things to disprove evolution...if you disprove the time involved you disprove it and 1 way to disprove the time span is the tides. Every year tides come in and out and each year the amount of spacethey cover decreaces. Multiply the amount of the decrease by 4.6 billion years(the amount of time needed for Evolution) and the earth would have flooded 2 times a day which would be impossible for life forms to survive which leads to the impossibiliy of EVOLUTION!
135405
There are many things that support the theory of evolution.  Mainly, the fossil record and the fact that you are here, though if natural selection holds true, you will not be working in any fied of science any time soon. \nThe tide example that you state does not disprove evolution because it's false; the amount of water in the world has not change as you suggest.  There is no reason to believe that any change in tides would work increasingly to cover the earth with water.  There are fluctuations in the level of the seas that follow geological and thermal events over the course of centuries and millenia, like the ice ages. In second place, evolution is not about the age of the earth, it's about natural adaptation to the environment. Examples to prove it can be found anywhere in nature.  Sea iguanas in Galapagos are one of the best-known examples of adaptive development.   If there was no evolution, these iguanas would be terrestrial like all of the other species of iguana in the world.  But they're not, they have evolved an adaptation to marine environments.  Think of that as a microcosm of what happens in the rest of nature.\nWhy do we have a residual tailbone?  Why do whales have residual fingers?  We don't have tails and we don't need them, but the tailbone is there...  If someone meant for us to have a tail, they would have given us a tail or none altogether.  The fact that we have a bone structure that serves no apparent purpose but to cause pain when you fall on your but and break it proves that there is an ongoing process that we are a part of.\nEvolution does not exclude creation, it just makes creation dynamic and alive at a much broader scale.  That creation cannot be a process driven by biology instead of a stagnant  pile of events is not written anywhere in any holy book.
192605
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
405689
No evolution does not disprove god.  But it does pose a very large challenge.  Evolution and Christianity are not as compatible as you may think.  If evolution is the correct theory, then that means that the literalist biblical theory is not right.  Sure you might be able to save it by saying that it is metaphorically true (say, a day to god equals a billion years or whatever).  But if some parts of the bible are not literally true, then why think that any of it is literally true?  Jesus, God, etc. can all be seen as being metaphors for the natural world and the human condition.  With no way to really tell what is literally true and what is metaphorically true, allowing that at least some of it is not literally makes the rest questionable.  If one part is not true, or only becomes true if you take it as a metaphor, what does that say about the rest?  What the bible says then cannot be believed just because it is in the bible anymore, and one of the central justifications of christianity crumbles.  of course god can still exist, but its a major challenge.\n\nOk as for your other question about how can an atheist account for the existence of anything without a God:  all i have to do is ask you where god came from.  Did god come from nothing?  Was he always there?  If you say god came from nothing, then you violate your own rule that nothing can come from nothing.  If you say he was always there, then why can't the atheist just say that the universe was always here?  Why can't the atheist just say that the universe always existed?  Its more likely (by occam's razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor ) than the belief that god was always there.  Religion doesn't answer the question of where things came from, it only begs the question of where god came from.  Under the religous explanation nothing is really explained.\n\nI admire your call to tolerance and hope of compatibility, but i'm afraid its nothing more than political correctness.  It would be nice if both sides could be right, but when you think about it there really is a tension.
6204
If you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is depressing. \n\nA recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.
565234
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.
12695
Beatz, Beatz, Beatz.  What were you thinking?  You should have known that there would be nothing but appeals to ignorance poffered as evidence as answers to your question.  What's worse is that, even though people like Behe make those continual suggestions that a lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation, so much of what creationists claim has not been explained has been.  From immune systems to eyeballs, it's all been done in the journals.\n\nI'm not sure which is more pathetic... the fact that the creationist position is based off of a logical fallacy, or that they aren't even right when they keep chanting their "Science hasn't explained this" mantra.  I used to be a Christian, and from that I can say, absolutely, that the kind of lazyness and willful dishonesty displayed by people of this sort is NOT a good way of emulating Christ.\n\nAnyway, I've seen some of your posts, and I like them a lot.  Keep up the good work.\n\n[EDIT]: Jesus Christ Rob... before you open your mouth to talk about thermodynamics again, you might want to, you know, actually learn something about thermodynamics.  You have completely botched both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  You cannot draw conclusions from flimsy, qualitative, and innacurate paraphrasings of precise quantitative laws.  I'm getting tired of putting this old chesnut back down every time one of Hovind's lackeys digs it up again, so I'm going to send you here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\nand here:\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6JrBwCTk&isbn=0226075745&itm=1\nand I'll mention these:\n"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun." (See Rob? That's what happens when you ignore that whole "closed system" part of the Second Law).\nand:\n"Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up." -Michael Shermer\n\nAnd one other thing: that "mutations are always fatal and not beneficial" stuff is utter bunk.  Everyone reading this now is carring multiple mutant genes.  Can you taste litmus paper?  Or see the 3-D images in the magic eye pictures?  Congratulations: you're a mutant.  There are many very harmful mutations, yes.  But by admitting that, you are also admitting that natural selection does indeed happen.  As for beneficial mutations, those happen also, and have been exhaustively documented:\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html\nAnd I'd also like you to ask yourself what makes a mutation beneficial.  And then think about your answer.  And then realize that that is ALSO exactly what is meant by natural selection.
3077
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
376461
ONLY a theory? hehe! Then those people don't even understand the terminology they're using. Yes a theory is a proven hypothesis (versus disproven).  Only when someone can disprove it will it lose it's status.  So evolution is a theory. :)
419552
The best sites are\nhttp://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org\n\nHere is my evolution thing:\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evol... or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
659084
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
44542
Your main question is, "can you prove that evolution is true?"  The answer to that is, no, one cannot prove with absolute certainty that it is "true".  But one could prove it to be false (although that hasn't been done), and that's what makes it a scientific theory, as opposed to belief.\n\nYou also add a request to, "PLEASE TELL MY WHY CREATION IS NOT REAL AND EVOLUTION IS."  One cannot demonstrate scientifically that creation is "not real".  Again, falsifiability is a hallmark of scientific hypothesis-building and testing.  Creationism cannot be scientifically disproved in this way (as it is based on belief rather than a weighing of evidence); therefore, it is not science.  \n\nSince you have years of study of this debate, you know the evidence for evolution.  And you know that it doesn't prove that it is "real", simply that it is a plausible theory that provides a plausible explanation for the physical evidence, as well as scientifically testable hypotheses.\n\nUnfortunately, in your zeal for the truth, you have simply created a straw man argument.
107268
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
87668
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.51\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.51\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 196663\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."50\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.51\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:  \n  • Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n  • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n  • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.51 \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.51 \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.51\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
563810
we don't even need fossils to prove evolution, we already have proof that things evolve. like the flu.  if the flu wasn't evolving then there would be only one vaccine for the flu. because it is evolving every year there is a flu shot (for those at risk) to the new strain.  people only object to evolution for religous reasons.  \n\n//\nin response to mr. onyxfire:  the reasons nominated for dissproving evolution seems to say that evolution should eliminate diversity.  and that simply isn't true. when there are alot of the same species in an area they compete for the same resources.  if a mutation came along that was different from that species it would actually be at an advantage because it might not be competing for the same resources.  and that is at the heart of diversity.  having diversity means that some animals will develope certain attributes more keenly for example people hunting for fruit during the day value eyesight more for finding their quarry where as at night bats looking for fruit can't rely on eyesight and so they develope a different specialized set of organs.  i hope that helps you understand why i think your points are incorrect\n&#92;&#92;\nno scientific theory which attempts to understand our world has by necessity precluded the concept of god.  none the less religous theories feel compelled to preclude any acceptance of science so it's my belief that they are quite the dumbasses (not all religious but certainly alot of the policy makers). we all know how well that galileo thing panned out for them.
379601
Well, tell them that those structures have evolved several distinct times and distinct ways, including eyes nine times.  It sertainly is not direct proff of any kind of creation, and it is more supportive of common shared lineages.\n\nLook, god could make everyone 100 feet tall covered in purple pokadots, right?  It's god, it can do whatever it wants because it is magic or devine or whatever.\n\nTell them every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
257630
Just remember, evolution is an untested, unproven theory.  In fact, it cannot be tested or proven.  If one looks at the scientific method and what constitutes a theory, evolution barely qualifies, if at all.
607115
First consider some scientific estimates or guesses. Not all scientists are going to agree. The Universe or heavens 20 billion years old. The Earth 4.6 billion years old. The Moon 200 to 300 million years younger than the Earth. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago. The Ice Age 2.5 million years ago. Oldest evidence of flesh man 7000 to 14000 years old.\n\nThere are 3 earth ages (II Pet.3:5-7), same earth but different ages. We are now in the 2nd earth age. Between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 is a vast amount of time, if time existed. Between these 2 verses is Satan’s rebellion (Rev.12:3-4) and “his tail” drew 1/3 of God’s children. Between these 2 verses also belongs all fossils and remains, such as Dinosaurs.\n\nIn Gen.1:2 we have the of the end of the 1st earth age and the beginning of the 2nd. For clarity Gen.1:2 needs to be divided (see below).\n\n(A) Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. \n\n(B) Gen.1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.\n\nIn (A) Gen.1:2 the first occurrence of the word “was” has been corrupted and is “became”. It reads “And the earth became without form, and void”. The end of the 1st earth age.\n\nIn (B) Gen.1:2 we have the beginning of 2nd earth age, the one we live in now. Man did not exist in flesh till this earth age.\n\nBetween (A & B) Gen.1:2 is also a vast amount of time, if time existed. Between (A & B) Gen.1:2  is; a global flood (not Noah’s which was a local flood), the destruction of Atlantis, the breakup of Gondwana Land, and the Ice Age.\n\nTime means nothing to our Father. He is very patient and loves His children. Instead of destroying Satan and 1/3 of His children, He destroyed that first earth age. Now in this 2nd earth age we all are born innocent in the flesh. Father came in the flesh Himself, Jesus Christ, and paid the price for all. Father defeated Satin, that is death, legally. So now His children have a decision, to choose life or to choose death. It’s your decision. Choose life!!