Evolution and the teaching thereof ~

[Just As I Am]

I have a child very much researching evolution and desiring to find scientific evident to refute this theory. Can you send any online resources to help in this project?

Also, has anyone ever seen Inherit the Wind with Spencer Tracy? Thinking of trying to find it to rent for some visual thoughts to encourage the conversations ongoing.

Thanks.

P.S. Would this be the correct forum to post this? Wasn't sure.

[Pokhara]

P.S. Would this be the correct forum to post this? Wasn't sure.

This is the history section, and so it is okay to post questions about the history of evolution as a concept.

The link below is a mine of information regarding the Scopes Trial, on which the play Inherit The Wind was based.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

The link below is as good as any a site to begin researching the scientific flaws in evolution.  PM me if you would like some more examples.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

[Hehealedme]

.

[Jimmy]

Thank you both. This young teenagers goal is to gain as much scientific evidence as possible to deal with evolution in a modern classroom setting.

The most important thing to understand about the theory of evolution is that it is not a scientific theory.  Evolution is not science, no matter how much some would like to say that it is.  If you look into the definition and the meaning of science and what constitute science, you will see that evolution does not fit.  Evolution is history, it is natural history, but history nonetheless.

Therefore it should be treated as such.  It is merely an explanation that has been contrived to fit the data as some see it.  There is not even a single example that we can look at today which demonstrates evolution; the theory can not be tested as a scientific theory must be.  The theory of evolution is not predictive in any sense as a scientific theory must be.  Evolution can not be evaluated as a scientific theory must be.

Therefore I would caution about looking for scientific evidence to refute evolution.  Since evolution can not be scientifically validated, neither can it be scientifically invalidated.   One can not test the validity of it since there is no scientific test of it that can be conducted.

I would caution against some sources such as http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/ and similar sites.  Much of what is said there is very good.  But some things are not.  The discussion there concerning thermodynamics is just plain wrong.  Evolution as presented doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics, or any other scientific laws that I am aware of.

[Jimbob]

It's a short read, but Hank Hanegraaf's Fatal Flaws is a good resource as well.

[Dave...]

I hope that these links all work.

Debunking Evolution: problems, errors, and lies exposed, in plain language for non-scientists
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32

Problems for the Theory of Evolution
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/problems_for_the_theory_of_evolution

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

Why Evolution Is Wrong --Problems For Evolution
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm

Science against Evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

http://creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
http://www.geocities.com/reasonstobelieve2000/index.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/menu-fossils.html


http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mutations.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Also, concerning the Scopes trial. (which would be a good topic for this forums)

CONTENDING EARNESTLY FOR THE FAITH
Logic, Debate and Apologetics (THE SCOPES TRIAL REVISITED)
http://www.ex-atheist.com/contending-for-the-faith.html

[Gentle]

Mmm...as an evolutionsist, I am wondering if I should get involved in this discussion.  The responses to the question thus far all seem to refer to numerous websites, and as I am not yet able to link to sites that does support evolution, I feel somewhat discriminated against....*lol*  But that's ok.

It would be helpful to obtain literature in this respect that will give you both versions.  Firstly, you should read Evolution Exposed, by Roger Patterson.  Use this as a reference to discover other facts about evolution, and in particular books by Mark Isaac and Donald R Prothero.

Peace to all.

[Jimmy]

Gentle,

Why are you an evolutionist?  Being an old earth advocate, I believe in the "evolution" of the universe, but I don't find any compelling reason to believe in biological macroevolution.  So I am curious. What are your reasons for thinking as you do?

[Allegiance]

I remember when I was taught evolution in biology(about 3 months ago) I wish I had known more about the flaws and things against it, and so on, to maybe say something about it to the teacher. Sooo many people are mislead by this idea and if they took the time to see the other sides never presented, maybe they could make a better desicision about where they came from(not a bunch of random chances by cells!).

[Jimmy]

Thanks for your thoughts. My teenager prepared a powerpoint slide show and is sharing it today.

Let us know how it turns out.

[Mr. J]

The evidence given for evolution can be analyzed, but the religion of evolution cannot be "disproven" as such.  Your child might be better served by understanding that the evidence given to support the notion of evolution does not stand up to critical review.

Since there is no credible evidence, there is no credible theory.

[HappyPrimes]

You're welcome to look long and hard for evidence against evolutionary theory, however the simple fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory has withstood some of the most intense peer review in science for the past 150 years. And in that time it has only become further and further solidified.

Having glossed through some of the sites listed above, I can say that they rely on nothing more than the typical fallacies, and errors, and outright falsehoods that are normally used to dispute evolutionary theory, none of which stand up to scrutiny from people with an in depth knowledge or understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, evolution is one of the most well supported theories in the scientific community. I would advise against using your child's homework as a soapbox to voice your own opinion on the subject, as it will probably only hurt their grade in the class; as any science teacher should be well able to know that the information being used is flawed.

[khristeeanos]

If evolution or old earth is true, the Bible is wrong.

If the Bible is wrong, Christianity is a false religion.

It is either or - not both are compatible. 

The Bible teaches that God created the earth before the sun
The Bible teaches that God created man and dinosaurs the exact same day
The Bible teaches that God created the earth covered with water
The Bible teaches that God  . . . . . .

These facts found in the Bible are completely opposite of evolution and old earth.

Time to stop straddling the fence and either believe God or reject him.

[HappyPrimes]

The Bible teaches that God created the earth before the sun
The Bible teaches that God created man and dinosaurs the exact same day
The Bible teaches that God created the earth covered with water
The Bible teaches that God  . . . . . .

These facts found in the Bible are completely opposite of evolution and old earth.

Time to stop straddling the fence and either believe God or reject him.

We can measure the approximate age of the sun via the light spectrum it gives off and it's related chemical make up. If the earth were in fact created first, it would support an old earth...a very old earth for that matter.

We know that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. There's no evidence of it in the fossil record, and dating methods rule out the possibility even further.

The statements made in the bible are contradicted by what we can observe and see in the universe. That doesn't make it false, or make Christianity a false religion. It makes the bible fallible. It was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth.

There is no fence to be straddled. Many people believe in both God and evolution, many of the top evolutionary biologists are Christian. Even the Catholic Church has had an accepting view of evolution. It's not "either-or" that's a false dilemma fallacy, most people find them to be compatable, including many of the people that support evolutionary theory.

Most of what you talked about isn't even related to evolutionary theory, it's related to the creation of earth, and life on earth...something which is completely unrelated to evolution or the subject at hand.

[khristeeanos]

We can measure the approximate age of the sun via the light spectrum it gives off and it's related chemical make up. If the earth were in fact created first, it would support an old earth...a very old earth for that matter.

We know that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. There's no evidence of it in the fossil record, and dating methods rule out the possibility even further.

The statements made in the bible are contradicted by what we can observe and see in the universe. That doesn't make it false, or make Christianity a false religion. It makes the bible fallible. It was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth.

There is no fence to be straddled. Many people believe in both God and evolution, many of the top evolutionary biologists are Christian. Even the Catholic Church has had an accepting view of evolution. It's not "either-or" that's a false dilemma fallacy, most people find them to be compatable, including many of the people that support evolutionary theory.

Most of what you talked about isn't even related to evolutionary theory, it's related to the creation of earth, and life on earth...something which is completely unrelated to evolution or the subject at hand.

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to focus on one thing you have said.

We know that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. There's no evidence of it in the fossil record, and dating methods rule out the possibility even further.

There are many evidences of dinosaurs and humans co-existing.  Here are some pictures for your consideration:



This shows humans carving out dinosaurs in their buildings.



The clay figurine (above) is from the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 B.C. to 200 A.D.) found near Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico. It seems obvious these people knew how Iguanodons appeared in life.

These are only 2 of dozens and dozens of things that are available.  They find fresh blood in dinosaur bones and yet they never question the theory that dinosaurs lived 200 million years ago. 

God tells us that he created land animals on day 6 (the same day as man) and they mostly all died out in the flood of Noah about 4,500 years ago.

The Chinese zodiac has 12 animals.  11 of them are common animals and the 12th is a dragon!  There is much evidence, but most of it is suppressed because it doesn't fit the theory of evolution.

Dig through this site:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/

[Jimmy]

You're welcome to look long and hard for evidence against evolutionary theory, however the simple fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory has withstood some of the most intense peer review in science for the past 150 years. And in that time it has only become further and further solidified.

Having glossed through some of the sites listed above, I can say that they rely on nothing more than the typical fallacies, and errors, and outright falsehoods that are normally used to dispute evolutionary theory, none of which stand up to scrutiny from people with an in depth knowledge or understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, evolution is one of the most well supported theories in the scientific community. I would advise against using your child's homework as a soapbox to voice your own opinion on the subject, as it will probably only hurt their grade in the class; as any science teacher should be well able to know that the information being used is flawed.

First, it is important that you understand that I believe the cosmological explanation of the history of the universe.  I believe that the big bang as it is now presented,or something very similar to it, probably was the origin of the universe as we know it.  I accept that the universe is somewhere probably between 10 and 20 billion years old.  I think the expansion of the universe as it is currently explained probably occurred and continues to occur.  I think the explanation of the formation of the galaxies, the stars, the elements and the planets may very well be as physics now says.

Second, biological evolution may have occurred much as it is now explained by evolutionists.  I don't think so, but it is certainly possible that God may have used some aspects of evolution as it is now explained.  Again, I don't think so, but if God wanted to bring life to the planet in that way, He certainly could have.

Third, there is virtually no part of biological macro-evolution as presently presented which can be considered science.  It is not science.  It is at best history, natural history, but still only history, not science.  It embodies none of the aspects of a science.  The central critical aspect of a field of science is experimental verification.  There is nothing about evolution which has ever been tested, either explicitly or implicitly.  There is no way to test the it.  It is not predictive.  There is no way to take what is supposedly known about evolution and predict anything. Thus there is no way to even propose an experimental verification.

That of course is the same reason that it cannot be disputed.  There is no way that it can be tested.  It can neither be verified nor disputed.  It is merely a best guess explanation of how things have come about.  You suggest that "evolution is one of the most well supported theories in the scientific community."  It may have the support of scientists, but there is essentially no scientific support.  It is merely a possible explanation of things that are thought to have occurred.

Recognize that given everything that we now know today about life, what life is, what sustains life, what destroys life, we haven't a clue how it began.  The more that we learn about life, the less we are able to explain the beginning of life.  Biologists, with all the technical skills and sophisticated equipment cannot even formulate a reasonable mechanism how life began.  At one time the answer was that given the billions of years available, it could have happened by chance.  But even now, we know that life began almost simultaneously with the existence of conditions that would support life.  So there are not billions of years, perhaps not even thousands of years for the event to have happened by chance.  You will notice that evolutionary concepts no longer suggest seriously that life began on earth but are now focused on life coming to earth from outer space by way of comets, etc.

So be very careful what you are calling a science.  There is not a shred of scientific evidence of evolution.  It has never been observed, measured, or investigated in any way whatever.  It is simply one postulated scenario of events which might explain the observed data.  It may be that God did indeed make use of some biological processes suggested by the scenario of evolution, but there is no way to substantiate it.  The plain fact is that if one refuses to acknowledge the direct influence of God in the process, there really is no other paradigm available than evolution to explain  the data.  But that is really the sum total of it.  And even here the critical features of evolution, namely the changes that are said to have occurred can even be documented.  There are no known transition aspects that have been discovered.  There are again some scenarios such as the so called evolution of the horse that is presented, but there is no way to show that such a progression actually took place.  It may just as easily be different distinct forms of distinct and different animals.

The real crime in all of this is that it is taught in our schools as science.  It is not.  

[mike]

Khristeeanos,

I would like to make a comment on your statement:

There are many evidences of dinosaurs and humans co-existing.

This is plain silliness. In fact, there is no good evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. In fact, the actual evidence suggests the opposite conclusion: dinosaurs died out long before humans came on the scene.

Believing this evidence does not diminish the truths taught by scripture or by Jesus one bit. However, espousing beliefs that are obviously against the weight of mountains of evidence risks making you (and the message of the Gospel that I believe you espouse) appear irrelevant and silly to the watching world.

You do no good for the cause of Christ by such a crusade.

[Jimmy]

Khristeeanos,

I would like to make a comment on your statement:

There are many evidences of dinosaurs and humans co-existing.

This is plain silliness. In fact, there is no good evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. In fact, the actual evidence suggests the opposite conclusion: dinosaurs died out long before humans came on the scene.

Believing this evidence does not diminish the truths taught by scripture or by Jesus one bit. However, espousing beliefs that are obviously against the weight of mountains of evidence risks making you (and the message of the Gospel that I believe you espouse) appear irrelevant and silly to the watching world.

You do no good for the cause of Christ by such a crusade.

[Mr. J]

The Bible teaches that God created the earth before the sun
The Bible teaches that God created man and dinosaurs the exact same day
The Bible teaches that God created the earth covered with water
The Bible teaches that God  . . . . . .

These facts found in the Bible are completely opposite of evolution and old earth.

Time to stop straddling the fence and either believe God or reject him.

We can measure the approximate age of the sun via the light spectrum it gives off and it's related chemical make up. If the earth were in fact created first, it would support an old earth...a very old earth for that matter.

We know that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. There's no evidence of it in the fossil record, and dating methods rule out the possibility even further.

The statements made in the bible are contradicted by what we can observe and see in the universe. That doesn't make it false, or make Christianity a false religion. It makes the bible fallible. It was written in a time when people thought the earth was flat and the sun orbited the earth.

There is no fence to be straddled. Many people believe in both God and evolution, many of the top evolutionary biologists are Christian. Even the Catholic Church has had an accepting view of evolution. It's not "either-or" that's a false dilemma fallacy, most people find them to be compatable, including many of the people that support evolutionary theory.

Most of what you talked about isn't even related to evolutionary theory, it's related to the creation of earth, and life on earth...something which is completely unrelated to evolution or the subject at hand.

You accuse others that they are not talking about evolution, but then you don't either.

If evolution is such a well founded science (and you seem to be saying you're up on the subject), perhaps you can show us a few examples of evolution.

We know Darwin's finches were disproved, which was the grand basis, only basis, for proof at the time.  But for some reason, evolution continued on, having had its "proof" shot down.  This is because it is a religion, not a science.

To prove evolution, you'll need to show a history of transition species such as the finches Darwin tried to fool the world with.  There have been many frauds put for as "evidence."  Since evolution is supposed to be an accidental happening modern genetic science cannot be used as evidence.

So, if you're up to it, prove evolution to us.

[HappyPrimes]

Oy vey, busy busy you've all been...addressing things in order, or close to it;

I'm familiar with the wall carvings, clay statues, and the Paluxy River footprints. None of these however have withstood scrutiny;
The stones of the wall carvings appear to be modern, and two local villagers have admitted to carving dinosaurs into walls themselves in order to fool gullible tourists. Without knowing the origin of the stone it's difficult if not impossible to accurately date the stones to assess their legitamacy. And other Inca ruins do not share depictions of dinosaurs. (Polidoro, Massimo, 2002. Ica Stones: Yabba-Dabba Do! Skeptical Inquirer 26(5): 24, Sept/Oct 2002)

The Mexican carvings also do not withstand examination. The surfaces appear to be new, showing none of the weathering expected of artifacts from the time period, and there was no dirt packed into the cracks as also would be expected. Also, despite the amateur nature of many of the excavators of the carvings, most were completely unbroken, there were no pieces missing, and what few breaks were apparently fresh. There was also fresh manure in the soil found surrounding the objects in the dig site, and fingerprints were also found in some of the hollow cavities of the disputed artifacts.
(Di Peso, Charles C., 1953. The clay figurines of Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico.)

The Paluxy Footprints reveal themselves to be the footprints of dinosaurs and other non-hominid animals when examined by paleontologists, and it is only with selective highlighting that the footprints appear the hominid in nature.
(Kuban, Glen J. 1986. A summary of the Taylor site evidence.)

----

First, there has been observed instances of speciation, and the lack of observation of "macroevolution" is evidence for evolution. It is expected for evolution to occur over very long periods of time, seeing a fish change into a salamander in a few generations would invalidate evolution...this has not been seen to date to my knowledge.

The claim that evolution has never come under review is absurd, even the most devoted YEC would probably agree. Evolution has come under intense review and scrutiny since it's mainstream inception some hundred and fifty years ago.

Science requires replication of observations, not experimentation. Even if an experiment can be replicated, it's the results which must be the same or it's not science. The observations lie in anatomy, genetics, and fossils. The observations are there for all to see, and ignorance of the scientific method is not disproof of evolution, let alone dismissive of the field of evolutionary biology. Evolution can also be falsified, which further makes it "good" science. Fossil bunnies in the pre-cambrian would falsify evolution right out the door, as would true chimeras like a catdog, to date neither of which have been found.

Evolution has made predictions in the past, including human origins in Africa, predator-prey relations would be altered in a predictable way if either the predator species or prey species gained some form of evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. Even if evolution weren't able to make predictions, neither are other legitamate fields of science such as astronomy and archeology.
(Rainey, Paul. 2003. Evolution: Five big questions: 4. Is evolution predictable?)

There is quite a large amount of evidence supporting evolution despite your claim. Not knowing the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.

Just to name some of it.

The origins of life on earth are not evolution. Claiming fault in evolutionary theory because of problems in an entirely different scientific aspect is akin to deriding physics because of problems in sociology.

There are mounds of scientific evidence in favor of evolution, it has been observed in the fossil record, the observed data and the replication of the observations by a multitude of scientists is what makes it science,there are many transitional fossils and forms, your lack of knowledge is not evidence against evolution, it's evidence that you don't know everything or are poorly educated on the subject. The real crime is not that it's being taught in schools, it's that it's not being taught well enough.

---

Admittedly I got a little sidetracked on addressing Khris' points, it stems from the fact that I refuted their position first and noticed that it didn't relate to evolution after. I'm sure I've done it some in this post as well honestly.

I am no expert in evolution, just an armchair biologist so to speak. My primary field of training is in history, particularly Cold War era history. That doesn't stop me from doing my own research on evolutionary theory on my own time however.

Examples of evolution? How about;

There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops

Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years.

Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking

The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards

Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes

That's just a list of transitional fossils, I listed some other things up above as well.

I'm not familiar with anything regarding Darwin's Finches to be outright false, care to point me to a source on that please? It doesn't matter too much regardless, evolutionary theory does not hinge on finches. It's based on other good evidence largely. Even if the finches were outright wrong, evolutionary theory wouldn't disappear because there's a great deal of independent evidence in favor of it, the bad evidence would be excluded and removed from the theory. Science tends to be self-correcting in that nature.

Frankly, there is very little which is "accidental" in evolution. The premise that organisms poorly suited to survive die out while organisms better suited to survive carry on to pass on their traits is in no way "random" and entirely deterministic.

And the claim that modern scientific breakthroughs can't be used as evidence is absolutely absurd. I suppose that if something came to light tomorrow which completely disproved evolution in genetics it would be discounted as well? If you "accidentally" shoot someone, the ballistic evidence can't be ignored because it was an accident. I defy you to give any good reasons why genetics can't be used as evidence. Evidence is evidence, not liking what it says or where it comes from doesn't mean you get to ignore it. It still says the same thing regardless of anyone's opinion.

Honestly it's not my job to educate anyone or prove evolution, I'll happily make my best attempt at refuting any points however, good natured debate never hurt anyone.

[GLORYTOGOD]

i thought this was pretty interesting

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

[Mr. J]

I asked you to show us what evidence you have, let's see what evidence you've given.  If it is real evidence, it should be convincing.  Your post is long and answers several people, so If you dont' mind, I'll mostly stick the your examples of evidence.

the lack of observation of "macroevolution" is evidence for evolution. It is expected for evolution to occur over very long periods of time, seeing a fish change into a salamander in a few generations would invalidate evolution...this has not been seen to date to my knowledge.

The above is not evidence, but is misleading.  I know you didn't originate this craziness, so please don't take my comments personal.....   The evolutionists say, because we can't prove evolution means evolution happened!   Macroevolution is, in fact, the main body of evidence put forth by evolutionists.  You, yourself claim a macroevolution observation (below) that the mososaurs are a step removed from a snake.  You don't show the line of archaeological evidence showing all the stages between snakes and the mososaurs, which would be evidence for evolution, but you make the grand jump of macroevolution to try to make a claim.  You disqualify your own evidence.


Evolution has made predictions in the past, including human origins in Africa...................,

Human remains are found in Africa because that is where archaeologists dig for them.  Human remains are not often found in Kansas or Argentina because there isn't much money being spent digging there.

There is quite a large amount of evidence supporting evolution despite your claim. Not knowing the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

Not knowing the evidence does not mean it does exist, either.


Examples of evolution? How about;

There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

Your evidence does not show a line of transition from ape (or other) to human.  There are a few strange looking people from the past.  However, there are lots of strange looking people walking around today.

The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior

The above is not evidence.  A few titanotheres with small horns were found, a few with larger horns were found, this is not evidence of evolution.  Where is the genetic difference?  Small dogs can be bred to be large dogs, and bred back to be small again.  This is not evolution, but normal variation within a type of animal.  We have large cows and small cows walking around today.

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops

And we have wide headed black labs and narrow headed black labs.  They are still dogs and didn't change into anything else.  Phacops are still trilobites and didn't change into anything else.

Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years.

First of all, I'm doubtful of the ability to measure ages of fossils as we're told.  Live animals have been measured to be very old.  But let's say I'm wrong about that.  Did the Chesapecten become anything outside it's original genetic code?  What evidence is there that it had a change in DNA?  No evidence, just wishful thinking.


Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking

I thought you said a lack of macroevolution was a support of evolution?  (which we can all agree is illogical).  Here you give a macroevolution example as evidence.  How did this animal become as it was?   Where is the line of transition species clearly showing that it evolved from something else?   I can't be shown because it doesn't exist.

The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards

Here again you disqualify your own example by showing a macroevolutionary example with no record showing the clear transitions form snake to lizard.

Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes

That's just a list of transitional fossils, I listed some other things up above as well.

Is a Holstein a transitional species between a Jersey and a Hereford?  I a Lynx a transitional species between a Siamese and a Tiger?  To show evolution, one cannot just pull up some similar looking animals and start putting labels on them.

I'm not familiar with anything regarding Darwin's Finches to be outright false, care to point me to a source on that please? It doesn't matter too much regardless, evolutionary theory does not hinge on finches. It's based on other good evidence largely. Even if the finches were outright wrong, evolutionary theory wouldn't disappear because there's a great deal of independent evidence in favor of it, the bad evidence would be excluded and removed from the theory. Science tends to be self-correcting in that nature.

Yes, science is self-correcting.  This is the reason the notion of evolution has become less popular because people are approaching evolution in a scientific manner, requiring that it either prove itself or be discarded.  When the greater body of science changes, it usually does slowly.  Evolution is slowly being discarded.


And the claim that modern scientific breakthroughs can't be used as evidence is absolutely absurd.

What I meant when I mentioned modern breakthroughs was in reference to gene splicing going on today and the making of different species.  This is manipulation, not evolution.  Sorry I was not more clear on that.

good natured debate never hurt anyone.
[/quote]

So, I can't say you posted anything that hasn't been put forth by so many others, which has been shown to have no value as evidence.

[jmyrick13]

I may be a little out of my league here but I'd like to give my opinion.

When I here people talking about evolution, I usually hear a mixed bunch of opinions on it:

1. Man evolved from apes
    Question: Why are there still apes, and which ones did we evolve from?

2. Man is an ape
    Question: If man is an ape, are all ape species exactly the same age, or did they show up at
                    different times? If they did show up at different times, what caused them to appear?

3. A long time ago, a fish crawled out of the water and began to live on land.
    Question: Where did this fish come from that possessed both lungs and gills? Did this fish just
                     magically appear among all the other fish? How was it decided which it would be?

4. One of my favorites:
    A long time ago there was dust particles floating around in the universe without form. Then this
    dust exploded(?). The explosion caused planets and stars to appear (over billions of years, of
    course). The stars began to give off light. The planets formed and cooled and became solid
    (rocks). From these rocks, water formed, plants grew, and somehow, somewhere, living   
    organisms began to emerge (from what? rocks?).  If it was dust to begin with, where were the
    cells that became living organisms?). Somehow, over billions of years, all life on Earth evolved
    from this bunch of dust that was floating around in the universe. Why did all species not evolve
    on an equal plane? What decided that Homo Sapiens would be the dominant creature on
    Earth?

It almost sounds to me that instead of evolution, it should be called mutation. Isn't that what causes a complete change in genetic makeup?
Or, if you were to look at the horse for instance. A horse, mule, and zebra are basically the same animal (different areas and different tasks). The difference between them, to me, is more adaptation than evolution (they're basically still a horse). Look at an elephant. We have African and Asian. Look a little different, but still an elephant. Why would they evolve differently?

Sounds like I'm rambling, but I had to get my two cents in.

Peace to all.
   

[Lee Freeman]

There's a good book about the Scopes Trial entitled Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial by Marvin Olasky and John which I have and think is very good.

If you watch the film bear in mind that it takes some artistic license with the events depicted. In one chapter the book examines the film and whether it accurately portrayed the trial or not.

Hank Hannegraaf has some books on debunking evolution. Also Michael Behe has written some good books on Intelligent Design.

Also, if you want to read aan interesting book by a conservative Christian Evangelical yet who is also an evolutionist (he believes in Jesus and the resurrection and all the orthodox Christian teachings but also believes that God guided human evolution) The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, is good whether or not you buy his evolutionary arguments or not. Dr. Collins is Director of the Human Genome Project.

Pax.

[Mr. J]

I may be a little out of my league here but I'd like to give my opinion.

When I here people talking about evolution, I usually hear a mixed bunch of opinions on it:

1. Man evolved from apes
    Question: Why are there still apes, and which ones did we evolve from?

2. Man is an ape
    Question: If man is an ape, are all ape species exactly the same age, or did they show up at
                    different times? If they did show up at different times, what caused them to appear?

3. A long time ago, a fish crawled out of the water and began to live on land.
    Question: Where did this fish come from that possessed both lungs and gills? Did this fish just
                     magically appear among all the other fish? How was it decided which it would be?

4. One of my favorites:
    A long time ago there was dust particles floating around in the universe without form. Then this
    dust exploded(?). The explosion caused planets and stars to appear (over billions of years, of
    course). The stars began to give off light. The planets formed and cooled and became solid
    (rocks). From these rocks, water formed, plants grew, and somehow, somewhere, living   
    organisms began to emerge (from what? rocks?).  If it was dust to begin with, where were the
    cells that became living organisms?). Somehow, over billions of years, all life on Earth evolved
    from this bunch of dust that was floating around in the universe. Why did all species not evolve
    on an equal plane? What decided that Homo Sapiens would be the dominant creature on
    Earth?

It almost sounds to me that instead of evolution, it should be called mutation. Isn't that what causes a complete change in genetic makeup?
Or, if you were to look at the horse for instance. A horse, mule, and zebra are basically the same animal (different areas and different tasks). The difference between them, to me, is more adaptation than evolution (they're basically still a horse). Look at an elephant. We have African and Asian. Look a little different, but still an elephant. Why would they evolve differently?

Sounds like I'm rambling, but I had to get my two cents in.

Peace to all.
   

Interesting, but we've lost some facts along the way.

In the original evolution theory, the earth was here by magic.  The sea was here by magic.  By magic it existed for hundreds of millions of years, being formed by nothing, doing nothing.  Then all of a sudden, in a mud puddle far, far away, two rock began humping.  And after millions and millions of years, these two rocks (which we would have thought would have worn themselves into dust) persistently did their duty, and low and behold, out sprang a monkey.  Now we all know a monkey cannot multiply by itself, and we all know a monkey is what we all came from, so these poor two rocks needed to hump for millions of more years to produce a monkey of the opposite gender. 

Now the original monkey had to survive for millions, and millions of years with no food, as the monkey had not yet evolved into food.  So somehow, perhaps by magic, the original monkey just hung around for millions and millions of years while the two rocks continually humped in a mud puddle (that somehow did not dry out over millions and millions of years) and magically produced the other monkey of a different gender.

Now that there were two monkeys, one which was millions and millions of years old, and one that had freshly jumped out of a mud puddle, there was the ability to make make more monkeys.  Forget the fact that there was yet no food for mama monkey to make baby monkeys with, we're talking magic here.

But keep the faith because these very resourceful monkeys were bound and determined to have snails as offspring instead of monkeys.  Now keep in mind this was not intelligent snailing, but completely accidental snailing.  Now there were two monkeys and a bunch of snails sitting around a mud puddle watching two rocks and wondering what was for dinner.

The rocks proved to be fairly tough once grilled, and the snails complained that they were sort of gritty.

[Jimmy]

I may be a little out of my league here but I'd like to give my opinion.

When I here people talking about evolution, I usually hear a mixed bunch of opinions on it:

1. Man evolved from apes
    Question: Why are there still apes, and which ones did we evolve from?

2. Man is an ape
    Question: If man is an ape, are all ape species exactly the same age, or did they show up at
                    different times? If they did show up at different times, what caused them to appear?

3. A long time ago, a fish crawled out of the water and began to live on land.
    Question: Where did this fish come from that possessed both lungs and gills? Did this fish just
                     magically appear among all the other fish? How was it decided which it would be?

4. One of my favorites:
    A long time ago there was dust particles floating around in the universe without form. Then this
    dust exploded(?). The explosion caused planets and stars to appear (over billions of years, of
    course). The stars began to give off light. The planets formed and cooled and became solid
    (rocks). From these rocks, water formed, plants grew, and somehow, somewhere, living   
    organisms began to emerge (from what? rocks?).  If it was dust to begin with, where were the
    cells that became living organisms?). Somehow, over billions of years, all life on Earth evolved
    from this bunch of dust that was floating around in the universe. Why did all species not evolve
    on an equal plane? What decided that Homo Sapiens would be the dominant creature on
    Earth?

It almost sounds to me that instead of evolution, it should be called mutation. Isn't that what causes a complete change in genetic makeup?
Or, if you were to look at the horse for instance. A horse, mule, and zebra are basically the same animal (different areas and different tasks). The difference between them, to me, is more adaptation than evolution (they're basically still a horse). Look at an elephant. We have African and Asian. Look a little different, but still an elephant. Why would they evolve differently?

Sounds like I'm rambling, but I had to get my two cents in.

Peace to all.
   

Interesting, but we've lost some facts along the way.

In the original evolution theory, the earth was here by magic.  The sea was here by magic.  By magic it existed for hundreds of millions of years, being formed by nothing, doing nothing.  Then all of a sudden, in a mud puddle far, far away, two rock began humping.  And after millions and millions of years, these two rocks (which we would have thought would have worn themselves into dust) persistently did their duty, and low and behold, out sprang a monkey.  Now we all know a monkey cannot multiply by itself, and we all know a monkey is what we all came from, so these poor two rocks needed to hump for millions of more years to produce a monkey of the opposite gender. 

Now the original monkey had to survive for millions, and millions of years with no food, as the monkey had not yet evolved into food.  So somehow, perhaps by magic, the original monkey just hung around for millions and millions of years while the two rocks continually humped in a mud puddle (that somehow did not dry out over millions and millions of years) and magically produced the other monkey of a different gender.

Now that there were two monkeys, one which was millions and millions of years old, and one that had freshly jumped out of a mud puddle, there was the ability to make make more monkeys.  Forget the fact that there was yet no food for mama monkey to make baby monkeys with, we're talking magic here.

But keep the faith because these very resourceful monkeys were bound and determined to have snails as offspring instead of monkeys.  Now keep in mind this was not intelligent snailing, but completely accidental snailing.  Now there were two monkeys and a bunch of snails sitting around a mud puddle watching two rocks and wondering what was for dinner.

The rocks proved to be fairly tough once grilled, and the snails complained that they were sort of gritty.

Whether you believe in evolution or not or whether evolution is true or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that makes a Christian and Christianity look like blithering idiots to most of the civilized world.  It is the argument that you might expect from a four year old who hadn't learned to read yet.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Interesting, but we've lost some facts along the way.

In the original evolution theory, the earth was here by magic.  The sea was here by magic.  By magic it existed for hundreds of millions of years, being formed by nothing, doing nothing.  Then all of a sudden, in a mud puddle far, far away, two rock began humping.  And after millions and millions of years, these two rocks (which we would have thought would have worn themselves into dust) persistently did their duty, and low and behold, out sprang a monkey.  Now we all know a monkey cannot multiply by itself, and we all know a monkey is what we all came from, so these poor two rocks needed to hump for millions of more years to produce a monkey of the opposite gender. 

Now the original monkey had to survive for millions, and millions of years with no food, as the monkey had not yet evolved into food.  So somehow, perhaps by magic, the original monkey just hung around for millions and millions of years while the two rocks continually humped in a mud puddle (that somehow did not dry out over millions and millions of years) and magically produced the other monkey of a different gender.

Now that there were two monkeys, one which was millions and millions of years old, and one that had freshly jumped out of a mud puddle, there was the ability to make make more monkeys.  Forget the fact that there was yet no food for mama monkey to make baby monkeys with, we're talking magic here.

But keep the faith because these very resourceful monkeys were bound and determined to have snails as offspring instead of monkeys.  Now keep in mind this was not intelligent snailing, but completely accidental snailing.  Now there were two monkeys and a bunch of snails sitting around a mud puddle watching two rocks and wondering what was for dinner.

The rocks proved to be fairly tough once grilled, and the snails complained that they were sort of gritty.

When engaged in an unwinnable argument, the best tactic is often to try to make the question look ridiculous.

[Mr. J]

I may be a little out of my league here but I'd like to give my opinion.

When I here people talking about evolution, I usually hear a mixed bunch of opinions on it:

1. Man evolved from apes
    Question: Why are there still apes, and which ones did we evolve from?

2. Man is an ape
    Question: If man is an ape, are all ape species exactly the same age, or did they show up at
                    different times? If they did show up at different times, what caused them to appear?

3. A long time ago, a fish crawled out of the water and began to live on land.
    Question: Where did this fish come from that possessed both lungs and gills? Did this fish just
                     magically appear among all the other fish? How was it decided which it would be?

4. One of my favorites:
    A long time ago there was dust particles floating around in the universe without form. Then this
    dust exploded(?). The explosion caused planets and stars to appear (over billions of years, of
    course). The stars began to give off light. The planets formed and cooled and became solid
    (rocks). From these rocks, water formed, plants grew, and somehow, somewhere, living   
    organisms began to emerge (from what? rocks?).  If it was dust to begin with, where were the
    cells that became living organisms?). Somehow, over billions of years, all life on Earth evolved
    from this bunch of dust that was floating around in the universe. Why did all species not evolve
    on an equal plane? What decided that Homo Sapiens would be the dominant creature on
    Earth?

It almost sounds to me that instead of evolution, it should be called mutation. Isn't that what causes a complete change in genetic makeup?
Or, if you were to look at the horse for instance. A horse, mule, and zebra are basically the same animal (different areas and different tasks). The difference between them, to me, is more adaptation than evolution (they're basically still a horse). Look at an elephant. We have African and Asian. Look a little different, but still an elephant. Why would they evolve differently?

Sounds like I'm rambling, but I had to get my two cents in.

Peace to all.
   

Interesting, but we've lost some facts along the way.

In the original evolution theory, the earth was here by magic.  The sea was here by magic.  By magic it existed for hundreds of millions of years, being formed by nothing, doing nothing.  Then all of a sudden, in a mud puddle far, far away, two rock began humping.  And after millions and millions of years, these two rocks (which we would have thought would have worn themselves into dust) persistently did their duty, and low and behold, out sprang a monkey.  Now we all know a monkey cannot multiply by itself, and we all know a monkey is what we all came from, so these poor two rocks needed to hump for millions of more years to produce a monkey of the opposite gender. 

Now the original monkey had to survive for millions, and millions of years with no food, as the monkey had not yet evolved into food.  So somehow, perhaps by magic, the original monkey just hung around for millions and millions of years while the two rocks continually humped in a mud puddle (that somehow did not dry out over millions and millions of years) and magically produced the other monkey of a different gender.

Now that there were two monkeys, one which was millions and millions of years old, and one that had freshly jumped out of a mud puddle, there was the ability to make make more monkeys.  Forget the fact that there was yet no food for mama monkey to make baby monkeys with, we're talking magic here.

But keep the faith because these very resourceful monkeys were bound and determined to have snails as offspring instead of monkeys.  Now keep in mind this was not intelligent snailing, but completely accidental snailing.  Now there were two monkeys and a bunch of snails sitting around a mud puddle watching two rocks and wondering what was for dinner.

The rocks proved to be fairly tough once grilled, and the snails complained that they were sort of gritty.

Whether you believe in evolution or not or whether evolution is true or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that makes a Christian and Christianity look like blithering idiots to most of the civilized world.  It is the argument that you might expect from a four year old who hadn't learned to read yet.

It is precisely the four year old mentality that complains when the nightly fairytale story, known by heart, is told somewhat differently.  The four year old mentality takes the fairytale too seriously, forgetting that it is, after all, just a fairytale.  With a few years' maturing, he will be able to see the jest in such situations along with everyone else.

[Mr. J]

Interesting, but we've lost some facts along the way.

In the original evolution theory, the earth was here by magic.  The sea was here by magic.  By magic it existed for hundreds of millions of years, being formed by nothing, doing nothing.  Then all of a sudden, in a mud puddle far, far away, two rock began humping.  And after millions and millions of years, these two rocks (which we would have thought would have worn themselves into dust) persistently did their duty, and low and behold, out sprang a monkey.  Now we all know a monkey cannot multiply by itself, and we all know a monkey is what we all came from, so these poor two rocks needed to hump for millions of more years to produce a monkey of the opposite gender. 

Now the original monkey had to survive for millions, and millions of years with no food, as the monkey had not yet evolved into food.  So somehow, perhaps by magic, the original monkey just hung around for millions and millions of years while the two rocks continually humped in a mud puddle (that somehow did not dry out over millions and millions of years) and magically produced the other monkey of a different gender.

Now that there were two monkeys, one which was millions and millions of years old, and one that had freshly jumped out of a mud puddle, there was the ability to make make more monkeys.  Forget the fact that there was yet no food for mama monkey to make baby monkeys with, we're talking magic here.

But keep the faith because these very resourceful monkeys were bound and determined to have snails as offspring instead of monkeys.  Now keep in mind this was not intelligent snailing, but completely accidental snailing.  Now there were two monkeys and a bunch of snails sitting around a mud puddle watching two rocks and wondering what was for dinner.

The rocks proved to be fairly tough once grilled, and the snails complained that they were sort of gritty.

When engaged in an unwinnable argument, the best tactic is often to try to make the question look ridiculous.

I invite you to show us conclusive, verifiable evidence of evolution.  Prove to us it isn't a ridiculous notion.

[Jimmy]

Whether you believe in evolution or not or whether evolution is true or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that makes a Christian and Christianity look like blithering idiots to most of the civilized world.  It is the argument that you might expect from a four year old who hadn't learned to read yet.

It is precisely the four year old mentality that complains when the nightly fairytale story, known by heart, is told somewhat differently.  The four year old mentality takes the fairytale too seriously, forgetting that it is, after all, just a fairytale.  With a few years' maturing, he will be able to see the jest in such situations along with everyone else.

You need to understand that I am not promoting a belief in evolution.  But the fact is that there are some very intelligent people who believe in it and promote it as the norm.  Many of those people are sincere Christians who believe in God just as much and just as deeply as you.  When you attempt to discredit evolution through ridicule, you will quickly lose the very audience that you are trying to speak to.  It is much the same as the atheist who would try to convince me that there is no God by ridiculing my intellectual capacity simply because I believe in God.  I don't even hear him through the entire sentence before I have turned him off.

You call it a fairy tale.  It is not.  It may not be correct.  Evolution may be entirely wrong.  But it is not a fairy tale.  I suspect that the real problem that you have is that you are unable to defend against the idea of evolution on any rational basis as therefore you must resort to ridicule.  It is not effective.  The only one really ridiculed with such an approach is the one doing the ridiculing.

[Mr. J]

Whether you believe in evolution or not or whether evolution is true or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that makes a Christian and Christianity look like blithering idiots to most of the civilized world.  It is the argument that you might expect from a four year old who hadn't learned to read yet.

It is precisely the four year old mentality that complains when the nightly fairytale story, known by heart, is told somewhat differently.  The four year old mentality takes the fairytale too seriously, forgetting that it is, after all, just a fairytale.  With a few years' maturing, he will be able to see the jest in such situations along with everyone else.

You need to understand that I am not promoting a belief in evolution.  But the fact is that there are some very intelligent people who believe in it and promote it as the norm.  Many of those people are sincere Christians who believe in God just as much and just as deeply as you.  When you attempt to discredit evolution through ridicule, you will quickly lose the very audience that you are trying to speak to.  It is much the same as the atheist who would try to convince me that there is no God by ridiculing my intellectual capacity simply because I believe in God.  I don't even hear him through the entire sentence before I have turned him off.

You call it a fairy tale.  It is not.  It may not be correct.  Evolution may be entirely wrong.  But it is not a fairy tale.  I suspect that the real problem that you have is that you are unable to defend against the idea of evolution on any rational basis as therefore you must resort to ridicule.  It is not effective.  The only one really ridiculed with such an approach is the one doing the ridiculing.

It seems you're very uncomfortable with any method or explanation that you did not originate.  You wouldn't be the first engineer with the NIH syndrome.  (Not Invented Here, for those unfamiliar.)  Poking fun is not your style.  That's perfectly fine, but must we all behave according to your style?  You don't see the value in satire.  Well, that's you, not me.

If you're going to chastise others on the forum for not using a "Jimmy Approved" method of communication, then it might be a good idea to post "Jimmy's Rules" so we all can play nice and to your approval.  And while you're at it, post the "Jimmy Approved," official defenses against evolution, just so we can all stay in line.

[Jimmy]

Whether you believe in evolution or not or whether evolution is true or not, this is precisely the sort of thing that makes a Christian and Christianity look like blithering idiots to most of the civilized world.  It is the argument that you might expect from a four year old who hadn't learned to read yet.

It is precisely the four year old mentality that complains when the nightly fairytale story, known by heart, is told somewhat differently.  The four year old mentality takes the fairytale too seriously, forgetting that it is, after all, just a fairytale.  With a few years' maturing, he will be able to see the jest in such situations along with everyone else.

You need to understand that I am not promoting a belief in evolution.  But the fact is that there are some very intelligent people who believe in it and promote it as the norm.  Many of those people are sincere Christians who believe in God just as much and just as deeply as you.  When you attempt to discredit evolution through ridicule, you will quickly lose the very audience that you are trying to speak to.  It is much the same as the atheist who would try to convince me that there is no God by ridiculing my intellectual capacity simply because I believe in God.  I don't even hear him through the entire sentence before I have turned him off.

You call it a fairy tale.  It is not.  It may not be correct.  Evolution may be entirely wrong.  But it is not a fairy tale.  I suspect that the real problem that you have is that you are unable to defend against the idea of evolution on any rational basis as therefore you must resort to ridicule.  It is not effective.  The only one really ridiculed with such an approach is the one doing the ridiculing.

It seems you're very uncomfortable with any method or explanation that you did not originate.  You wouldn't be the first engineer with the NIH syndrome.  (Not Invented Here, for those unfamiliar.)  Poking fun is not your style.  That's perfectly fine, but must we all behave according to your style?  You don't see the value in satire.  Well, that's you, not me.

If you're going to chastise others on the forum for not using a "Jimmy Approved" method of communication, then it might be a good idea to post "Jimmy's Rules" so we all can play nice and to your approval.  And while you're at it, post the "Jimmy Approved," official defenses against evolution, just so we can all stay in line.

I have had at least one person ask me if he could be a Christan and still believe in evolution.  At first I thought that was a silly question.  But on thinking about it a little more, I realized that for a large share of our conservative congregations, that is a real serious question.

Even more serious is that we are losing too many of our kids when they go off to college.  There are a lot of reasons why that is and most have little to do with the subject of this thread.  But some do.  The idea that science is the stuff of atheists and Christians don't believe such "fairy tales" has put these young people in a position in their college experiences that leave them very very vulnerable.  There are some very good reasons to suspect that evolution is not how God established life as we know it here on earth.  None of them are scriptural.  But too many of our young people have been told that evolution goes against God's word. That is not true as far as I am concerned and within the academic community, that is not defensible position. It is a subject that is too important to make light of.

So yes I am sensitive to how this subject is treated and it has nothing to do with NIH.

[Johnb]

The theory of evolution is just that an unproven theory with many holes.  The "big bang"  theory has been modified and discarded by most who examine the planets and rest of the universe.  The spins and expansion is not consistant with a big bang.  Where did the big bang come from???  Some of bi pedals on the evolutionary chart actually lived at the same time and was not a continual evolution.  Most naturally occurring changes are not beneficial to a species.  When confronted with the changes that must take place for a cold blooded reptile to become a warm blooded species (over 20 change that would all be fatal to a cold blooded animal)  evolutionist come up with the skip or leap evolution.  In other words a reptile gave birth to a warm blooded animal in a single generation.  (Breaks all rules of evolution and common sense.  Similarity's in animals is used to prove they come from a common source.  But what is that source?   If you look at an outhouse, a storage building and a house they have many similarities.  Would one look at them and say why I think a outhouse evolved and became a storage building and the storage building over time became a house.  Or would it be more reasonable to believe they were all made by a common designer or maker?
Evolutionist claim to have a chain with a few missing links but what the really have is a couple of links with a missing chain.

[Jimmy]

The theory of evolution is just that an unproven theory with many holes.  The "big bang"  theory has been modified and discarded by most who examine the planets and rest of the universe.  The spins and expansion is not consistant with a big bang.  Where did the big bang come from???  Some of bi pedals on the evolutionary chart actually lived at the same time and was not a continual evolution.  Most naturally occurring changes are not beneficial to a species.  When confronted with the changes that must take place for a cold blooded reptile to become a warm blooded species (over 20 change that would all be fatal to a cold blooded animal)  evolutionist come up with the skip or leap evolution.  In other words a reptile gave birth to a warm blooded animal in a single generation.  (Breaks all rules of evolution and common sense.  Similarity's in animals is used to prove they come from a common source.  But what is that source?   If you look at an outhouse, a storage building and a house they have many similarities.  Would one look at them and say why I think a outhouse evolved and became a storage building and the storage building over time became a house.  Or would it be more reasonable to believe they were all made by a common designer or maker?
Evolutionist claim to have a chain with a few missing links but what the really have is a couple of links with a missing chain.

I don't know where you are getting your physics, but the big bang didn't come from any consideration of evolution.  The two are totally unconnected.  Nothing in the evolutionary field of ideas have any input or consideration in the big bang.  While there may be some questions that remain unanswered relative to what is called the big bang, the big bang still remains the generally accepted description of the history of the universe, by the whole field of cosmology, astronomy and physics.

[Johnb]

The evolutonist must answer the questions of life comming from non life, where did it all start?  or where did the universe come from and ultamately where did matter come from.  Either God is eternal or matter is eternal.  Yes the orgins of the universe is tied to evolution.  It has been years since I had to deal with this problem and would have to do some research but there have been several modifications to the "big bang theory".  several laws of physics do not fit.  The real question is why would one who believes in God need a different answer than God spoke the universe into existance?  These theories are just that theories that can not be proven.  Science and physics change.  At one time it was believed that the world was flat.  Then up popped old Albert and E=MC2 and the laws of physicis changed.  I just find it more resonable to believe that God created (made from nothing) the universe and man and all that we see.  Evolution, and the big bang theory just take more faith than a resonable man can muster.