Evidence for theistic evolution

[jpbg33]

I am not saying that earth is old. I am saying the time frame evolutionist say it would take is not right but that is looks this way because God made a full grown earth not a baby earth.

[Rob]

The earth looks old god: "Humanity, I gave you a brain so you can study creation. But when you conclude that creation is old, Aha! Joke's on you! It only looks old!"

"Additionally, I put all those fossils underground to test your faith!"

[jpbg33]

there is no fossils that prove animals evolve. There is assumptions but no real evidence. Don't forget about the flood it is in the bible and that would mess up the dating proses of fossils.

[Rob]

there is no fossils that prove animals evolve. There is assumptions but no real evidence.

I'm not saying there is! You clearly have no idea what evidence is. Even bad evidence is still evidence.

What about my chocolate bar analogy did you not understand?

[jpbg33]

Bad evidence is not evidence at all. that just means that an assumption is wrong.

[Rob]

Bad evidence is not evidence at all. that just means that an assumption is wrong.

Incorrect. It is still evidence, though not convincing.
This is why it generally takes more than one piece of evidence put together to solve something.

Once again, you're missing a chocolate bar. What happened to it?

Evidence for me eating it:
There is chocolate on my face.

Evidence for me not eating it:
There is an empty wrapper of a different kind of chocolate bar in my waste basket.

Let's just say that it turns out I didn't eat it. Does this mean that the fact that there was chocolate on my face is suddenly not evidence that I ate it?

[Audie]

The problem with the evidence evolutionist say they have it can not be proven scientifically. so it is an assumption not evidence. I've never been to law school but I don't thank assumptions are real evidence. You don't convict people over just assumption you have to have some real evidence.

I am not going to further engage you on this.

This is as if you are on the level of a student learning about decimal
fractions trying to find fault with calculus.

Saying this, I am not trying to score points, put you down, or win.

Im just suggesting you ponder the wisdom of understanding that a person needs to know.
what he doesnt know.

If your response is to try to find a way to turn this back on me, please dont bother.

[jpbg33]

I am not saying that I am smart I don't think I am. But it doesn't take a genius to see that evolution is not real. And the problem I have with the so called evidence that evolutionist say they have is that it is not real evidence. Now chocolate on someone's face and a rapper in a trash can is different it is real evidence it is something that is really there. But to make something up and say that it is evidence isn't no more evidence then me clamming that my boss killed he secretary because they are not in the room when they are in the room. Just like these fossils people are talking about are not evidence of evolution. fossils are just evidence that there was life before tow thousand and fifteen. Now if fossils showed a gradual change in animals that links animals together then that would be evidence. But we do not have that evidence.

[PaulSacramento]

For the last time, YES there is scientific evidence for evolution that way SCIENCE understands it ( Change over time).
There are multiple lines of evidence in fact.

Stop saying that there isn't.

At best, all that anyone the denies evolution can say is that they DISAGREE that the evidence leads to evolution through natural selection BUT anyone that understand the science can't say that there ISN'T any evidence for evolution per say.

[PaulSacramento]

Now if fossils showed a gradual change in animals that links animals together then that would be evidence. But we do not have that evidence

http://biologos.org/blog/where-are-the- ... al-fossils


And here you have a very complete series:

http://biologos.org/blog/series/human-fossil-record

[jpbg33]

I can not open up ether of those links so I can not comment on them logically.

[PaulSacramento]

I can not open up ether of those links so I can not comment on them logically.

Just go to the biologos.org website and do a search on transitional fossils then.

[jpbg33]

ok when I finish reading up to it I be back.

[Audie]

I am not saying that I am smart I don't think I am. But it doesn't take a genius to see that evolution is not real. And the problem I have with the so called evidence that evolutionist say they have is that it is not real evidence. Now chocolate on someone's face and a rapper in a trash can is different it is real evidence it is something that is really there. But to make something up and say that it is evidence isn't no more evidence then me clamming that my boss killed he secretary because they are not in the room when they are in the room. Just like these fossils people are talking about are not evidence of evolution. fossils are just evidence that there was life before tow thousand and fifteen. Now if fossils showed a gradual change in animals that links animals together then that would be evidence. But we do not have that evidence.

Now, now, a rapper in the trash is evidence, that someone hates rap!

[jpbg33]

Ok I looked at some of these fossils there is no link from one animal to the other. The fossils that suggest different animals than we have now could be just extinct animals. Animals haven't just now started becoming extinct. And a lot of what was on there was just some drawing of something I can draw up all kinds of things from my imagination. But I will give you this there is evidence but it is not good evidence. Yes there are animals that are extinct but there is not enough evidence to say it is the best theory. That evidence is proven wrong all the time. And the bible has never been proven wrong ones. So the bible account should be the one that we are teaching. It isn't logical to stop teaching something that keeps proving its self all the time and start teaching something that is proved wrong all the time.