs in organisms that reproduce, and that this variation can result in observable physical changes in subsequent populations.

The further theory states that evolution accounts for all known genetic variation on the planet.

Darwin was most famously inspired by variations he saw during his travels, but he was also inspired by domestic breeding. And this is no wonder, since domestic breeding is nothing if not proof of the premise of evolution: You can physically change a population through genetically directed breeding (directing the genetic data that passes to subsequent generations). The fact that we can do it in controlled environments proves that it can be done. Populations can evolve—or at the very least can be _made_ to evolve. Our domestic breeding programs prove it. And there is no reason I’m aware of to consider that what can be accomplished by ancients in their grazing fields, can’t be accomplished in nature. In fact, it was likely their own observations regarding the effects of breeding that led them to recognize that perhaps they could create something different—more domestic—from wild stock. If we breed docile animals, the offspring are more docile. If we breed large animals, the offspring are larger. Anyone can observe this as a general rule, not just in domestic animals, but in people and their offspring as well. It’s not something Darwin just dreamed up.

The question, though, becomes: Does evolution account for all known genetic variation on the planet?

And here is where people can consider or reject the evidence as they choose and decide for themselves what they want to believe. But the reality is this:

The evolutionist has a mechanism (evolution) that is proven to cause physical change in reproducing populations. He is merely extrapolating that perhaps it might be the cause of all physical change in all reproducing populations.

The creationist has a book saying god did it; and there is no experiment or ongoing program that has ever come even remotely close to showing that (1) gods exist or (2) that gods are a catalyst for physical changes in reproducing populations.

Saying X causes Y, therefore maybe X causes all Y is INFINTELY more reasonable (although it could—admittedly—one day prove incorrect) than saying A causes Y—even though I can’t even be sure there is an A to begin with.

June 20, 2007 at 9:18 pm
(2) Ron says:

Here’s what the christians that I know always do when dicussing evolution. They will never say evolution is not true. They will always say, I do not “believe” it is true!

June 21, 2007 at 10:03 am
(3) tracieh says:

What’s funny is that when you ask them what _their_ explanation is–they’ll look at you, straight-faced, and tell you it was all a trick done with some mud and magic. THAT they can “believe,” but changes in organisms over time due to selective breeding (even though it’s an observable mechanism)–that they can’t “believe”?

It seems to me that if you’ll believe the mud and magic concept for how all the species came to exist, you shouldn’t be hard-pressed to believe _anything_ anyone presents you with.

June 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
(4) Ron says:

Christian apologetics = Lyin’ for the Lord.

June 26, 2007 at 1:52 pm
(5) John says:

Evolution evolves, just like everything else. Plants evolve, animals evolve, even religions evolve.

June 26, 2007 at 8:15 pm
(6) John Hanks says:

Proof exists only in the world of mathematics. The belief in evolution comes from interpreting overwhelming evidence.

June 26, 2007 at 8:51 pm
(7) John Huey says:

What I can not figure out is: Are Creationists truly delusional or are they faking it? In other words, just how deep is their self deception?

June 27, 2007 at 9:08 pm
(8) Jeffrey Quillinan says:

Evolution rules, science proves, and creationism fools!

November 15, 2007 at 3:32 pm
(9) Daniela Scoggins says:

Intelligent Design isnt a strike against science itself. It is stating the inductive interpretations that are printed in “science” textbooks cannot be disproven by the scientific method. These questions which cannot be answered: If the initial chemicals which where present before the evolution of living beings (water vapor, CO2, and N2) would have produced cyanide and formaldehyde, then how did life ever even begin (PROBLEM!) If the probability that evolution could have worked is 10 to the 2 billionth, and Dr. Emile Borel, the inventor of the laws of probability, said that anything after 10 to the 50th power must be considered impossible even with infinite time, then how can evolution be theoretically possible in 6 billion years (PROBLEM!) If we have less chromosomes than apes, and the convergence of chromosomes causes mental retardation, and this convergence is theoretically supposed to have created more intelligent beings, then how did we descend from apes, according to Robertsonian translocations (PROBLEM!) come on guys- evolution is a joke only because it is unscientific, not because science is itself a problem.

November 20, 2007 at 12:32 pm
(10) Sam Bailey says:

Cases that are proven in court using science are those that use actual scientific laws, not theories. Since evolution is not a scientific law, and has not been proven by science, it is still a theory and still holds the possibility of being false. Given that the chances of one enzyme ending up in the right place in a cell is 1 in 10 to the 30013 power, and there are hundreds of enzymes in a cell, not to mention lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins, it is a mathematical impossibility for a cell to develop by accident, and even if it were possible, it would take more time than what scientist say the earth has existed, not to mention, the earth would have to cool down enough for life to survive, unless the first life was invulnerable, in which case it would still exist.

November 20, 2007 at 12:46 pm
(11) Austin Cline says:

Cases that are proven in court using science are those that use actual scientific laws, not theories.

The concept of “scientific law” is a remnant of the 19th century and not actively used any more except due to inerita.

Since evolution is not a scientific law, and has not been proven by science, it is still a theory and still holds the possibility of being false.

The same is true of atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and plate tectonics.

Given that the chances of one enzyme ending up in the right place in a cell is 1 in 10 to the 30013 power, and there are hundreds of enzymes in a cell, not to mention lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins, it is a mathematical impossibility for a cell to develop by accident…

Except that nature doesn’t work by “accident,” it works in regular and predictable ways.

…even if it were possible, it would take more time than what scientist say the earth has existed, not to mention, the earth would have to cool down enough for life to survive, unless the first life was invulnerable, in which case it would still exist.

Feel free to use probability and statistics to prove this assertion.

November 20, 2007 at 1:48 pm
(12) Todd says:

“chances of one enzyme ending up in the right place in a cell is 1 in 10 to the 30013 power”

Who said “by accident”? That’s not what evolution says. Enzymes go where they belong because of chemistry. Just as two oxygen atoms snap together to form O2.

November 20, 2007 at 4:05 pm
(13) addicted says:

If the probability that evolution could have worked is 10 to the 2 billionth, and Dr. Emile Borel, the inventor of the laws of probability, said that anything after 10 to the 50th power must be considered impossible even with infinite time

That is silly. If evolution is indeed the mechanism by which nature works, if there were 10 to the 2 billionth (any reference?) possibilities, after say an x number of years, then at least 1 of those 10 to the 2 billionth possibilities WOULD HAVE OCCURRED! That is simple common sense. If instead of humans being the top of the heap, as it is now, whales were, then the whales would have posed the same question, but it would not have invalidated evolution.

November 20, 2007 at 9:48 pm
(14) Zack says:

These questions which cannot be answered… — Daniela Scoggins

Have you, in fact, investigated these questions? Are you really quite sure that no answers exist for them?

Have you read any of the works of “Dr. Emile Borel, the inventor of the laws of probability”?

Are you versed in the details of “Robertsonian translocations”? Are you eager to expand on your views regarding nonhomologous acrocentric chromosomes?

November 20, 2007 at 9:55 pm
(15) Zack says:

it is a mathematical impossibility for a cell to develop by accident… — Sam Bailey

Know a lot about mathematical proofs, hmmm? Please share your proof for this assertion.

Also, as others here have already noted, only creationist would ever imagine that natural selection says cells arise by accident. Haven’t you ever wondered about that word “selection” in “natural selection”?

November 23, 2007 at 12:15 pm
(16) RayB says:

The Theory of Evolution is the only theory available that explains creation and the present state of the world as evolved from natural law.

Religionists make up fairy tales like intelligent design and would like you to ligitimize the absurd notion that Intelligent Design is a Theory rather than religious dogma.

Can science and religion ever be compatible? The answer is obviously no.
But religion wants it to be to gain even an ounce of credibility. However,
every new fact uncovered in the history of the world has ripped the mask of authority from religion.

“All religions have two basic enemies;
history and knowledge”

November 23, 2007 at 3:54 pm
(17) Michel Ney says:

All science is theory and you will never get a scientist to say “this is absolute truth, or this is the final answer.

November 23, 2007 at 4:12 pm
(18) John Hanks says:

A law is a mummified theory.

November 24, 2007 at 11:37 am
(19) brian asalone says:

This is an interesting post because it illustrates the sophistry that characterizes the teachings of the religious right. The statistics quoted are nonsense since we don’t actually know what the odds involving life beginnings. Secondly a bit of reading of some non religious tract ( especially Dawkins)would show how evolution comes about in very small inevitable steps. Intelligent design uses the argument of the complexity of the eye to discount all evolution. (see “Letting go of God” for the counterpoint). However, ID is not really an argument about a specific scientific theory. It is a way of trying to hold the religious “absolute knowledge” against what they perceive as scientific “absolute knowledge”. They miss the critical point that science continually questions itself. They miss the point that ANY theory, no matter how successful can be challenged with contrary empiric evidence (something the religionists would never allow regarding the bible). The ID concept has the logic flaw “argument from authority” and they incorrectly see science the same way.
This (IMHO) is the CRITICAL flaw of any religion, it teaches you not to think and even more frightening, to unthinkingly obey an arbitrary authority.

November 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm
(20) DamnRight says:

Evolution is the scariest theory for any christian…

… they fear they could not justify their faith in the god of the bible if they accepted the theory of evolution…

… they also believe that questioning and pointing out perceived flaws in the theory undermines atheism…

… never quite got that leap…

… they forget that the questioning and testing of beliefs is what often leads to atheism…

… for me, the questioning of my faith was a result of these many silly christian arguments…

… and now, the more I am faced with these arguments, the more convinced I am that their faith is a bunch of hooey, supported by nothing…

December 1, 2007 at 11:40 am
(21) Zack says:

Daniela Scoggins and Sam Bailey appear to have exhausted their fund of knowledge on the topic of evolution.

December 16, 2007 at 8:57 pm
(22) Som Sharma says:

The complexity of life forms tends to make us believe that it could not have come about by itself and must have been crafted by someone with a plan in mind. A snowflake has a very symmetrical design and pattern. If you showed the drawing of a snowflake to someone who did not know what it was, that person probably would not believe that it was not drawn intentionally but was just a random creation. A few years ago I saw a complex photo while reading an article in a magazine. Again, it was a complicated but symmetrical design. Upon reading the text, it transpired that it was only a photo of a milk drop falling on a flat surface, magnified a hundred times!

There are many forces of nature, which have not been fully understood by us. Whenever we have not understood any natural process, we have been quick to assign its origin to a supernatural power. Fire, thunder, lightning, etc were given the status of gods in most ancient cultures. These are facile explanations that require no deep research. It would be more prudent to admit that we don’t understand a phenomenon and leave it that, rather than attribute it to a superpower of one’s imagination. The latter option only spreads and encourages false knowledge and belief.

June 30, 2008 at 3:03 am
(23) James says:

Som Sharma – Agreed, throughout history humans have been quick to state that something that they cannot understand must have been created by some higher being.

September 11, 2008 at 9:04 am
(24) bryce says:

holy crap evolutionists.. this is the gayest made up arguement i have ever seen. there are many videos of arguements of the creationist kicking ***. so suck it.

September 16, 2008 at 3:39 pm
(25) Todd says:

OMG LOL d00d U R S0 the ghey!

*groan*

How can someone so stupid enough to formulate that sentence smart enough to navigate the internet?

September 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm
(26) MrMarkAZ says:
September 16, 2008 at 8:08 pm
(27) Zack says:

holy crap evolutionists.. this is the gayest made up arguement i have ever seen. there are many videos of arguements of the creationist kicking ***. so suck it. — bryce on September 11, 2008 at 9:04 am

Posted exactly seven years and one minute after the south tower of the World Trade Center was struck by the second highjacked airliner.

Coincidence? Maybe — or maybe not!

September 17, 2008 at 12:33 am
(28) Tom Edgar says:

Zack when you actually learn how to spell, cease using aggressive profanities, address the debate, and what is more understand the subject. Fee free to return.

September 17, 2008 at 12:34 am
(29) Tom Edgar says:

Zack when you actually learn how to spell, cease using aggressive profanities, address the debate, and what is more, understand the subject. Feel free to return.

September 17, 2008 at 4:39 am
(30) Mark Barratt says:

Hey Tom, Leave Zack Alone! Leave him alone! I’m serious! He’s a human!

I think you meant to have a go at Bryce, Zack was just quoting him.

Regarding evolution; I have a very good friend who is a right-wing born-again fundamentalist evangelical Christian. He firmly believes that
THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO LIVE
, Conservative Evangelical Protestant Christianity OR BURNING IN HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG!!!!!

However, he does accept evolution and appears to think that acceptance of evolution does not threaten Christianity.

Fair enough, I asked him how he reconciles the idea of a loving omnipotent and omniscient god with the following facts:

1. The fact that life as we know it developed over millions of years of bloodsport helped along by mass extinctions.

2. The fact that the vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct.

3. The fact that the majority of lives including those of most humans have been nasty, brutish and short, and that this is actually required for evolution to occur.

4. The facts that there appears to have been no guarantee that anything like humanity would ever have emerged and that there is no guarantee that we won’t become extinct.

Unbelievably, he actually made the Bette Midler gambit: God is watching us from a distance! “You see, what’s important to God is that life exists at all!”

This COMPLETELY contradicts the basic idea of Christianity; That there is a God who cares about the intimate details of the lives of every individual human who he monitors and assesses. This is where theistic evolution leads you: In order to accept evolution you must deny the very foundation of Christianity and yet somehow force yourself to remain a Christian anyway. It can’t be fun.

Give me atheism any day.

September 18, 2008 at 3:48 am
(31) Tom Edgar says:

My apologies Mark/Zack. Not something I have ever done before on this site.

Just read the bold type and jumped in feet first

I would add Bryce. Yes there are many such idiotic items. All made by those who can’t see further than the porch light when there are Millions of Millions of Galaxies for your omnipotent manufacturer to make its presence felt on the millions of planets contained in each Galaxy. Try looking up and ask just How? Just How did it make all this and then couldn’t make a pencil and paper for poor old Abraham to record the Commandments.???

tomedgar@halenet.com.au

October 15, 2008 at 9:25 pm
(32) Jess says:

ummm…Moses wrote the 10 Commandments not Abraham…

April 29, 2009 at 1:21 pm
(33) suzieQ says:

people who complain that the theory of evolution can’t be proven and that the evidence used is invalid fail to mention that their theory can’t be proven either or that the evidence they use to prove the theory wrong is often invalid

March 28, 2010 at 10:58 pm
(34) Jehovah's Witness says:

Charles Darwin was racist, look it up. The whole reason he made up Evolution was to prove that White’s were superior to Black’s. His entire family believed in Eugenics, they believed that if they inter breeded inside their family for a few generations, they would produce perfect people, or Aryans. Later on in WW2, Hitler believed what most people tried to cover up about Darwin, Hitler tried to make Aryans breed together. Most scientists try to cover up this discusting truth about Darwin. Darwin was not a scientist, he was a pretender who was racist. Science is based on fact, not theory. That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution. Yet each year thousands of scientists lose their job because they are not allowed to believe that science and Creatonism can come together. In this world, it is Obvious that Science and Cretionism come together, studies show that the earth is surprisngly younger than it seems. Perhaps only a few thousand years old, and the bible states that the earth is only a few thousand years old. We all know that God’s hand doesnt just reach out of the sky. But i can tell you this, life is a mystery, full of love and sadness, evil, and good. You cannot slap a sticker on love and say that its what always happens when a species wants to reproduce. All of you scientists out there, we Jehovah’s Witness’es, we are not wierdos we see the world from a different view, a view that fufills us. We are not a cult, we are not strict. I know you all want to know what happens after life, can it really be that after life you are gone forever? That you are just part of the endless cycle of advancing your species? In the end your life wont matter about money, or achievements you made. But what kindness you brought to the world, how you loved, and how you treated others. Obey the 10 commandments, they are universal law, if the Bible is a book made by the government to control people, then it is a pretty damn well written book for a bunch of early humans. It is full of wonderful advise, it is not a cult.

Love one another; just as I have loved you . . . By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:34, 35)

Put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct,” and “put on the new personality.”—Ephesians 4:22-3

And also, Which came first, the Chicken or the egg?

The Chicken!

March 29, 2010 at 6:03 am
(35) Austin Cline says:

Charles Darwin was racist, look it up.

Actually, his racist attitudes were far more mild than the norm at his time.

The whole reason he made up Evolution was to prove that White’s were superior to Black’s.

Prove it.

Hitler believed what most people tried to cover up about Darwin,

And of course we should believe Hitler?

Most scientists try to cover up this discusting truth about Darwin.

Cite your evidence.

Darwin was not a scientist, he was a pretender who was racist.

Define “scientist”.

Science is based on fact, not theory. That is why it is called the Theory of Evolution.

Do you know what a “scientific theory” is? No, of course you don’t, and with this one simple error you reveal that you are far too ignorant of the basics to have an informed opinion on anything having to do with science.

Yet each year thousands of scientists lose their job because they are not allowed to believe that science and Creatonism can come together.

Thousands? Prove it.

In this world, it is Obvious that Science and Cretionism come together, studies show that the earth is surprisngly younger than it seems.

Cite your scientific studies.

We all know that God’s hand doesnt just reach out of the sky.

I don’t know that.

But i can tell you this, life is a mystery, full of love and sadness, evil, and good.

And ignorance.

All of you scientists out there, we Jehovah’s Witness’es, we are not wierdos we see the world from a different view, a view that fufills us.

A view that eschews facts, science, reason, and truth.

We are not a cult, we are not strict.

You’re just completely ignorant of reality.

I know you all want to know what happens after life,

I already know: nothing.

can it really be that after life you are gone forever?

No.

Obey the 10 commandments, they are universal law,

Prove it.

if the Bible is a book made by the government to control people, then it is a pretty damn well written book for a bunch of early humans.

No, it’s not really.

April 2, 2010 at 2:27 pm
(36) Todd says:

“White’s were superior to Black’s”

White’s what? Black’s what? Or did you mean “white is were superior to black is”?

April 2, 2010 at 4:24 pm
(37) Lisa says:

Ok. Here we go again. Let me give you a short science lesson.

1. A scientific theory does not mean the same thing as the word “theory” does in every day life. A scientific theory is the best explanation we have to explain known events.

2. Theories are not “proven” or “disproven.” They are either supported or not supported by the evidence.

3. Theories do not “graduate” to laws. A law is a mathematical intereptation of a natural phenomenon, like F=ma.

If creatationists were more scientifically literate, someone might actually listen to them.

April 2, 2010 at 5:26 pm
(38) Lisa says:

Ok. I’ve given this basic science lesson before in this forum, but I guess I have to do it again.

1. A scientific theory is different from the way you use the word “theory” in every day life. A scientific theory is the best possible explanation science has for a set of observations.

2. Theories are not “proven” or “disproven.” They are either supported or not supported by evidence.

3. Theories do not “graduate” to laws. A law is a mathematical interpretation of a natural phenomenon, such as F=ma.

With that said, creationists might be taken more seriously if they had a basic level of scientific literacy.

And another point that many are failing to realize is the failure to differentiate between natural selection and biogenesis. Darwin made no claims on the origin of the universe, just evolution of species.

April 3, 2010 at 1:43 am
(39) Zack says:

…and there are hundreds of enzymes in a cell, not to mention lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins — Sam Bailey on 1November 20, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I guess by this point we can assume that Sam’s never coming back. Too bad — if he had, I could have let him know that most enzymes are proteins.

April 3, 2010 at 1:55 am
(40) Zack says:

And also, Which came first, the Chicken or the egg?

The Chicken!

Jehovah’s Witness on March 28, 2010 at 10:58 pm

I have heard other fundies say this same thing, quite in earnest. Apparently they now feel that the “egg-first” response smacks of Darwin.

How sad, that it has come to this — they now feel obliged to stake out a dogmatic position even on playful conundrums.

December 8, 2010 at 5:04 pm
(41) rockstar says:

Can someone give me a link or brief explanation to this question I was asked in another forum? Much appreciated.

“Riddle me this: Evolution is a theory which states that inherited traits of organisms change through successive generations. How this explains the leap from one species to the next I do not know. It is interesting to note that natural selection dictates a constant forward movement of traits as a species evolves. However, looking at the evolutionary tree I see no such dying out of one species which gives way to the evolved species. On the contrary, we see chimpanzees and humans living side by side which is self-evident. So, this split of one species into multiples shown in the evolutionary tree is a bit of dark magic, is it not?”

December 8, 2010 at 6:47 pm
(42) Austin Cline says:

Can someone give me a link or brief explanation to this question I was asked in another forum? Much appreciated.

What books on evolution have you read?

“Riddle me this: Evolution is a theory which states that inherited traits of organisms change through successive generations. How this explains the leap from one species to the next I do not know.

After enough changes are there, the individual can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring with an individual with the original set of DNA. That’s a new species.

It is interesting to note that natural selection dictates a constant forward movement of traits as a species evolves.

No.

However, looking at the evolutionary tree I see no such dying out of one species which gives way to the evolved species.

All species are evolved species.

On the contrary, we see chimpanzees and humans living side by side which is self-evident.

Humans didn’t evolve from chimpanzees.

So, this split of one species into multiples shown in the evolutionary tree is a bit of dark magic, is it not?”

No, not.

I asked my first question because none of your questions exhibit the slightest familiarity with even the most basic facts of evolutionary theory.

January 16, 2012 at 3:16 pm
(43) Trademac says:

I don’t get what is so hard to get. Humans have always been Humans, just evolved into what we are today. This doesn’t prove there is or isn’t a “God”. Anyone that says there is proof that Human’s came from Apes is kidding themselves because there IS NOT any fact that proves this. The real truth is nobody REALLY knows or this wouldn’t be a talking point (Or arguing point)

July 11, 2012 at 9:44 pm
(44) demon dave says:

if one chimpanzee aquires one mutation that sends that sucessive genetic line in a new direction…. how would that alone destroy all other chimpanzees… so yes, of course,man and chimp can currently co-exist

March 5, 2013 at 4:24 pm
(45) WINDINWATERS says:

Disappointed in the commentary from this forum, creationists could have posed better arguments and likewise no evidence of evolution has been stated to prove evolution either. What is with your comments of “NO” Austin, this is no way to reconcile disagreements, you could at least give a brief description of your reasoning’s. Calling creationist commentators ignorant may seem justified but it is really just crass. Humans don’t appear to be able to dispel religion they have just converted from Jesus to Darwin. I have a question I would like answered and I do not wish for the question to be answered by any statements about what the opposing faction thinks, I would just like an answer to the question.
What animal was a whale when it lived on land ?

March 6, 2013 at 6:32 pm
(46) Austin Cline says:

Disappointed in the commentary from this forum, creationists could have posed better arguments

Like what?

and likewise no evidence of evolution has been stated to prove evolution either.

All the evidence that exists points to evolution. Can you cite any that points anywhere else?

What is with your comments of “NO” Austin,

I’m pointing out a lie.

this is no way to reconcile disagreements, you could at least give a brief description of your reasoning’s.

You mean, like the person making the false statement did?

Calling creationist commentators ignorant may seem justified but it is really just crass.

When it’s accurate, it should be said.

Humans don’t appear to be able to dispel religion they have just converted from Jesus to Darwin.

So, you’re claiming that Darwin is or started a religion. Prove it.

March 16, 2013 at 12:29 am
(47) Michael Rudas says:

Let’s start with the bottom line: Evolution is a proven fact, proven by both experiments with planaria (flatworms) and also can be directly inferred from the evidence (the butterflies of Bali and the finches of Galapagos are examples).

The THEORY of evolution refers to how we got here, not where we are—but the science is undeniable. In a similar fashion, one can talk about the theories of gravity and electricity; both exist, obviously, but their explanations are being constantly refined—so it is with evolution.

August 17, 2013 at 10:31 am
(48) Jeanne says:

I have a simple solution to the evolution vs. creation issue. I won’t call it a “controversy” because the only controversy is the one in the minds of creationists. The solution is: Publish their evidence in a reputable scientific journal along with their experiments, testing methods, test results, etc. for review by the scientific community. If their evidence, tests, etc. prove conclusive, they might have a case for “scientific creationism”. Any one want to bet that this never happens?

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.