Honest question from an atheist

Its never been proven. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. More evidence points to creation, IMO.

There is evidence for instance they say monkeys evolving in the zoo banning rocks together to make sparks also evidence they have found many similarities between human and primate

So how come they are not still evolving?

Why would they? Also antibiotic resistance is evolution in action

Cuz it takes millions of years

But the thing is, if they are still evolving, then there would still be the transitional species between ape and man living among us. The "missing link". So convenient for the theory evolution that all the transitional links between the species mysteriously died off, and left so few fossils. Then take away the millions of years that is largely assumed, and the whole theory falls apart.

But it takes millions of years this was like 6-7 years ago

There is the fact that organisms change, evolution is the theory that explains it. One example of evolution is antibiotic resistant bacteria

I am sorry but never has an animal been observed changing into another animal. Yes, you can create new breeds or have mutations, but most mutations that affect an organism are harmful. And no Bible believing Christian can truly believe in evolution, because that would be calling God a liar. And natural selection can be proven, but it is not change of species. Also, hear me out, have you studied DNA? There's no way on this earth that evolved. There is a God who loves you and He really wants you to love Him back.

But what if the 6-day creation wasn't a 24hr standard day? what if each "day" was a million years, and so when in Genesis 1:21 it says Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures. and in Genesis 1:24 it says: let the earth bring forth living creatures. If you notice, the sea creatures came before the land creatures. And humans were created last. So this supports my theory that God is the one who created evolution.

Okay, but it says that God spoke and these things came into being, not that they came from other living things. Also, the word used for 'day' consistently refers to a 24-hour day. To believe in evolution is to believe that God is hiding something from us when He tells us how the world was created. There is no actual scientific evidence for evolution. We have not observed evolution in the thousands of years we have been around, and we have yet to find a complete fossil record. If you are a Christian, you have to trust what is in God's word: that He spoke things into existence. To do otherwise is to not trust Him, but to trust man.

We have seen antibiotic resistance

Actually the apple maggot fly has been observed to be in the process of speciation. The ancestors of apple maggot flies lived on hawthorn trees and ate hawthorns. The maggot flies would always mate in the tree that they were born in. However many maggot flies started jumping over to apple trees and mating there. After a while the apple eating flies and the hawthorn eating flies were observed to be developing differences such as different allele frequencies. They have just started the process of evolution and speciation. And you say that you have never seen evolution. You've never seen "god" either.

So out of nowhere a cell popped out that could reproduce, choose what enters and exits it, derive energy from nutrients, control itself, transport and produce proteins, etc.? It would take a very long time for a living thing to be able to live and to develop at all. Cells, although being the simplest form of life, are not simple.

Actually the miller Urey experiment shows how the conditions of early earth could create organic compounds. You talk about things not being so simple but you think evolution is a simple theory. It is not.

Amino acids? Yes, perhaps. But such complex life that could sustain itself and create more of itself simply could not develop randomly

It is a great mystery. But there is still enough proof of evolution to discredit the theory of intelligent design.

Proof? Like what?

your tailbone. It's a vestigial structure, meaning that we have no use for it but a species we evolved from did. We don't have or need tails, but an ancestor of humans did so when humans came to be we had a tailbone but no tail.

Yes, and evolution was a convenient way to explain these structures, but what about the fact that, fossil speaking, there was a large gap, or several, between the stages of man.

Fossils are pretty hard to come by. They are pretty rare. There are a lot of transitional fossils to prove evolution and speciation.

If your tailbone is vestigial, I will PAY to have yours surgically removed...

OK, now Bend-Over!

We have no use for a tail???

That is so stupid. I would love to have a tail! Be it to scratch my back, or to fling my turds at you when you say such imbecile things like that... vestigial structure... Ridiculous...

What you're really saying is: "God must have made a mistake... He must not have known what he was doing..."

humans don't need a tail to scratch our backs to survive. It's not about survival of the fittest it's about survival of the fit enough. You made absolutely no point with this comment. There are species of fish with no eyes that still have eye sockets. You have no idea what a vestigial structure is. Maybe if you had a single iota of knowledge on evolution you would see that it has way more evidence than creation.

Take it easy, don't have a hissy-fit (get it?). "Survival of the fit enough" is redundant. God created ALL his creatures to be "fit enough". Just because one kind of animal outlives another kind, or one other kind eats the other kind, or even that one kind has a specific anatomical feature that you believe and (erroneously) claim that they "don't need", is not evidence for Darwinian Evolution Theory ™️. Those arrogant "scientists" said the same thing about the human appendix claiming that it served no purpose, only to be proven dead wrong later, once it was discovered, they realized that the appendix is actually an important part of the immune system (not "vestigial").

It almost seems as if God knew what he was doing...

Men have nipples and some fish may have no eyes... Big deal. I like my nipples, because God put them there. Blind fish with eye sockets are no quirk of nature, nor are their eye sockets a "remaining vestigial structure". Perhaps God saw to it not to give those particular fish eyes because they live in the deeper parts of the ocean, where the pressure is so great that if they did have eyes, they would simply explode at such tremendous pressure! Many kinds of deep ocean creatures have no eyes, this is no evidence of evolution because the fish is STILL a fish. If it lives in the water, has fins and scales, and brings forth after its kind (fish kind) it's a fish, period.

Humble yourself, and ask the Lord yourself instead. Say Lord: "WHY don't these fish have any eye sockets?" He'll show you.

Don't ask: "How can I use these strange, funny lookin' fish to prove my evolution theory?"

God is leaving the scales on your eyes so that you cannot see the truth, because you hate the truth. The truth is hate to those who hate the truth...

Seek the Lord while he may be found...

Your claim that their eyes would explode is utterly ridiculous. The Mexican tetra does not live in the deep sea. It is a freshwater fish that lives in caves. Their habitats are dark but not deep enough to crush eyes. Many deep sea fish do have eyes. The angler fish preys on animals that use bioluminescence to see because the angler fish are evolved to not reflect blue light so the little fish only sees the bioluminescent lure hanging off its head.

You never mentioned that you were referring to the Mexican Tetra. Besides, their NOT having eyes is evidence of them losing something not gaining something. Nothing has been added to the gene pool that wasn't already there. Nothing has "evolved", it's just a different fish, that uses a different method to "see" in the dark without eyes. The eye sockets remain perhaps because they are part of the skeletal design that a future generation fish may need some day. Perhaps these fish will one day leave the caves when there is no more food for them to eat. Those eye sockets will surely come in handy one day if/when their great-great-great grandchildren re-insert the eyes there in their natural place.

Natural selection is designed to do just that: SELECTION! All it does is select from that which is already in the gene pool to begin with. The Mexican Tetra fish simply adapted to its environment. They didn't change from one kind into another because the Mexican Tetra is still a fish.

Natural selection is likened to a quality control system. If a quality control inspector's job is to check all the cars coming out of an assembly line to make sure they all adhere to quality standards, regardless of how many cars he inspects, this inspection process will never in a million years transform the car into a Boeing 747...

The lug nuts of a Honda may also fit on a Chevy, this doesn't mean that they both "evolved" from a skateboard millions of years ago...

Because it contradicts the Bible. If you count up all the genealogical records, and add it up with the rest of known history, it only comes up to about 6,000 years.

It also contradicts known science. Not once in recorded history has a gene arbitrarily formed within a complete, normal genome, let alone enough times to even turn a one-celled creature into a multi-cellular organism. Heck, it's proven that it's impossible for life to form arbitrarily in the first place!

May I also mention that there have been prominent evolutionists who knew that Darwin's theory was nuts for the above reasons, but didn't want to face having a supreme moral authority to be held accountable to.

Also, perhaps a bit off the point, but not once has radiocarbon dating yielded a remotely accurate result for the age of a rock of which it's known for a certainty what it's age of formation was. Just look up Mt. Saint Helens radiocarbon results. Might want to use Duckduckgo instead of Google, though.

I could go on, but I've made my case. No matter what you decide to do with this information, I still wish you a great day.

Sincerely,
Ælfwine Elf-friend

I can kind of understand a lot of people doubting like single cell organisms evolving but a lot of people doubt natural selection which is a proven theory. Also the number of 6000 is actually wrong. The first major civilization (ancient Mesopotamia) started in 8000 bc which is over 10,000 years ago

Oh, and as for my not proving that there weren't living things before 6,000 years ago: fossils don't exactly have a label saying, "I died X years BC," slapped on them, do they?

Ok, you're gonna have to reply to my comment, not your own, if you want to talk to me. Just keep that in mind.

No, I didn't. You're trying to make my words say things that they didn't mean. I gave the perfectly sound reason that the "evidence" used to give an old age to the universe is faulty. Extremely faulty.

It's not just a few rocks. EVERY TIME they tested rocks which were formed in recorded history, it always gave results far older than the date when they were formed.

I never said genetic mistakes don't happen. I said that new genetic material can't be arbitrarily formed. It can be modified or removed, but never added to. Stop putting words in my mouth.

That's the modification of existing genetic material, not the formation of new DNA. It doesn't exactly explain how molecules became men.

If you're going to argue with me, there's two things you should keep in mind: 1. don't argue against things I didn't say, and 2. There is a difference between mutations (where genes are altered or removed) and Darwinian evolution (where new genes pop out of nowhere). One is scientifically proven; the other has never been recorded in human history.

Actually Darwinian evolution is based on mutations that are passed down. By brand new gene you are really just talking about hereditary mutations.

Let me ask you: by the mere process of hereditary mutations, without any new DNA added to the genome, could a one-celled creature become a worm, let alone a man?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4CUw9RcuA&ab_channel=KaoruGreenEmerald This video does a great job explaining it. Skip to 6:57 and watch until 57:44

Could you summarize his point?

If you just want to learn about how life came from single-cell organisms you only have to watch from 6:57 to 30:07 I watched it so can you. But before you do you need to be open to new ideas and you need to try your hardest to understand this.

And, besides, if you took the time to watch it, you can save us both some time and summarize what he's saying.

You could go to yt save the video in watch later and then when you have the time watch it. The suggested clip is under 25 minutes

Another reason for you to summarize it is so you'll prove you know what you're arguing for. Often I've dealt with skeptics who have no idea what they're talking about, so it'll be nice to see someone who actually has a clue what they're advocating.

I know what I am arguing for. I just don't feel like typing a long summary of something. I'll summarize it in the morning but I am imploring you to watch the clip I recommended because I am a slow writer when it comes to writing things longer than one paragraph. It will take me way longer to write a summary than it will be for you to watch the the 23 minute clip. Please watch it.

I look forward to hearing from you. But, before you tell me, let me take a wild guess: he's saying, "In order to prove evolution is true, I came up with this projected model. And because this model fits evolution, it must therefore be true. Nevermind that there have been no recorded instances of my projected playing out in reality; it fits our narrative, so it's as good as true."

I don't necessarily have a lot of time on my hands. I'm busy with other things in between my replies.

I'M the one who needs to be open to new ideas? I'm about as open minded as reasonable people can be. I've read just about every major argument for evolution there is. The problem is that I don't fall for quack science and faulty logic.

Also it does seem that the universe is perfectly formed and it is not by chance. The same way that a plant growing in fertile soil is not by chance. This planet houses beings that it is habitable to. this planet was not made for humans. Humans over billions of years became one of the species to be able to live on this planet.

Perhaps you haven't considered the mathematical impossibility of a universe abiding by perfectly fine tuned laws of nature, forming a perfectly sized galaxy to form a perfect type and size of star, with a planet the perfect size and distance from said star to support life, to appear by chance. And that's not even considering how impossible it is for life to arise from non-living material, leave alone the scientific impossibility for new genetic material to pop out of nowhere in a genome.

I consider faulty logic to be believing in a man in the sky that constantly watches you and created us all. I have tried to be open to ideas of god but none of them make any sense.

... until you realize that our perfectly formed universe is so optimized for life that it couldn't have formed by chance.

God isn't a 'man is the sky'. He is a spiritual being in heaven, which is not on earth and probably not in this universe. Your assumptions about Christianity are very cliche and unrealistic if that's what you think we believe.

When fruit flies were exposed to mutations in an experiment, the mutations hurt them, not helped them

I never said that all mutations are good. I literally used cystic fibrosis and down syndrome as examples of random mutations.

How was that date determined? By radiocarbon dating?

Probably. That is what archaeologists use to date things. Also there has been stuff found from way earlier like a healed femur that could be over 15,000 years old.

You didn't, by any chance, read what I said about radiocarbon dating, did you?

Yeah I did. It's not exact and there will be errors but that doesn't disprove evolution or the fact that life existed before 6000 years ago. Also what about dinosaur fossils. Are they not proof enough that life existed before the time of "creation"

If you look at the photo in my previous comment, you'll see that radiocarbon dating gives dates FAAAAAAR older than the date of formation of the rocks.

I'm not sure what your point is with the dinosaur fossils. If radiocarbon dating is as unreliable as the evidence suggests, then there is no reason to think that fossils existed "before creation."

yes but you used an example of radiocarbon dating not working for rocks. You have said nothing that disproves the fact that humans existed before "creation"

The concepts behind radiocarbon dating are used on everything that's dated by that method, not just rocks, so the same fatal errors come through.

how does this disprove evolution though that was my original point. Those who doubt evolution tend to not have a clue about what evolution really is

If the earth is much younger than radiocarbon dating says it is, which, again, the evidence suggests, then there is no time for evolution to happen. Plus, I think I made the point that the arbitrarily formation of new genetic material is scientifically impossible, and that the random formation of living organisms from non-living material is both mathematically and scientifically impossible. Thus, Darwinian evolution is bunk.

The thing is mutation is absolutely possible I can give concrete evidence. Polar bears evolved from brown bear ancestors. Some of these bears were born with a mutation that gave them fur with structural color looks white when light hits it. These few bears were better hunters than the rest and they were able to catch more prey and reproduce. When they reproduced they either had white offspring or brown offspring carrying the white gene. Eventually the bears in the arctic were all white because in competition with the brown bears the white bears would get more prey and the brown ones died out. That is natural selection. That is evolution.

also the fact that you say that genetic mistakes can't happen is so mind numbingly stupid. Mutations occur randomly from errors when DNA is being copied. Or they could be environmental from exposure. Why do pregnant women not smoke. Because it can affect and mutate their child. Also have you met a person with down syndrome or cystic fibrosis or cri du chat syndrome. THOSE ARE ALL MUTATIONS.

You completely failed at explaining why you think evolution doesn't exist. You didn't even disprove the fact that life existed before "creation. You only really proved that we just need a better way of determining it. Carbon dating is mostly accurate you just brought up a few times that it was inaccurate with rocks and called it an argument

Natural selection doesn’t prove evolution, it only reveals hidden characteristics that were already there