Science Disproves Evolution

[Delta9 UK]

Faith is an alien concept to me and I agree 100% that all creationists are guilty of attempting to convince us of the "if you have faith" BS.

Supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature and therefore un-natural , I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I don't believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature.

I couldn't agree more.

The burden of proof is actually resting with the creationists on this one. Evolution has oodles of evidence from many different disciplines (biochemistry, paleoentomology, geology to name a few) but the Creationism / ID theory is even older than Darwin's theory of evolution and has nothing but its own lack of worth to blame for its failure.

[andruejaysin]

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the little dog in those taco bell commercials. You do realize that's a wolf, right?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the little dog in those taco bell commercials. You do realize that's a wolf, right?

Wolf >>evo>lves>> Chihuahua ?? ew... poor wolves!!!

[PlainJane]

click me:

[attachment=o202501]

just a little something. (intended to make you smile, in case, sadly, I need to clarify)

[Pahu78]

Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. â??The existence of functionless â??vestigial organsâ?? was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that â??vestigial organsâ?? provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.â?� S. R. Scadding, â??Do â??Vestigial Organsâ?? Provide Evidence for Evolution?â?� Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, â??Vestigial Organsâ?� Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. â??The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.â?� Gordon McHardy, â??The Appendix,â?� Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

â??Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the bodyâ??s immune system.â?� N. Roberts, â??Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?â?� Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 18. Vestigial Organs

[Coelho]

Well... i think the problem with the evolution is that both sides are way too extremists. The ones who believes in evolution says that it was enough to create all the life in the Earth (or even in the universe), and the ones who disbelieves it says its complete BS.

There is a lot of experimental evidence that supports evolution, so discarding it is foolish. BUT, nothing, absolutely nothing ensures that evolution is the only and sole cause of the existence of life here in Earth. Evolution shows how live beings can evolve into complexer ones, but does not explain in a satisfatory manner how the simpler live beings (which evolved afterwards) appeared.

So, as everything else in this life, the middle way seems to be the best one. Dont discard evolution, but dont worship it also. Its a good theory, explains a lot, but it isnt the "Theory of Everything". (As nothing else is either).

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

i had my appendix removed... i tend to be pretty healthy, i almost never get sick...

how important could it... OW MY SPLEEN!!!


just kidding...

[psychocat]

Well... i think the problem with the evolution is that both sides are way too extremists. The ones who believes in evolution says that it was enough to create all the life in the Earth (or even in the universe), and the ones who disbelieves it says its complete BS.

There is a lot of experimental evidence that supports evolution, so discarding it is foolish. BUT, nothing, absolutely nothing ensures that evolution is the only and sole cause of the existence of life here in Earth. Evolution shows how live beings can evolve into complexer ones, but does not explain in a satisfatory manner how the simpler live beings (which evolved afterwards) appeared.

So, as everything else in this life, the middle way seems to be the best one. Dont discard evolution, but dont worship it also. Its a good theory, explains a lot, but it isnt the "Theory of Everything". (As nothing else is either).

I am in agreement with you in this respect.

[elskeetro]

I'm not well read. I don't have facts to spew.

I don't believe in creation...it seems like lazy smoke and mirrors.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk4_SRcwE[/YOUTUBE]

I understand evolution. it is tangible and familiar. But it is solely based on human understanding. Science is human discovery. While it has worked out pretty well for us so far...we should all be open to the idea that someone may have fucked up somewhere along the way, and that could skew everything we have ever known. the beginning of the universe, the dark matter...whatever your question is...the answer may be something unfathomable. I, for one, have other things to attend to and limitless universal mysteries are not on my to do list.

Both have huge gaps and seem like they will never be totally solved.

I will say that I like the way science carries itself. Doesn't feel the need to make a big deal out of this. It seems to be Creation that's always making a big fuss and trying to get noticed.

just 2 cents from an ignorant ol' bloke.
skeet.

[Pahu78]

MODERN SCIENCE AND CREATION

The ancient Greeks viewed science as a philosophical matter. Reason was the chief tool of science rather than experimentation. Much of this attitude came from their belief that the world was a corruption of perfection. The world was to them an uncreated, unknowable, yet necessary evil, which God directed but did not really control. Only when the theistic view of Creation took over did science begin to study the world experimentally. It was the thought that God had created matter that made it a thing worth studying. In this view, matter was real, good, and knowable. By seeing God the Creator in complete control, science could make the assumption that the universe made sense. Most of the scientists who formulated the studies of modern science were creationists. Without this basis, modem science would probably never have gotten started.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]