This blog that Neo posted does a little more than presenting proper evidence for evolution. Look at the blog's dedicated purpose:This should not be an issue for you because I haven't asked anyone to endorse it. Why what I find true, is any business of yours to correct? Am I correcting you, am I saying PC is a weak belief system or YEC SUCKS...all I have done is present evidence for my stance, PROPER EVIDENCE.
I picked this link Neo posted to show that while the author does try to prove evolution, his entire blog is dedicated to:"exposing the fradulence of creationism".Carumbas Blog
This BLOG is dedicated to exposing the fradulence of creationism.
Right off the bat, this is a poor choice of links, that goes beyond the scope of just proving evolution.
While the link says 10 things predicting evolution, let's see if they also fit into Creationism(specifically old earth)
Don't see how that specifically predicts evolution, while ruling out Progressive Creationism(PC).1. We should not find any early hominid fossils (such as Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus) in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.
same as above. Special creation and PC believe God created birds different from mammals.2. No birds will have mammary glands or hair.
Same as 2.3. No mammals will have feathers (even though feathers are an excellent means of insulation).
Ok, then if this is true, evolution is proved false.4. No fish or amphibians will have differentiated or cusped teeth, since these are only characteristics of mammals.
The sheepshead fish has human teeth
If birds and mammals were created after tetrapods, then this still wouldn't prove evolution.5. We should never find mammalian or bird fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and
Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history.
How would that prove evolution. It just means we would have no evidence one existed.6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.
God could have created birds with wings, and no arms. Doesn't prove evolution.7. We will never find birds with both wings and arms, since the evolution of wings necessarily means the loss of arms.
Marine mammals were created as mammals, not fish. Dolphins, porpoises and whales do quite well without gills.8. No marine mammal (such as dolphins, porpoises and whales) will have gills despite the fact that gills would be very beneficial.
Now he thinks he can design a better eye than God.9. No reptile or mammal will have eyes without retinal blind spots. This is because poor design cannot be "fixed" by evolutionary processes, even if correcting the problem would be beneficial for the organism. The only "fixing" that is allowed evolutionarily is relatively minor modification of what already exists.
Again, this does not prove evolution. It proves evolution is a possibility. But not while disproving creation. If God used the same chemicals to create all life, then at least some of the same genetic material would be in all life on earth.10. All living things on Earth will share the same nucleic acid genetic material.
So, not one of those predictions would prove evolution. And by the author's admission, number 4 disproves evolution.
Also from the blog:
Now God is incompetent. How is this not Anti-God?Creationists will undoubtedly respond that many of these things are simple evidence of a common designer. In fact, if true, that designer is not very competent.
Not only is the author presuming the way God should have designed pigs and humans, but he also insults Christians who believe scripture, by calling the Garden of Eden "mythical".Consider prediction 10 in relation to the recently well-publicized swine flu. That flu jumped from pigs to humans. That is only possible because pigs and humans share the same genetic code. So a truly competent designer would have, presumably, used different genetic codes in pigs and humans in order to prevent the possibility of such an event from taking place. Note that this is NOT explained by the "Fall of Man" since the genetic codes in humans and pigs can't have changed since the [mythical] Garden of Eden.
In Hugh Ross' book More Than A Theory, Ross does make predictions for his creation theory. I realize this blog was written before Ross published that book.There are many other predictions made by evolution.
There are NONE made by creationism.
Unless, of course, some creationist can come up with a similar set of predictions which, if not found to be true, would falsify their beliefs.
So, at best this thread is an outdated joke, that does nothing to prove evolution. But it does a good job of insulting Creationism, and its Creator.
I would not normally have a problem with this blog being used in a forum open for debate, which wasn't a reference only thread. But Neo insisted on a evolution only reference thread.