The problem with the theory of evolution is...so many life forms seem to be making u-turns

Nah, the theory of evolution was already disproven when they found billions of sea fossils in the same layers as land animals.
Also the recent mitochondrial DNA study that showed that 90% of living things today don't have common ancestors and that all life seems to have popped into existence 200,000 years ago.

What?

Research.

It is shocking to me that I was once duped into believing in evolution, so while I do understand the witless answers one poster is leaving in reply to your comment, it still never ceases to amaze how wholly misinformed fools try to put themselves forth as intelligent on this issue.

They, of course, need evolution to be true, so that the nagging deep down in their conscience over their sin can be subdued.

"bug" isn't a species

"In short, a more camouflaged bug will survive longer and pass those traits to offspring"

That is evolution. Adaptation is what creationists call it when they want to accept that evolution happens, but without calling it that. But it doesn't change the fact that it is still evolution.

Yep.

Then how do you explain all of the Christians who are well respected scientists who accept that evolution is a fact?

The fact of the matter is that evolution has nothing to do with "sin". How many times have you read a story in the news about somebody being arrested for a crime, and the reason they gave for committing the crime was because of evolution?

"Then how do you explain all of the Christians who are well respected scientists who accept that evolution is a fact?"

I find it really odd that you presume that Christians are perfect, and therefore cannot be mistaken. As for an explanation, there would be many, but certainly when it comes at you from so many directions, a person would have to have some courage to stand against it. And given that no debate is truly allowed, many are simply deceived into thinking that the absence of dissent equals it is true. Truly, a fallacious argument from authority, as there are also many well respected scientists who know that evolution is a fairy tale.

Not unlike the premise of your next statement:
"How many times have you read a story in the news about somebody being arrested for a crime, and the reason they gave for committing the crime was because of evolution?"

If evolution was true, then it would certainly play a factor in how mankind got to this point, allegedly as advanced as we are, and there is still crime Just because this angle is not addressed by the lame stream news, does not mean it isn't true.

But your point is useless in this instance, as I would maintain that evolution is not true.

"I find it really odd that you presume that Christians are perfect, and therefore cannot be mistaken"

Just the opposite. It's nearly always conservative Christians who are shocked when another conservative Christian winds up on the news being arrested for something or found to have done something horrible. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me whatsoever. I hold conservative Christians in no higher regard than I do anyone else, and in some cases much lower regard.

"when it comes at you from so many directions, a person would have to have some courage to stand against it"

Or it could be because they've actually studied it in depth and have come to the conclusion that it's true because it is well supported by lots of evidence.

"And given that no debate is truly allowed, many are simply deceived into thinking that the absence of dissent equals it is true"

Would you say the same thing about the Earth being flat and the Holocaust being real? It's not that dissent is not allowed, it's that evolution is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that dissent is irrational and easily refuted.

"Truly, a fallacious argument from authority, as there are also many well respected scientists who know that evolution is a fairy tale"

It's not an argument from authority because I'm not saying that it is true just because Christian scientists say so. And I don't know of a single scientist who is actually well respected who thinks that evolution is a fairytale. Again, that would be like saying there are well respected historians who think the Holocaust was made up, or well respected scientists who believe the Earth is flat.

Every single argument you try to use has already been debunked by experts. There is nothing new that creationists bring up, and nothing they bring to the table in support of their idea which is actually supported by the evidence.

"If evolution was true, then it would certainly play a factor in how mankind got to this point, allegedly as advanced as we are, and there is still crime Just because this angle is not addressed by the lame stream news, does not mean it isn't true"

Are you saying that the fact that crime happens is evidence against evolution? How so?

"But your point is useless in this instance, as I would maintain that evolution is not true"

You can maintain that position all you want, but the evidence just isn't on your side.

Nah, if you read the actual study, it's pretty clear. 90% of all living things don't have common ancestors. That's a dearhblow to evolution. Also the mitochondria in everything goes back 20,000 million years and just stops.

"Essentially, random mutation and death alone are not enough to explain what we see"

The theory of evolution doesn't say it would

"I was dupped in school and learned about Darwin but none of the other relevant facts about him, how he "developed" his theories (hint he didn't), or how a real examination by honest scientist will lead to an absolute rejection of his theories"

Do you have a competing idea that explains the diversity of life on this planet which is more well-supported than the theory of evolution? Because so far no one else does.

The "Cambrian Explosion" . . .

Also, life does not appear in the fossil record as getting progressively more complex, but rather, as far back as we go it appears essentially the same, except for plant life being considerably larger than its modern counterparts.

There are many things that we see in the universe today that cannot be if the evolutionists were correct.

"There are many things that we see in the universe today that cannot be if the evolutionists were correct"

Like what?

The Cambrian Explosion.

Polystratic fossils.

DNA and the genetic code.

Life from non-life.

The rings of Saturn.

Light from 13 billion light years away showing mature galaxies.

etc.

etc.

etc.

The Cambrian Explosion is completely compatible with the theory of evolution for reasons which scientists have explained before

"Polystratic fossils"

If you're referring to things like trees going through multiple strata, this has also been explained. Areas that are subject to frequent flooding and deposition of sediments can have layers build up quickly around trees that are still growing or or at least still upright if they're dead. These are not layers of rock laid down over millions of years around a living tree. They're layers of mud and dirt and sediment that are laid down over much shorter periods of time. This has been understood for well over a century.

DNA and the genetic code are not only not incompatible with evolution, they help us understand evolution to a much greater degree than we otherwise would. Endogenous retroviral insertions are a great example of this.

Life from non-life is abiogenesis, not evolution

The rings of Saturn have literally nothing to do with evolution or even biology

Light from 13 billion light years away showing mature galaxies also has literally nothing to do with evolution or biology

"All your explanations are false because evolution never happened"

When the rebuttal is "No, because the mythology says so"

Right? 😂

Curious as to what his explanations for the bewildering phenomenon he mentioned, as I've not come across any in any Bible I've ever seen.

"The Cambrian Explosion is completely compatible with the theory of evolution for reasons which scientists have explained before"

Wrong- it is completely incompatible, and your non-answer is meaningless. "Someone said something that agrees with what I want to be true, so it has been proved!"

"These are not layers of rock laid down over millions of years around a living tree."

What you just described aligns well with The Flood, as described in the Bible. You don't understand what has been found, and that it is not that easy to explain away.

"DNA and the genetic code are not only not incompatible with evolution, they help us understand evolution to a much greater degree than we otherwise would. Endogenous retroviral insertions are a great example of this."

Again, a non-answer, using a few more words than necessary. It does not help us understand evolution at all, especially since evolution never happened in the first place.

"Life from non-life is abiogenesis, not evolution"

It's nice that you have learned some new words, but without abiogenesis, there would be no evolution. It, in fact, would be the beginning of evolution, and would itself be a part of the process. At least you appear to understand that the evidence against life from non-life is so overwhelming that you do not even try to understand its significance, much more defend it.

"The rings of Saturn have literally nothing to do with evolution or even biology"

And in this answer, we see how desperately clueless you are about the issue. Is has everything to do with evolution, as the theory of evolution explains that extremely long periods of time are required for 'goo-to-you' evolution to take place, and give us the vast complexity we see all around us.

"Light from 13 billion light years away showing mature galaxies also has literally nothing to do with evolution or biology"

See previous answer.

"Wrong- it is completely incompatible"

How so?

" "Someone said something that agrees with what I want to be true, so it has been proved!" "

I didn't say anything at all about what I "want to be true". What I want to be true or false is irrelevant.

"What you just described aligns well with The Flood, as described in the Bible"

The idea that a flood covered the entire planet within the past 6,000 years isn't supported by the evidence. If it was, most scientists would have reached that consensus.

"Again, a non-answer"

An answer you don't like isn't the same as a non-answer.

"It does not help us understand evolution at all, especially since evolution never happened in the first place"

Then what's your explanation for endogenous retroviral insertions, based on the Bible?

"without abiogenesis, there would be no evolution"

Since we are discussing evolution, not abiogenesis, that's irrelevant.

"At least you appear to understand that the evidence against life from non-life is so overwhelming that you do not even try to understand its significance, much more defend it."

The evidence against it isn't overwhelming, and it wasn't what was being discussed. If you have scientifically valid evidence of life coming from the God of the Bible, I'd be interested in hearing it.

"Is has everything to do with evolution, as the theory of evolution explains that extremely long periods of time are required for 'goo-to-you' evolution to take place, and give us the vast complexity we see all around us"

The rings of Saturn are within the field of astronomy, not biology.

"Light from 13 billion light years away showing mature galaxies also has literally nothing to do with evolution or biology"

Light from distant galaxies is within the field of astronomy, not biology.

False
&
False

True and true all you gotta do is look it up. Try it.

False

Its absolutely true, try science and research. You might find out that you aren't a leftist after all.

You're a flat earth leftist?

Your a name calling logical fallacist?

"lokiare

Your a name calling logical fallacist?"

Yes, you can say you're [note spelling] my name calling logical fallacist.