Can anyone back up the THEORY of evolution without junk science?

1. 60

   olivertwistedposted 9 years ago

   Can anyone back up the THEORY of evolution without junk science?
   
   "The vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." --Werner von Braun, the father of space science
   
   "Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the pruely physical."  --Sir John Templ

   replyreport
2. 62

   yoshi97posted 9 years ago

   First, we need to prove that every living thing is born from at least one living parent - that's an easy one, as life doesn't create itself spontaneously
   
   Next, we need to prove that there is an enormous variety of life in the plant and animal kingdoms - another easy one as we can see this with our own eyes as we look around
   
   Finally, we must prove that simpler forms of life came into existence long before more complex forms of life - this can be a sticky one.
   
   The first two are easily proven, but we need to prove the third to prove evolution is a factual thing that occurs. However, we all need to take the word of scientists when they say they dug down deep and only found simple forms of life, unless we are willing to take the shovel into our hands and do it ourselves.
   
   If one wants to disprove evolution then they only need to dig deep and keep finding fossils of complex organisms. That, in and of itself, would be absolute proof that evolution is a lie. However, if one continues to dig and they keep finding lesser complex organisms, then is that to say they didn't dig far enough? That's the only valid argument against evolution and it will always remain until someone digs clear to the mantel of the Earth, which is impossible.
   
   Myself, I believe in God and I believe in evolution. In fact, I believe evolution is a mechanism used by God to create new life forms. However, just because one chooses to believe or disbelieve in evolution doesn't stop it from occurring, it's just a difficult concept to take in as it happens over many lifetimes, so we never actually witness it occur.
   
   So ... no junk science ... just three facts which are easily proven. Also, no Darwinism either, as Darwin was wrong about much of what he said, but Darwin wasn't the father of evolution, he was just someone trying to explain how he thought it worked ... and he made a few mistakes along the way.

   replyreport
3. 60

   olivertwistedposted 9 years ago

   OK yoshi, look up and explain for me, since its what you've stated would blow up the THEORY, the cambrian explosion. And if Darwin isn't the father of this THEORY, who was? If you want me to take your "three facts" into consideration, could you give me some legitimate reference for your conclusions?

   replyreport
4. 61

   HOOWANTSTONOposted 9 years ago

   1) Evolution still has to prove its not false.
   2) Evolution as too many hidden facts that contradict evolution. That in itself proves evolution is only a theory.
   3) Evolution cannot go past this scientific fact, that nothing gets more complex and more intelligent as it evolves, but less complex and less intelligent with either the same information, or less. Genetics has proved this. Genetics is Science.

   replyreport
5. 59

   Hi-Jinksposted 9 years ago

   Does junk science means the science you failed in school? Living things change little by little over the generations.

   replyreport
6. 57

   mandamarie22pandaposted 9 years ago

   Absolutely not.  The "science" of evolution consists of shifting the burden of proof, which yoshi97 did in their comment:
   "If one wants to disprove evolution then they only need to dig deep and keep finding fossils of complex organisms. That, in and of itself, would be absolute proof that evolution is a lie. However, if one continues to dig and they keep finding lesser complex organisms, then is that to say they didn't dig far enough? That's the only valid argument against evolution and it will always remain until someone digs clear to the mantel of the Earth, which is impossible."  It's impossible to disprove something, unless you are everywhere at once.  The Oort cloud is the perfect example.  Theoretically, it is 50,000 astronomical units away, meaning that it would be positively impossible to view, even if it were true.  To say "prove to me that there is NO evidence of evolution" is silly.  Prove to ME that there IS any actual shred of evidence, and I will comply. 
   They also use examples of micro evolution (for example, the variations in species, like breeds of dogs) to prove the ridiculous theories of all kinds of evolution (cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic and macro evolution) on a smaller scale, and, of course, circular reasoning, using carbon dating to determine the age of a fossil, while using the fossil to create carbon dating. 
   -Manda

   replyreport
7. 71

   ceciliabeltranposted 9 years ago

   Things evolve, even our brain evolves in our lifetime. NOW, saying that doesn't mean I think all this evolution is happening randomly. Life learns and is acquiring intelligence that continues past individual lifetimes. Life is merely a vessel of this intelligence that seems to pursue some kind of perfection, of what I can only guess. Life is learning. Even matter is remembering the energy that created it by freezing into form the force that made it.
   
   Evolution is proof that something far larger than individual living beings is thinking, learning and improving.

   replyreport
8. 0

   e-lylposted 9 years ago

   The science is there, but as they say, "Faith is impervious to reason."

   replyreport
9. 47

   H P Roychoudhuryposted 8 years ago

   Darin formula is there in the evolution of life. The accidental formation of protoplasm was the source of life. On the other hand the religious belief is that God is the creator of life as well as the Universe. So far nothing is proved to be absolutely true. But many great scientists are giving their opinion in favor of the opinion of the both. Even Einstein had given many theory of correlation. Because according to them both are correct and same only interpretation of understanding is different. The concept of evolution of protoplasm by accident by science is as good as the creation of life by God.

   replyreport
10. 60

    Mrfflidposted 8 years ago

    Thanks for asking such a question. Without it I wouldn't of realised that as I have often pondered is it possible to think outside our own perimeters, I am indeed able. You have made it clear to me that the only perimeters and boundries set are by what I can only refer to as a mental prison keeper, the 'creator'.
    
    I'd never hold anything against faith, it's much more meaningful that believing in a higher rationality, its believing in eachother. The symbol of faith creates love when we need it, hope when we need it. With all due respect it is not somebloody golden ticket to the golden gates of the factory.
    
    I hope your logic serves you well.

    replyreport
11. 60

    bibi16posted 8 years ago

    Nope, sorry, all I got to offer is junk science. Or just plain old junk. Any buyers?

    replyreport
12. 78

    Jnich2posted 8 years ago

    The very first answer claimed that "life doesn't create itself spontaneously", and used this as a proof that everything has a common ancestor. This is incredibly fallacious since evolution teaches that life DID spontaneously generate itself.
    
    The truth that is hidden from us by the media and academia is that evolution is highly unlikely. Obviously Creation is also highly unlikely but there IS more evidence for design than for random chance.
    
    The second law of thermal dynamics says that all things decay. This is a LAW. Nothing in nature can randomly improve. That is an indisputable fact that scientists seek to constantly dispute. They ignore this law and say that we all evolved from a single celled organism. That would be impossible according to the second law.
    
    As to the argument that the answer is in the fossil record that is simply untrue. The theory that the fossils prove that simple life forms evolved first is just bad logic.
    
    First you have to assume that all of the life forms of the time were fossilized. We have no way to know this is true and therefor it is a bad assumption. Then we have to assume that these fossilized life forms passed on their genetics. Again this is very assumptive. All we really know about these fossils is they died and were fossilized. We have no evidence that they reproduced. That is not science by the true definition of science.
    
    Then there is the whole issue of the Cambrian explosion. Every type of life is found in the Cambrian level. This does away with the argument that only simple life forms appear in the lower levels of the fossil record. There is currently no solid scientific explanation for the Cambrian explosion that doesn't include a designer.

    replyreport