I was just wondering if any religious people would be willing to try to explain what you think evolution is?

First of all, it depends on what kind of "evolution" you are referring to (the word simply means "change over time"):

-Cosmic evolution (the Big Bang)—including things like galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution.

-Chemical evolution (or Abiogenesis)—life from non-life.

-Biological evolution (Darwinism)—universal common descent through mutation and natural selection.

-Or minor changes within individual species that occur over short periods of time (sometimes called micro-evolution)—which isn't controversial at all.

Most of the time, people just give examples of natural selection or genetic drift and assume it points to undirected microbes-to-man evolution. Even young-earth creationists believe in natural selection and "speciation." Take a look at these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-na...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/speci...

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-4...

I will tell you exactly what evolution is evolution is a bull crap idea that men have dreamed up they will give you all kinds of reasons how evolution evolved all forms of life but with the very best science and knowledge on the face of this planet not one single scientists can willfully create one living cell that will continue to reproduce and live.

If evolution actually evolved all the different life that we have from some chemicals in the ocean why can't the smartest creatures on Earth duplicated today with the very best of their equipment? Sorry I can't believe in something that you say happened on accident that you can't make happen on purpose that don't make any sense at all.

It would be a rather silly waste of time for me (not an accredited biologist) to explain that when expert explanations are readily available online from reputable sources.

I accept the scientific explanation.

So should others.

BUT...why would it bother you that some do not? It shouldn't.

It should not matter to you that people have misconceptions regarding the theory. The theory does not benefit from them having more accurate knowledge of the theory, nor do you, and probably also *nor do they*.

It now involves 3 things, not in the original.

1) Abiogenesis

2) Unitary Tree of Life.

3)Extension of 'evolution' to non-living Universe as a whole.

Debate me if you dare.

Evolution is extending natural selection to the point of being the creator.

Evolution (as in rats to bats or whatever) is impossible.

Would you like to be an expert on the theory of evolution and how it really works? You can be. Just continue reading.

The fundamental key to having a complete understanding of the theory of evolution (aka evolutionism) can be found within the first ten seconds of an episode (S1E2) from the slavishly pro-evolution TV series “David Attenborough’s Natural Curiosities” (see script link below since YT has removed the vid because of copyright). There the famous naturalist unwittingly spills the beans with this question: “How did two small animals ... CHANGE our understanding of evolution?” (emphasis added).

Well who would have guessed? It turns out that evolutionism itself has its own built-in survival mechanism: evolution. It evolves as necessary to adapt to ever new contradictory information. When evidence again and again is found against the failed theory, it just maneuvers, dodges, twists, weaves and “changes” as required to accommodate the new evidence. Below are some examples.

Almost immediately after Darwin wrote his nonsense, evolutionists touted fossils of the strange looking coelacanth fish as proof of evolution. All were told the 65-million year old seagoing vertebrate was a clearly recognizable precursor to animals that walked on land based on its obvious foot-like fins--that is until 1938 when they found one swimming around in the Indian Ocean. It was just a weird-looking fish. With any other theory, especially with such a setback, scientists would at least consider the prospect that the theory is fundamentally flawed and maybe should be relegated to the dust heap of other failed theories like bloodletting and the flat-earth theory--but not with the theory of evolution. All you do is “change [the] understanding of evolution” which is code for “evolve” the theory. (Since everything else evolves, why not the theory itself?) So scientists came up with the idea of “living fossils”. They changed the theory from all animals evolving to only those that had not met an “evolutionary dead end” where they were so perfectly evolved, they no longer needed to evolve any further. (Huh? So even if the theory is true, how do they know with certainty that all animals haven’t now met their evolutionary dead end, and therefore there is no more evolution? You’re not supposed to ask questions like that.)

Later as more and more fossils were dug up it became more and more obvious that the fossil record was NOT replete with transitional-intermediates as theorized by Darwin, but rather if anything, showed animals NOT evolving; staying relatively the same for supposedly “millions of years”. Such was described as the “trademark secret of paleontologists” by famed evolutionists such as Dr. Stephen Gould. Again, not a problem for the ever evolving theory of evolution; Dr. Gould and others changed the theory and invented the idea of “Punctuated Equilibrium” where evolution happens so fast when it does happen, it rarely or can’t be found in the fossil record. What once was a “problem” for evolution, with the writing of a new book, instantly became “proof” for evolution. Now NOT finding transitional-intermediates in the fossil record was proof of the theory (huh?).

A more recent example of the dodging and twisting was when soft tissue was accidentally found in dinosaur bones in 2005 by Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Mainstream scientists for decades had told everyone that there was no sense looking for soft tissue in dinosaur bones because they were so old, it would be impossible for such to be found in them. Although at first those biased scientists dismissed her evidence as faulty, with more and more testing and it being determined that in actuality, soft tissue is the rule rather than the exception in dino bones, the theory “changed” once again and asserted that soft tissue in dinosaur bones CAN continue to exist for even hundreds of millions of years after the death of the animal. Thus at one time what was proof that a bone was young, now is also proof that it may be old--all according to the latest version of the theory. But that’s not all.

After soft tissue was found in dino bones, some inquisitive testers tested the bones for carbon-14. Because of the relative very short half-life of the C14 isotope, no remains of dead animals should have any C14 in them if they have been dead over 100,000 years. Well guess what. C14 testing of dino bones routinely shows the isotope in them revealing them to be 40,000 years old or less. As with the soft-tissue problem above, most mainstream scientists have initially dismissed and ignored this evidence; however, this problem continues to linger and is becoming more and more problematic. For one thing, dino bones can be bought online and sent to labs for date testing for only a few hundred dollars, so that almost anyone with a little cash can see the evidence directly for themselves--without ever having to even leave their own house! (See vid below of some who have done just that.) Some scientists, recognizing the problem isn’t just going away, have already started to “change” the theory again. In desperation, a few are asserting circular-reasoning nonsense: C14 works for mammoth and saber-tooth tiger fossils because they only died out a few thousand years ago, but it doesn’t work for dinosaur fossils because they died out millions of years ago (again, huh?).

In a nutshell, the basic logic for evolution goes something like the illustration below:

Person A: Rocks evolve from water.

Person B: Prove it.

Person A: Here we have simple water. Over here we have complex rocks. That means water evolved into rocks.

Person B: How can you say that? Have you ever seen water become a rock?

Person A: No. It happens so slowly you can’t see it happening.

Person B: Then how can you say water evolves into rocks if you even admit you can never see it happen.

Person A: Look at this. I’ve drawn a picture*. Here on the left we have simple water. Here in the middle is an arrow pointing from left to right. And over here on the right we have complex rocks. That obviously means water evolved into rocks. What better proof could there be? I mean you have to admit this is a well-drawn picture.

Person B: What?! I still don’t understand.

Person A: Hmm ... Let me see. Oh here’s some. See this?

Person B: That’s mud.

Person A: No, that’s what we evolutionists call a transitional intermediate.

Person B: Huh? I still don’t understand.

Person A: You must be a retard.

Knowing how the theory really works, one can easily surmise what would happen if a fossilized T-Rex sitting in a rocking chair, smoking a pipe and reading “The Saturday Evening Post” was found. The next day headlines from all the science journals would read, “Startling New Evidence Shows that Rocking Chairs, Smoking Pipes and even ‘The Saturday Evening Post’ Are at Least 65-Million Years Old!”

So now you know how Darwin’s failed theory works and continues to survive even to this day. The theory of evolution itself evolves. Because of that, it is impossible to disprove the theory to an avid evolutionist. No matter what credible negative evidence you presented, some sort of ad hoc explanation would be invented to counter the evidence, and the theory “changed” accordingly.

Many, many people do not believe in the theory of evolution because of the mountain of overwhelming evidence against it (maybe even most people if they didn’t have to deal with inevitable ridicule--or even losing their job--for expressing their true beliefs on the matter). There are too many flaws in the theory to cover in this puny forum. For those interested in a more exhaustive list, I would suggest seeing the appropriate section on the apologeticspress.org website. In the meantime, enjoy the vids below.

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvWdWbLcJvQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxMkMBXAVZ8

*For those who wonder what imaginative picture drawing has to do with evolution, see the vid below starting at about the 4:55 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fo9KW2hQus

And who best to prove Darwin’s theory untrue, but the famed naturalist himself.

“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains” (“The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, Chapter 6, “Difficulties of Theory”).

Scientific observation: Numberless intermediate varieties have NOT been found amongst fossil remains. In fact, the lack of intermediate transitional fossils has even been described as the “trademark secret of paleontologists” by famed evolutionists such as Dr. Stephen Gould.

Conclusion: Darwin’s theory is NOT true.

Finally -

“Debating evolutionists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon which keeps changing the rules of the game--except only another evolutionist would even contemplate trying to play chess with a pigeon.” - David@YourService.

Evolution is science and like all science it is not a matter of belief but of evidence and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This is why it is accepted by theists and atheists alike including all the mainstream Christian religions.

I'm a spiritual person, but not a religious person. And I do indeed accept evolution. As for my definition of it, right here and now..? I guess it would be something like: change accumulating over time, due to random mutations followed by natural selection. Changes that are NOT beneficial for the survival of those organisms..? Are naturally weeded out. But the ones that ARE beneficial..? Are usually passed on to newer generations. Which, over yet more time, can eventually lead to different populations evolving into different species, or different branches on the tree of life.. If for instance they are separated by a geological obstacle of some kind.

..Also, just a few points: a number of people on here DO like to use it as an argument against God/divinity. But I personally agree with you, at least for the most part. I think it can serve as a legit argument against a certain TYPE of God! So as for people who believe in that sort of God..? Like for instance most Biblical literalist Christians..? I can see why they might find it rather threatening. But for people like me, whose concept of Source/divinity is just SO much f*cking bigger and more expansive than that..? It doesn't really matter. :)

Also: for Christians that are NOT Biblical literalists, evolution can still be combined with the Bible! They just need to NOT take a purely literal view of the Genesis account. :-P

I could explain it, but you would not accept my definition. Plus, there really isn't enough room here to type it all out.

So, I am submitting a short video clip, and strongly encourage you to view it. This explains my position and viewpoint.

Really, listen to the whole thing. You will learn something, and it will challenge what you believe.

--- (A Yahoo! User)

Evolution is Absurd pt 1

https://youtu.be/060ZzxTCqKc

This makes zero sense.