Evolution, proof it is disproven?

First we have to compare apples to apples...Macro or Micro

We SEE mirco (change within a species)happening every day, there is no argument that there is change WITHIN a species so I will assume that you are referring to MACRO evolution....

Proof? -simple (and even without any Biblical references or opinion.)

The SCIENTIFIC LAW of Biogenesis =)

Now secondly if you are to seem credible, you must also apply your same list of "invalid answers:" to your beliefs. To say that this science book says that evolution happened also has to be an invalid answer. Likewise, please show me where there are ANY accompany falsifiable evidences when discussions of evolution is brought up! When dating methods are done there are rarely (if ever) blind studies done with these tests. 'Somebody says so' doesn't fly either...you have to be fare and if it's good for the goose than the gander better ante up as well!

See the problem that I have is that when someone is trying to discredit evolutionary theory they are given this set of rules that must be followed by those who have come to believe this evolutionary theory to be the end all. However their own set of rules completely blows their own theory of evolution right out of the water.

You claim there are 'thousands of so-called transitional fossils' yet I have as of yet to see a credible one that has not been proven to be just a complete hoax or simply a member of a current species that was mis categorized.

You also claim that there are 'millions of pieces of evidence...' and what about the evidence that goes against the evolutionary theory. An example? The 'geological column' that is taught is just about every science book out there...IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!! Again not anyones opinion just a geological FACT!

Evolution has NO answer for what takes place inside a cocoon...yet we still have moths and butterflies. Again no religious text implied...just straight forward scientific LOGIC.

Science can't explain how the bumblebee can fly...surely an evolutionary hick-up

According to the evolutionary theory the human instinct to give your life to save another's should have 'evolved' out since this is a trait that ends in the death of that individual. Thanks to our young men and women in every branch of our military this is not the case at all.

And don't even get me started on the whole..."the viruses are evolving and becoming immune to the vaccines" garbage 'cause guess what? Last time I checked...they are still viruses. NO MACRO evolution going on there. and yet again no "somebody said so's", just simple observation of the facts.

And the fossils? Well lets consider evolutions own index fossil, the coelacanth. You know about index fossils right? They are the ones that if found in a specific sedimentary layer it is said that that layer has to be x number of millions of years old because that is when said index fossil was alive, right? Yep, and then along comes a fisherman in 1938 who was out fishing in the Indian Ocean, northwest of Madagascar and what's he got on his line? Well I'll be, it's a fish that is believed to have lived anywhere between 70,000,00 and 400,000,000 (those are millions)

years ago. OOPS!

Well I have had enough fun for now...hope this helps you to see that there just might be a few too many flaws in the 'theory'.

ps-I am a Christian with a Biology degree and LOVE science

I wasn't even going to answer this question until I read harry killwater's answer. Technically I'm still not answering this question.

My response to really the most unjustifiably arrogant response I've read possibly ever in Yahoo Answers is too lengthy for this so I posted it on my blog. It's also my intention to try to email the link directly to mr killwater if he allows incoming emails. I haven't checked yet. Anyway for your reading pleasure:

http://deathmunkygod.blogspot.com/2008/11/this-is-...

EDIT:

I would also like to see cbmultiplechoice tell me what species modern species these fossils actually belong to, or show me where they were proven to be hoaxes:

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_...

This next one has a lot of information and a few different fossils:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

That's right archeopteryx is not a hoax. The astronomer and the physicist who argued it was have long been proven wrong, since their arguments were based on misunderstandings of all of the relevant processes. Today no paleontologist asserts that archeopteryx is even a disputed fossil. It's authenticity is firmly established.

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/images/T1b.JPG

that's Tiktaalik

that's just a few, I could find more, but I'd love to see those reclassified.

Also science does know how bees fly.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8382-secrets...

http://mr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12772...

And we don't understand what goes on in the chrysalis or you don't understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly#Wing_develo...

http://www.earthlife.net/insects/lepidop1.html#3

The human instinct is to ensure the survival of the species, not just the individual. Often sacrificing your own life for the life of a family member is completely acceptable throughout the entire animal kingdom. The goal is to ensure the continued existence of the genes we share with family members. But the human's ability to perform selfless sacrifices is not limited by purely biological compulsions, because we are capable of more abstract thought, and thus more complex decision making than just, is this good for me or my family? If yes, then do it, if no then don't do it. We can devise more complex reasons to compel action.

Also don't worry we never use any religious texts to try to support evolution, logic does so just fine.

At the end there you must be referring to the Coelocanth. The fish that scientists thought were extinct because there were many representatives of it in the fossil record but no known living examples? Well it turns out they moved to deeper waters where there are no more fossil examples of them to be found from the cretaceous period on because deep water fossils are at best extremely difficult to find and at worst impossible to form. I don't see what about this is even a slight problem for the theory of evolution, though, as it would hardly be accurate to assert that the coelocanth was unchanged from its representative fossils. Yes science can only base its conclusions on available information...what's so difficult to grasp there? I would love to see you construct an argument that gets from living Coelocanth to evolution is false, though.

the only "evolution" witnessed is microevolution, changes within as species. There have been no "transitional" species found, ever. And if you are intelligent enough, you should know that, some species have organs that others do not. Insects for instance, dont have a liver, or spleen, so while transforming, how did the insect survive during the change with half a liver, etc. Also, the law of entrophy indicates that all matter wolud have dissolved millions of years ago.

The theory of evolution is not a science because science is observation and repetition and getting the same result. Has anyone observed a fish transform into a bird, any recorded data on the observation in the past. So evolution cannot be proven by scientific method, so how do you consider it science? It is a belief just as creationism is due to neither has been observed or proven scientifically, with the scientific method.

Excellent question but I've tried this before with somewhat less eloquence. I asked for just a single piece of peer reviewed journalistic evidence to say that Evolution doesn't function. I just got silly answers in return.

These are the people who can look at the fossil record of our own ancestors and say the whole thing is lies and fakes. *sigh* You can't argue with a mind bolted shut.

Harry's assertion that somehow God exists or Evolution exists is highly typical and just the ultimate in black and whiting a whole human canvas of thought and philosophy. There are those who would drive the issue that if you don't believe in a 6400 year old Earth, then you are not a Christian.

I am not a Christian but I feel sorry for my Evolution accepting friends who are. It's turning a point of fundamentalist theology into a battleground against human rationality.

Such a waste.

Consider this

Mysteries In Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOoe0

The Young Age of the Earth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-127254205...

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ

The Origins of Life

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3181822797...

Creation In The 21st Century From Where did these Layers Come (From) 1 of 3 (Global Flood)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyoXQJ5Al0

Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLdsU

Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM

Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o

Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp13Q

Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-253536904...

it takes faith to believe in God but a hole lot more to believe in eveloution. Charles Darwin said if any multi complex organisims were found then his theory would totaly fall apart well there is heaps. Science has advanced alot since his time. So if Charles Darwin wouldnt believe in Evolution now, why would other people continue believing.

Scientests tell us the probibilty of life at its lowest level of complexity, originating on the earth by natural proses over a period of two billion years is 10 to the minus 255. so thats a decimal point and then 254 zero's before your first number. but the boundry of posibility is 10 to the minus 50, so any number past that is just imposible.

The moon each year moves away from the earth so if we have been here for millions of years the moon would have been rolling around the surface of the planet. the fact is that we have been here for about 6000 years.

i like to think that some of my ancesters were hung by the neck but not by the tail.

flipsmum is an example of the willful ignorance about science that pretty much all creationist IDiots display:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

----------------------------------------------

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

They can't show that it is disproven.

They can call into question carbon-dating, but the problem with that is science knows that it is fallible, as they've tested and re-tested objects that give different dates, and some that are impossible to be that old(like plastic that reads out as 750+ years old). Also to be considered, is that carbon dating is inconsequential as far as proving evolution goes. If we find out 20 years from now that carbon dating is COMPLETELY false(unlikely, but let's assume)-it only proves that the Earth may not be as old as we hypothesized before, not that evolution wasn't true.

There are thousands of transitional fossils, and we can observe it under laboratory conditions, which means it's as true as it can get. However, they point to the lack of a COMPLETE record of transitional fossils as proof of evolution being false. If we applied their logic to our argument that there is no god, they would simply tell us that we would need to irrevocably prove the nonexistence of god(which is impossible) to show that he doesn't or has never existed.

Another thing to consider-modern mountain gorillas do not exist in the fossil record. That does not mean they don't exist, especially considering most of us are a 35 minutes drive from seeing one and possibly being close enough to smell it, count it's teeth and possibly even touch it with a stick. That's proof of existence, but it's lack of fossil evidence simply shows that it's intelligent enough to have not found itself in a situation where it could have been easily preserved(such as sunken in quicksand or falling into a tarpit).

Guess what else? The same reasons gorillas are impossible to find in the fossil record is probably the same reason they can't find the complete transitional fossil account from monkey to human-because we and our predecessors were intelligent enough to not die in odd situations, we were often fortunate enough to be ritually buried and as such decomposed naturally into the Earth.

You really should read and study The Bible for yourself. No one can do that for you, by picking at a bunch of keys, just as "giving you proof". You have to seek it, or it's just a waste of time.Give one example of a mammal that has became another from a previous form, just one.All the "laws" which we use as basis for explanation where in The Bible before man had a clue.

There are so many plants and animals (all, actually) that couldn't have evolved, because their uniqueness , would have perished because they would have become extinct because they could not have survived in any other form than what they are!!

Also, The Bible is the ONLY prophetic book with a 100% track record. Since it is that correct on that prtion, there is no way it isn't on the others. HELLO!!

Listed below will be a few places to research, if you really want the truth. God Bless you, and may He open your eyes and heart to the truth. In Jesus Name. Amen

I know who the Anti-Christ is because the angel Gabriel told me who he was and that is how i figured out the meaning of this Biblical prophecy! This is proof that the Antichrist will become president after Obama raises taxes and then dies a few days later! Obama probably will not raise taxes until after the election According to my interpretation of the Bible in Rev. & Dan. Obama is going to win the election! because he is referred to as King #7(Rev. 17:10) who Dies a few days after he will raise taxes(Dan. 11:20) The Anti-Christ will be the next President after Obama! I have Biblical proof of this in Revelations 17:10! Where it says; There are 7 kings and 5 are fallen These 5 fallen kings are as follows here- In June 2004 there were 5x living pres. when George W. Bush was President! They were- 1.Gerald Ford 2.Jimmy Carter 3.Ronald Reagan 4.George H. W. Bush 5.Bill Clinton That means that George W. was king #6 and that makes Obama #7 and the Anti-Christ will be #8 who was 1 of our 7 previous presidents! At no time in world history has there ever been 5x kings living all at the same time when king #6 was in office! and the future king #7 was also alive also at that point in time! What you need to realize hear is that Obama is not going to raise our taxes before the election. So therefore according to Biblical prophecy Obama who is king/pres. #7 will raise our taxes after he is reelected and die with in a few days(Dan. 11:20)! The Anti-Christ will become our next President just a few days after Obama Raises taxes and dies