Creation vs. Evolution

[GBO Possum]

As I said, I really didn't think through WHY I was putting it up. After I was (appropriately) chastised, I thought about it and realized that I don't really want to continue. Or say anything so far off again.

So, I'm not going to continue now that I have reasonably apologized, and will leave everything as is from here.

Apologies are good! Thank you!

I'm guessing that the reason you posted that link to creationists' lies (you call it "twisting the truth") was that (at first glance) it supported your preconceived notions.

This is a popular self delusion. Over the centuries, there have been scientists who have been guided more by enthusiasm than by rigor. Fortunately, science is not a human endeavor which can be progressed by having an individual going off to a cave and coming back with ideas which must not be challenged upon pain of death. Science thrives on skepticism. It hones our knowledge and uncovers an ever-growing understanding.

In science, belief and faith are not virtues, they are hindrances to progress. Look at what Christians did to Galileo over the scientific issue of heliocentricity. The Church was desperate to silence the presentation of evidence since it called scripture into question. There are many examples of where the closed mindedness of believers has held back good things for humanity. Another example is the Papal view on the use of condoms to protect against AIDS. Seems that somewhere in the Bible it says that it's good to overpopulate the planet and increase the risk of AIDS transmission, hence condoms are a bad thing.

There are a lot of reputable books out there on the Theory of Evolution, some of which concentrate on the Theory and some of which contextualize it. Try searching on Amazon, and reading the reviews. If the reviews include negative ones from people who sound like creationists, then it's probably a good Evolution book, especially if it has a majority of five star reviews. Personally, I find Richard Dawkins to be an author who puts things together well, if sometimes a little forcefully.

 

[Liquid]

Steering my own post out of the God thread:

@Cobra_GT500 Just to be clear, Adam & Eve had Cain & Abel first, then Seth came along later. Those are the only three named children of Adam & Eve. But Genesis 5:4 states:

After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters

I am all for picking holes in relgious nonsese stories but the Cain & Abel having it off with Eve one doesn't stand. Not that the other sons and daughters isn't incest, but we have to accept what is written in the book.

On that topic of the first few procreated humans being incest by default, would the first fifty or so evolutionary humans not also count as incestuous? Or for any speices when it branches off and appears distinctly on the evolutionary tree, for that matter?

 

[mistersafeway]

Steering my own post out of the God thread:



On that topic of the first few procreated humans being incest by default, would the first fifty or so evolutionary humans not also count as incestuous? Or for any speices when it branches off and appears distinctly on the evolutionary tree, for that matter?

I'd go with the view that having sex with anything living on Earth is incest to some degree, seeing as the evidence points to us sharing a common ancestor. Hell, throw in microscopic organisms and masturbation could be argued as incest. Of course, by the common definition it's not, but it's all relative. Or something.

I should really go to bed...

Okay, before I do that I'll try to raise a valid point on the first population of humans being incestuous (and probably fail). I'd say no, because otherwise the population they spawned from would have to be at the same evolutionary stage and incestuous themselves, thus their parents would have to be, which means that everything is incest... I have a really dirty mind when I'm tired, it seems. Hopefully someone more eloquent than I will understand this and translate it to English (or explain why it's wrong).

 

[PeterJB]

On that topic of the first few procreated humans being incest by default, would the first fifty or so evolutionary humans not also count as incestuous? Or for any speices when it branches off and appears distinctly on the evolutionary tree, for that matter?

That's something that I've been trying to wrap my head around for quite some time. When did the first Homo Sapien appear? Richard Dawkins argues that there never was a first human, but to me that makes little sense. We are the only still-living species in the Homo genus, while there is genetic variation among humans, we are all the same species, and there is evidence to suggest cross-breeding with other hominids in prehistoric times, there must have been a first hominid whose genetic make-up was what we would fully class as Homo Sapien.

 

[Dotini]

There is evidence that 400,000 years ago Heidelbergensis engaged in ritual burials indicating some kind of belief system. They also fashioned large, aerodynamically shaped and weight-balanced javelin/spears, found preserved among the remains of large butchered animals.

Creative expressions by Homo Erectus, consisting of extensive geometric engravings on shells, has been dated to between 540,000 and 430,000 years ago.

The date of the first Homo Sapiens has been continuously pushed back. There is evidence of archaic Homo Sapiens from 200,000 to 400,000 years ago (at least), and early modern Homo Sapiens now goes back to ~200,000 years ago.

There is a huge amount of variation within each of these species. It is a good question to ask and agree, just what does it mean to be human?

 

[Famine]

That's something that I've been trying to wrap my head around for quite some time. When did the first Homo Sapien appear? Richard Dawkins argues that there never was a first human, but to me that makes little sense. We are the only still-living species in the Homo genus, while there is genetic variation among humans, we are all the same species, and there is evidence to suggest cross-breeding with other hominids in prehistoric times, there must have been a first hominid whose genetic make-up was what we would fully class as Homo Sapien.

Nice effort on the italics, but the species name is always lower case

The fact that there's no such thing as a "first human" doesn't necessarily contradict with the concept of there being first humans. No, wait...


The entire process of speciation is a tough one to get your head around. Evolution, as they say, affects the species not the individual - species change as a group, rather than an animal going to sleep as a wolf and waking up as a dog. It's a bit chicken-and-egg - there's a point at which the species is more human than [precursor hominid], but it'll still be made up of more-human and less-human individual animals. So which comes first, a human individual or a human species? Well... have a look at this image - which comes first, a white dot or a white region?

That's more or less what speciation is like only not necessarily so linear (species can evolve into two (or more) new species) nor quite so gradual (there may have been many branches of whitening dots that suddenly died out through accident). It's not the case that, one day, a white dot was born to two black dots and that white dot beget all future white dots (presumably breeding with another black dot, since there were no other white dots), but that populations of dots gradually became more white as whiteness proved an advantage - for some reason or other - to survival, leading to whiter and whiter dots over many thousands of years as whiter individuals were better at surviving and passing whiteness on...

It also depends on what you mean by a "human" individual. Take a look at the 7 billion odd there are of us. I think it's fair to say that we're pretty similar but there's a handful of differences - with a number of individuals displaying differences, which would you say is "more human"? You probably wouldn't and faced with the same dilemma 25,000 years ago, you probably wouldn't either. Unlike the homogenised black/white regions above, we're a kind of whitey-grey smear - as were our precursor species, only they'd have been slightly greyer. AND we could probably still breed with them if they were about.


The first groups of recognisably modern human individuals would have lived about 200,000 years ago - but there wouldn't have been an Adam (or Eve) in the group that produced all of them and thus all other humans as a "first human".

 

[Liquid]

@Famine I wasn't gearing towards an Adam or Eve archetype but wondering whether the first groups of homo sapiens sapiens to appear were genetically similar (to each other) that their breeding with each other resembles what we, with our modern cultural, sociological and anthropological terms, would consider incest or inbreeding.

I understand that it's a sliding scale and there is no clear cutoff point between species but it's a curiosity whereby I wonder that when the genetic material changes from being of one taxonym to another, is that new gene pool so small that 'inbreeding' or 'incest', as actions we might recognise, occur? As you say evolution neither happens overnight nor to whole groups so this may be something which only ever happened in localised pockets and not the entirety of the 'new' homo sapiens sapiens populations.

I'm sure that inbreeding happens in other species because of their intelligence or morality being different to us that it is never a conscious factor to object to; it is just an interesting juncture whether humans as evolutionary extant as we are were ever so 'primordial' or limited in breeding pools.

 

[Famine]

@Famine I wasn't gearing towards an Adam or Eve archetype but wondering whether the first groups of homo sapiens sapiens to appear were genetically similar (to each other) that their breeding with each other resembles what we, with our modern cultural, sociological and anthropological terms, would consider incest or inbreeding.

I understand that it's a sliding scale and there is no clear cutoff point between species but it's a curiosity whereby I wonder that when the genetic material changes from being of one taxonym to another, is that new gene pool so small that 'inbreeding' or 'incest', as actions we might recognise, occur? As you say evolution neither happens overnight nor to whole groups so this may be something which only ever happened in localised pockets and not the entirety of the 'new' homo sapiens sapiens populations.

I'm sure that inbreeding happens in other species because of their intelligence or morality being different to us that it is never a conscious factor to object to; it is just an interesting juncture whether humans as evolutionary extant as we are were ever so 'primordial' or limited in breeding pools.

No. I don't think the first few generations of populations with more-human characteristics would have been fussy enough to stop banging other, less-human peers in the group in preference to only the other more-human ones.

There'd probably have been some incestuousness - because they also probably wouldn't have been fussy enough not to bang their sisters.

 

[Dotini]

...gene pool so small that 'inbreeding' or 'incest', as actions we might recognise, occur?

There is a "population bottleneck" theory that states the human breeding population could have been reduced to as few as 3000 individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

 

[Griffith500]

That's something that I've been trying to wrap my head around for quite some time. When did the first Homo Sapien appear? Richard Dawkins argues that there never was a first human, but to me that makes little sense. We are the only still-living species in the Homo genus, while there is genetic variation among humans, we are all the same species, and there is evidence to suggest cross-breeding with other hominids in prehistoric times, there must have been a first hominid whose genetic make-up was what we would fully class as Homo Sapien.

There never was a first anything, in an absolute sense. These things exist conceptually in, and are differentiated within, a framework we constructed. Lines drawn at the subspecies level tend to be case-specific, and therefore arbitrary in general.

Lots of imperceptible changes accumulate over generations to result in marked deviations over time, particularly in isolated populations. But any small change that results in a marked improvement in adaptation to the prevailing environment results in a rapid shift in the balance of power (competition for resources, won in this case by simple proliferation, as an example), as the better adapted thing quickly becomes more numerous over a comparative few generations.

That can be seen in the "evolving clocks" video posted earlier.

Take into account social factors, and it should be obvious what happened to other homos: we killed them, directly or indirectly.

EDIT: Yikes, should have refreshed...

 

[Imari]

@Famine I wasn't gearing towards an Adam or Eve archetype but wondering whether the first groups of homo sapiens sapiens to appear were genetically similar (to each other) that their breeding with each other resembles what we, with our modern cultural, sociological and anthropological terms, would consider incest or inbreeding.

No.

The concept of a species works well in the present or in a set time period, it's easy to say "these are one species because they can breed with each other, these are another species because they can't breed with the first species".

Once you start looking backwards down the chain of evolution from, say, humans though, it becomes much more difficult. How far back can we go before a modern human couldn't breed with a proto-human? It's really, really hard to say in any more than general terms, and however far back you go there would have been a reasonable population of whatever the proto-human of that age was. Whatever point in time you end up defining as the start of homo sapiens has more than enough people that there's no need to sleep with your sister (although as Famine points out they probably did anyway, because it's warm and it wiggles).

As Dotini points out there may well have been bottlenecks in the human population in the past, but they're not because of any "transition" between species, because no such thing exists. It's the same reason we don't have the X-Men in real life, massive mutations do not happen in a single generation, they generally take long enough that it's only possible with hindsight to actually draw some sort of line in the sand, and even then it's somewhat arbitrary.

 

[Scaff]

Science is great, I love it. It has shown us a lot, but that doesn't mean it knows everything, and can deceive people by putting date stamps on the past, or saying the big bang came from nothing.

What date stamps?

Again, nothing can't create everything. That's the point and conclusion of evolution.

No its not.

There are hundreds of missing links, and offcourse, we have never never ever seen one species change into another kind.

Are you aware of the number of transitional fossils and species that have been documented?

Fittingly the bible says God made them after it's own kind. That my friend is science. It is observed and tested, a thousand times over. That is, seeing is believing.

Citation required (and not the Bible)

I'm not pretending not to know about evolution, it's just plain false. Unproven, and unscientific. Show us were one kind of species changes into another, that we don't have to receive by faith. No one can.

Yes they can and have. That you dismiss them does change that at all.

You know what makes the sunset beautiful, but you don't know how it got there in the first place, oh sorry you think you do, by coming from nothing.

Your the one that keeps saying that, stop attributing it to others.

The bible is evidence that supports creation, yet you again "choose" not to believe it. Simple.
You misunderstood what I was referring to by using the word IF. Jesus did create it all. The Son of Man, yes.

Please specifically cite the evidence in the Bible and document how it meets the scientific standard.

 

[dylansan]

Science is great, I love it. It has shown us a lot, but that doesn't mean it knows everything,

which no one has ever claimed it did.

and can deceive people by putting date stamps on the past

Science uses reliable methods to put dates on the past. It's based on an understanding of the physics of many different systems, but most importantly, it uses more than one system to ensure that both agree, removing the chance that the numbers we get are just mistakes. Sure, it's not precise enough to tell that something happened 2000 years ago on a Tuesday, but it can tell the difference between say, 6000 years and 14 billion, or even 4.5 billion.

, or saying the big bang came from nothing. Again, nothing can't create everything.

Where did God come from?

That's the point and conclusion of evolution. There are hundreds of missing links,

Please, tell me what you think a missing link is, and then point out what it would take to convince you that there are no missing links in say, the following collection?

Where, exactly, are the gaps? Do you think that these are all seperate species and have no relation to each other?

and offcourse, we have never never ever seen one species change into another kind. Fittingly the bible says God made them after it's own kind. That my friend is science. It is observed and tested, a thousand times over. That is, seeing is believing.

You observed God making us after his own kind? Or what? What exactly was observed here?

I'm not pretending not to know about evolution, it's just plain false. Unproven, and unscientific. Show us were one kind of species changes into another, that we don't have to receive by faith. No one can.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

 

[DCP]

What date stamps?

millions and billions of years. Anyone can claim that and deceive whoever wants to be deceived.


No its not.

yes, as evolutionists require millions of years to get to where it is now, and where did it start, offcourse, the big small bang is the theory unproven.


Are you aware of the number of transitional fossils and species that have been documented?

It really doesn't mean anything. Those fossils could be anybodies, or any creature, animal or human. No one really knows, except the Creator.

Citation required (and not the Bible)

For what. Every single time, when a cat mates with a cat, you get a....kitten, and not a butterfly. With the fluke or luck of random process, surely something else should pop up, right?


Yes they can and have. That you dismiss them does change that at all.

Okay, show me, and remember now, I mustn't receive it by faith or belief.




Your the one that keeps saying that, stop attributing it to others.

But it's a fact, it can't come from nothing. If you detonate explosives, after the dust settles, we don't find a mansion there. Likewise, why should we expect a sunset from a big small bang?



Please specifically cite the evidence in the Bible and document how it meets the scientific standard.

In the beginning (time), GOD created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter), and said "let there be light" (energy). So easy to ignore, because man is mighty. He can invent stuff. He claims to be able to see 13 billions years away, yet has absulotely no fact or truth in his claim, yet millions just believe it.

 

[dylansan]

For what. Every single time, when a cat mates with a cat, you get a....kitten, and not a butterfly. With the fluke or luck of random process, surely something else should pop up, right?

You've just proven beyond a doubt that you have no idea what evolution even claims, and that you've been arguing against something that no one believes.

It would be like if I said Christianity can't be true because my car can't drive on water, as if that was somehow part of what Christianity claimed.

 

[DCP]

which no one has ever claimed it did.
Science uses reliable methods to put dates on the past. It's based on an understanding of the physics of many different systems, but most importantly, it uses more than one system to ensure that both agree, removing the chance that the numbers we get are just mistakes. Sure, it's not precise enough to tell that something happened 2000 years ago on a Tuesday, but it can tell the difference between say, 6000 years and 14 billion, or even 4.5 billion.

Where did God come from?
Please, tell me what you think a missing link is, and then point out what it would take to convince you that there are no missing links in say, the following collection?

Where, exactly, are the gaps? Do you think that these are all seperate species and have no relation to each other?
You observed God making us after his own kind? Or what? What exactly was observed here?http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

To date something, you have to assume that the conditions remained the same from then till now. Nobody will ever know this. One part of a fossilized animal is millions of years old, yet another part of the same animal is thousands of years old. No accuracy and not one once of truth. Theory is just that, best guess.

The bible tells us that God is Eternal. He doesn't operate under the laws that we live in. He created all these laws.
I suppose we would only know the answer to this question when we get to live with God the way we were meant to, before the fall, and this would be by choice again.

Everything is random process.
So where is the change from frog to duck, or duck to centipede, or fly to rooster. There has to be a change of a kind for evolution to make sense.
There were all kinds of hybrid humans, and fallen angels in those times, so who knows what those skulls were. No one was there, so again, its all best guess, which is not truth and fact.

 

[Scaff]

In the beginning (time), GOD created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter), and said "let there be light" (energy).

Citation required.

So easy to ignore, because man is mighty.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, please provide it.

He can invent stuff. He claims to be able to see 13 billions years away, yet has absulotely no fact or truth in his claim, ........

Do you know what this image is, the evidence that supports it and the science behind it?

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-07-a-print.jpg

If you did you would know that your statement above it clear nonsense.

........yet millions just believe it.

The irony of that statement coming from a theist is almost off the scale

To date something, you have to assume that the conditions remained the same from then till now. Nobody will ever know this. One part of a fossilized animal is millions of years old, yet another part of the same animal is thousands of years old. No accuracy and not one once of truth. Theory is just that, best guess.

The bible tells us that God is Eternal. He doesn't operate under the laws that we live in. He created all these laws.
I suppose we would only know the answer to this question when we get to live with God the way we were meant to, before the fall, and this would be by choice again.

Everything is random process.
So where is the change from frog to duck, or duck to centipede, or fly to rooster. There has to be a change of a kind for evolution to make sense.
There were all kinds of hybrid humans, and fallen angels in those times, so who knows what those skulls were. No one was there, so again, its all best guess, which is not truth and fact.

You quite clearly have no idea at all what the Theory of Evolution is.

Your clear ignorance of the science and evidence that supports it demonstrates that to a staggering level.

Oh and a theory? No its not a best guess.

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

 

[DCP]

You've just proven beyond a doubt that you have no idea what evolution even claims, and that you've been arguing against something that no one believes.

It would be like if I said Christianity can't be true because my car can't drive on water, as if that was somehow part of what Christianity claimed.

Hence why I say, you have to believe in evolution, which makes it another religion or cult. No one really knows what happened, if those species changed. U say man came from apes. where did apes come from, and so on and so forth. It's all guessing that probably it started with plasma dust.

 

[Joel]

I'm a Charmeleon and I evolved from a Charmander. It says so in my Pokedex.

 

[Scaff]

Hence why I say, you have to believe in evolution, which makes it another religion or cult. No one really knows what happened, if those species changed.

No you don't. Simply because you are not aware or do not understand the evidence doesn't change that evidence.

More evidence exists to support the Theory of Evolution that exists to support Gravitational theory.

It is not a belief structure.

U say man came from apes. where did apes come from, and so on and so forth.

Not a single person who understands evolutionary theory makes the claim that man came from apes. You made that claim (and I would guess gained it from others who are equally ignorant of evolutionary theory).

And stop using text speak, its an AUP violation - do it again and you will get a formal warning

It's all guessing that probably it started with plasma dust.

And again you show your ignorance of evolution. You're mistaking how life started with how life came to its current state, evolution explains the latter and doesn't cover the former..

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hence why I say, you have to believe in evolution, which makes it another religion or cult. No one really knows what happened, if those species changed.

So evolution has stopped? Clearly you've never either known anyone who's had a common cold.

U say man came from apes. where did apes come from, and so on and so forth.

This makes me think you're trolling.... nobody says man came from apes.

 

[Touring Mars]

So where is the change from frog to duck, or duck to centipede, or fly to rooster. There has to be a change of a kind for evolution to make sense.

Those are all present day species. As has already been said, evolution does not work by one species instantly becoming another - it is a slow process that occurs gradually and involves populations becoming physically distinct from each other over vast periods of time.

Modern day species that are genetically similar to each other - e.g. chickens and turkeys - have a more recent common ancestor with each other than they do with other modern day species. Mice and rats are more closely related than mice and chickens; humans and chimps are more closely related than chimps and turkeys, and so on....

There are multiple separate yet mutually consistent lines of evidence - the fossil record, comparative biology, genetics - that put these similarities and differences into a broader context - it is now possible to say roughly (with a few million years) when two present day species shared a common ancestor from which they both evolved.

Genetics alone is enough to say that present-day life on Earth came about by one of just two possible methods, evolution by common descent or an intelligent designer who designed all life on Earth to make it look exactly like it evolved by common descent.

 

[Famine]

Hence why I say, you have to believe in evolution, which makes it another religion or cult.

That itself is a belief - primarily because you have absolutely no idea what evolutionary theory is. If it weren't already patently obvious, you add in the clincher that "man came from apes" - which isn't what evolutionary theory says.

It's not like any of this information is hidden either. Objective knowledge is achieved through transparency, criticism and repeatability. You can find it out for yourself, without needing anyone to interpret it for you.

And it's "You", not "U".

 

[DCP]

Scaff, post: 10583145, member: 15439"]Citation required.

First verse in Genesis man. Genesis 1:1


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, please provide it.

Well he build the nuke, capable of destroying countries. Fittingly because the bible says at once, 1/3 of mankind will be destroyed. I suppose only a nuke or asteriod could do that much damage.


Do you know what this image is, the evidence that supports it and the science behind it?

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-07-a-print.jpg

If you did you would know that your statement above it clear nonsense.

amazing picture there, but agian, thats all it shows us, what we can see. U don't know the distances, you don't know how many "exactly" and we don't know how many after that. Just think how amazing God is. He names all the stars, and He holds the universe in His hands. People cant imagine how Big this God is. It also says He built His home above the waters of the universe. Wonder what the scientists will say the day they discover water if they get to see the ends of the universe.

The irony of that statement coming from a theist is almost off the scale

Well, it's not, because the bible does say many will be deceived.


You quite clearly have no idea at all what the Theory of Evolution is.

I know enough, that it doesn't make sense, and it is unproven. Thats all I need to know and move on. I believe others eventually will, including christians.

Your clear ignorance of the science and evidence that supports it demonstrates that to a staggering level.

Oh and a theory? No its not a best guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Well substantiated theory, but by who's standards. Man, precisely.
That's all a calculated theory is, best guess.

 

[dylansan]

To date something, you have to assume that the conditions remained the same from then till now.

Nope. You just have to understand that, for example, carbon decays at a certain rate determined by physics we understand very well.

Nobody will ever know this. One part of a fossilized animal is millions of years old, yet another part of the same animal is thousands of years old.

Please give an example of this happening.

No accuracy and not one once of truth. Theory is just that, best guess.

Gravity is a theory. Is that not true?

The bible tells us that God is Eternal. He doesn't operate under the laws that we live in. He created all these laws.
I suppose we would only know the answer to this question when we get to live with God the way we were meant to, before the fall, and this would be by choice again.

Everything is random process.
So where is the change from frog to duck, or duck to centipede, or fly to rooster. There has to be a change of a kind for evolution to make sense.

If the bible is true, how come I can't turn water into wine?

There were all kinds of hybrid humans, and fallen angels in those times, so who knows what those skulls were. No one was there, so again, its all best guess, which is not truth and fact.

Nothing suggests they are fallen angels or any junk like that. For one, they didn't cone with wings. Also interesting that we've never found unicorn fossils, despite them being real according to the bible.

Hence why I say, you have to believe in evolution, which makes it another religion or cult. No one really knows what happened, if those species changed. U say man came from apes. where did apes come from, and so on and so forth. It's all guessing that probably it started with plasma dust.

You really, really should get out of the habit of telling people what they think, because you've been wrong every time so far.

 

[TenEightyOne]

amazing picture there, but agian, thats all it shows us, what we can see. U don't know the distances

You're definitely trolling. "Let there be light", you'd quote, yet you don't know how to measure its behaviour or properties. That strikes me as sad.

 

[DCP]

Those are all present day species. As has already been said, evolution does not work by one species instantly becoming another - it is a slow process that occurs gradually and involves populations becoming physically distinct from each other over vast periods of time.

Modern day species that are genetically similar to each other - e.g. chickens and turkeys - have a more recent common ancestor with each other than they do with other modern day species. Mice and rats are more closely related than mice and chickens; humans and chimps are more closely related than chimps and turkeys, and so on....

There are multiple separate yet mutually consistent lines of evidence - the fossil record, comparative biology, genetics - that put these similarities and differences into a broader context - it is now possible to say roughly (with a few million years) when two present day species shared a common ancestor from which they both evolved.

Genetics alone is enough to say that present-day life on Earth came about by one of just two possible methods, evolution by common descent or an intelligent designer who designed all life on Earth to make it look exactly like it evolved by common descent.

Yip, and where is the proof of the slow process?
Again, those fossils could be anybodies. No body knows. It's just theories and guesses. That is the point.

 

[Carbonox]

So where is the change from frog to duck, or duck to centipede, or fly to rooster.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Again, those fossils could be anybodies.

Such as whose?

 

[DCP]

You're definitely trolling. "Let there be light", you'd quote, yet you don't know how to measure its behaviour or properties. That strikes me as sad.

You right, I can't, but that makes no difference to the fact of how it got there in the first place. How without it, we would perish. It's fitting the bible says God is Light, and God is Spirit, yet He could still come to this fallen world as a servant put of love. Sad how such love can be missed and dismissed.

Nope. You just have to understand that, for example, carbon decays at a certain rate determined by physics we understand very well.Please give an example of this happening.Gravity is a theory. Is that not true?If the bible is true, how come I can't turn water into wine?Nothing suggests they are fallen angels or any junk like that. For one, they didn't cone with wings. Also interesting that we've never found unicorn fossils, despite them being real according to the bible.You really, really should get out of the habit of telling people what they think, because you've been wrong every time so far.

You know, there are also thousands of scientists that know evolution is nonsense. I'm no whiz.
My gratfullness is being blessed with a healthy family. If you want to know in great detail why there is always two sides to a story, please youtube it and see. Just as how you learnt evolution theory, you can, if you want to, learn creation.

Only God can do the impossible, like in modern day, change the course of the hundreds of rockets fired towards Israel. How is that even possible for a top terrorist group like hamas to miss everytime, especially when the iron dome failed.
If you could turn water into wine, then we wouldn't need God hey...

That itself is a belief - primarily because you have absolutely no idea what evolutionary theory is. If it weren't already patently obvious, you add in the clincher that "man came from apes" - which isn't what evolutionary theory says.

It's not like any of this information is hidden either. Objective knowledge is achieved through transparency, criticism and repeatability. You can find it out for yourself, without needing anyone to interpret it for you.

And it's "You", not "U".

Sorry about that.

Not sure, maybe there are other sects and cults within evolution, and perhaps I'm watching the wrong PHDs on youtube.
Who would you recommend? I always heard that once apes came into being, they slowly started becoming like men.
I think it was also in the text books, unless the theories changed from then till now.