Your reason for accepting evolution

Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.Which one does the evidence better support? Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option? Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.Neither can be experimentally proven -it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side.Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.One of them must be true -they can't both be.

There are too many anomalous findings to say that the natural history model is better. What about the Cambrian Explosion? Evolution predicts gradual transitions instead, suddenly complex and varied types all appear at once.Why? There is no sign of precursor forms in precambrian layers. The creation model says there was a worldwide flood - so sudden catastrophic processes buried billions of life forms in sediment, excluding oxygen, rapidly forming many sediment layers with sea creatures forming around 95% (or more) of the fossils that are found would seem to me to be a more acceptable proposition.Sea creatures would be the first to be rapidly covered and fossilized. Well preserved fossils don't form gradually by dying and being slowly covered over over a long time period.(They would rot or being scavenged).
The uniformatarian principle became accepted as the alternative to the big flood by various atheist or materialistic geologists who were not keen on the flood proposition and wanted another explanation (any other explanation). This was rapidly accepted by those who wanted another explanation. Too many anomalous findings go against the uniformatarian principle hence the more recent increase in catastrophist geologists who go with rapid formation of fossils under catastrophic conditions but baulk at the possibility of a worldwide flood nonetheless - for reasons of their own.
Birds and cats and everything appearing suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil layers would not be a creationist proposition since creationists do not believe that the sedimentary layers represent long periods of geologic time. Creationists believe in some kind of rapid hydrologic sorting such as that seen at Mt St Helens in 1980 as the mechanism at work in sedimentary layers.Sudden rapid formation of many layers simultaneously is what makes more sense to me and better explains so many of the anomalous findings that evolution simply can't explain -such as all sorts of things found in completely wrong layers that contradict long periods of evolutionary change.

Yes but Beretta has had no time to reply and struggles with slow internet connection as well as limited time. I would like to stick with this 24/7 but can't though I should get more time soon. Don't worry I have not run away yet!

We have a lot of use for the observable facts of mutation and natural selection but none whatsoever for the greater faith-based extrapolation that constitutes a large portion of what evolution entails.Up until the 1800's the generally held belief was that the sedimentary rock layers right across the earth represented the record of mass death from Noah's flood.
Evolution was offered as a more palatable theory for all those billions of dead things found buried all over the planet.
Mankind always grabs at any opportunity to forget God - it is not at all surprising that evolution was accepted with the alacrity that it was.The Bible says that in the end times, man will be 'willfully ignorant' (ie. stupid on purpose) of the deluge of Noah "that the world that once was, being overflowed by water, perished." (2Peter somewhere).As a matter of interest, if evolution happened and not intelligent creation according to a plan then why do all earth's creatures have 2 eyes. Evolutionists would no doubt say "survival!Two eyes are better than one." But if two eyes are better than one, why stop there -why not 7 or 8? I could do with a couple in the back of my head. Whats this symmetry thing?Also, is it conceivable that our intellect is purely the result of random chemical interactions or is it possible that a supreme mind created our minds to communicate rationally with Him?If a banana evolved from the same single-celled ancestor as the tiger, what about survival? Is it possible that the banana was created for us to eat?

You accept it most likely for the same reason so many do -it's standard fare, global belief system since God apparently died and is no longer relevant.
Man has become so much cleverer than his creator it is no wonder his active imagination has invented an entire new story to replace HIS story. It all happened before we were around but we nonetheless know better.If the evidence fits HIS story, it's worth checking out lest you be on the wrong plane going nowhere.Not too many evolutionary scientists made it onto the ark I believe -they knew better than their creator and refused the warnings sent to them because they were so busy 'doing their own thing' having 'their own truth' and believing the consensus opinion about Noah and his ravings about a flood coming.
Too many people do not want to believe God. The evolution model is based more on "there is no God but we are here so how did we get here?" OR "We believe in God but want to have latitude in our interpretations so better not to believe what He said, better to decide what He meant and invent our own new story of evolution that believers and non-believers can go for."
Fossils are just billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the world.
If your dog is buried at a higher level than someone else's dog, it does not necessarily mean that the other person's dog had to have evolved into yours because of their similarities. There's also no proof or reason to believe that the porcupine buried even lower than the other dog evolved into the original dog.
Maybe that porcupine never had any kids. Maybe, if it did, it just had porcupine children just like every porcupine today.No reason to believe that it eventually gave birth to a mutant that gave rise to that early dog. All we really know is that they all died.
Evolution reads too much into the fossils because evolutionists have already been brainwashed into believing in the concept of evolution over millions of years. Not so. Evolution is an idea based on the words of men.
Creation is a belief based on a supernatural book written through men inspired by God.God promises all over the Bible to preserve His word for all generations so that they will know and not be ignorant of what has happened.(The dead sea scrolls substantiate that) They didn't need to be well -versed in the basic laws of physics, they just had to write it down and whatever God inspired them to say would be consistent with the laws of physics except, of course, where he said a miracle occurred. God made those laws of physics and He can do what He wants when He wants.It is only us creations that are subject to those laws.The book was written for stupid man not only to show us how intellectually superior God is but also to be able to be understood by the simplest of men so that "they are without excuse."
According to the Bible, man's biggest problem has always been that he imagines himself to be cleverer than his creator.

Not the ones I have read about but yes some probably did decide it was false but that would be usual since so many clergy are more dependant on the words of men and their approval than the Word of God and its accuracy. Sorry you are right about that -forgot the spiders but still I think that man would have been better off with eyes in the back of his head (for survival)and a tail would also have helped. I don't understand how we could have lost that tail -it would be so useful when your hands are full and you need to open the door and how did nature know that we needed to get two eyes rather than one and why didn't we naturally mutate a few more and those 4-eyed things get selected. These are all just plausible stories. I think we still need to run up trees to escape our enemies and a tail could be useful there.

Not all only some - those that set us on the path to believing in evolution.There are lots of geologists living right now that see the rocks all the time and refute evolution. I assume that you are planning to follow up all these assertions of yours with evidence to convince me that you have proof and then watch me flounder in my mythological errors.Where is your proof??? Yes you're right. Am I going to be crucified for this? My apologies.
Still I think we should have mutated eyes in the back of our heads -it makes more sense for survival.So many things would do better if they had more eyes. I believe God did it just right but I imagine evolution should have done something different if survival and not design is what drives the process. Makes no sense to me that something so random made something so clever with no plan in mind. All those billions of neuronal connections with no electrician. Try that on a new house until you get it right. There has to be a designer. A banana appears to be grossly underprotected compared to its relative the tiger.Also the banana appears to be so well designed for eating -its shape, it's easy open skin -so many improbabilites compared to the assertion that it was designed with a plan - so that we could eat it. No I asked for your best evolutionary proof that would blow away any possibility that creation was feasible. But not created by us nor by random natural processes as far as I'm concerned. I apologize for being apparently surrounded by those far cleverer than myself.I should take off to a less evolved type website and play with those less evolved humans.I know more than enough biology -if I make the odd error, will you forgive me and then I will forgive you when you do the same. I am here to learn -that is the main thing apart from dispensing wisdom...of course.

Well no, not as such - but the real God, the one who got his scribes to write down what He did, said he made man in his image and animals separately in the same 6 day creation period. That means man could not have evolved from animals and since the Bible lays out the exact geneologies from Adam onwards, you count it up and 3,8 billion years cannot apply. So since what the real God said is not part of any picture here, I have to assume that in his mind, God died and has been replaced with an idol, another God made up in man's imagination (the god humans prefer to imagine, incompatible with the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.) Nonetheless his belief is one which does not allow for the real God who told us what he did. Man's story has replaced God's story so man by implication is cleverer than God because even though man wasn't there, he has assumed his own belief system and his own image of God . I am being fair, I believe and have not so far lied about anything. You are setting yourself up as the local judge of character which character you have made up. In order to help your own cause of trying to make creationists look extremely shady and of dubious reputation. Remember evolutionists in general presuppose that to be the case and this is an evolutionists website, so it is not surprising to me that anything I say will be held against me. I have looked and once again I cannot agree with the conclusions. I'm still waiting for that at least one bit of evidence that puts creation as a possibility out the door.

Did 'nature' know that we needed something nice to eat or was the banana a series of fortuitous chance mutations? What did it evolve from and why?
Maybe God made it for us to eat and that is why bananas have only ever been bananas and that was the plan when they were created. Are there any known transitional types between the banana as we know it (seeded or unseeded) and something else that preceeded it? Are we waiting to find the fossilized precursors to the banana or have they already been found? So 'nature', the mindless inventor, knew we were going to eat the bananas and so put the seeds inside for dispersal? Just wondering.

The rules of evolution are simple:
1)Assume evolution
2)Observe a fact
3)Make up a story to fit the fact into the assumption.
Lots of big scientific words are used to make it look smarter but if you change your perspective away from believing in evolution a priori, you will see that anything can be fitted in depending on the extent of your imagination.
As for predictions, for example:
Evolutionists predicted that something like the coelocanth should be found as a missing link. When they found 'it', they jumped to all sorts of conclusions based on the assumption. Coelocanth failed as a missing link when a live one was first found, expelling it from the index fossil family (it still lives) and ousting it as an intermediate when the assumed leg precursors were only fins after all.
Evolutionists see what they want to see over and over again. There is one actually -creation fits the bill perfectly -a supernatural creator created everything and that's why billions of intermediate (should be there) fossils are missing. Only fully formed creatures with fully formed organs, no half-half anything on its way from leg to wing, reptile lung to bird lung, scales to feathers nothing. Why??? Facts are solid. Evolution is the interpretation of the solid facts which are better explained by creation.Brainwashing in evolution makes it difficult for people these days to think any other way.
I believe that it is a strong delusion. The Bible and creation go hand in hand -the theology fits with reality.Evolution does not go with the God of the Bible. It is an opposing belief system. But religion that conflicts with reality (the bare facts)is a waste of time.Creation and the scientific evidence fit together -christianity should not be separate and incompatible with science if it is true.I believe it is true and it fits the evidence extremely well.There are a lot of Christians out there that believe in evolution as the way God created but that is not what God said he did and the two belief systems are in opposition.

I still want to know what the banana evolved from and how we can be sure it evolved at all.Is evolution a presupposition or is it a proven fact?

All I will get is lots of imaginative stories about how this evolution happened with evolution assumed a priori.
I need facts that point away from creation like intermediates that are obviously intermediates not fully formed varieties of things.
Half wing/half leg, half fin/half leg things like that would be good -to show that new genetic information has been added by mutation.Something to show that it is not all imagination.

The percentage may be relatively small for now but remember this is the predominating paradigm, the consensus of the moment.Science is written and rewritten and rewritten. Consensus opinions in the past have very often been wrong.Numbers in favor of creation as an alternative explanation are rising all the time - maybe it is the paradigm of the future.
Scientists are brainwashed into evolution before they get anywhere in scientific circles and then they build on that same shaky foundation.I know of a few that put their jobs on the line by daring to disagree with the Darwin party line. It's not easy to stand up against the majority opinion but if it makes sense,if it is the truth,then it's worth it.

In your eyes they are lies, in my eyes they make sense. I start by presuming a creator, you start by presuming evolution. Creation makes sense of all the fossils found in the wrong places according to the geologic time scale.Fossils found in wrong places by evolutionists lie low or a complicated story is woven around them -the only thing that may not happen is to disbelieve the original premise -that evolution happened. Not made up in my head - part of history or is the evolutionary memory wiped clean of the coelocanth debacle.It was a missing link like so many others, an index fossil (meaning died out hundreds of millions of years ago and thus used as an age indicator) . As an icon, it failed.It is alive -where has it been for hundreds of millions of years only to be found alive and well in the 20th century?
Claiming that I know nothing or that I sprout creationist lies is only a way of avoiding a decent reply -it doesn't have to be long, it just has to make sense.A proper reply would be nice. Not really -go to a natural history museum and look for them.Very few and extremely debatable.In time those that are supposed links (for the moment) will no doubt go the way of their predecessors -into the garbage. Not inadvertent, my starting point actually. I don't believe in religion for the sake of it -if its true, great, if it's not, dump it.Same for evolution.

Actually so many show virtually no change over time -like clams for instance -virtually unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years -the same today. Yes you get varieties but so many kinds in the fossil record are just plain extinct, not changed into something that evolved and thus survived better.It fits better with the lack of any proof for increasing genetic information. Nobody exposes themselves to x-rays for fun. Mutations are detrimental and do not increase information. You need loads of increased information for evolution to produce something better or different.There is no proof of that so why believe in evolution? What seemed plausible in Darwin's time makes no sense in the light of modern genetics. Evolution was quickly accepted as an hypothesis before anything but variation/natural selection was demonstrated. Extrapolation was assumed, without any further evidence, by Darwin himself.Haeckels embryos (the fraudulent ones) increased enthusiasm in the proposition.Darwin himself said "if my theory be true, countless intermediates must exist" -he never found them, neither has anyone else.Lots of fossils, no proven intermediates. There's a vast hoo haa when a transition is proposed but they go out the window with no fanfare -just slip silently into obscurity to be replaced by the next hailed 'intermediate'.Nobody today observes the evidence without assuming evolution -that is the modern day paradigm -the unquestioned presupposition -and yes lots of stories, fit the facts into the accepted paradigm and then call it scientific.I agree that the rules of any belief system is to attempt to fit the evidence into the story but evolution by no means escapes that, as much as evolutionists would like to believe they are above the simple things that beset the lower life forms -they are humans and they do the same thing. I like to watch true believers (evolutionists) being questioned on their belief system, they very often froth at the mouth reminding me of Muslims defending Allah - dare you disagree? They accuse you of stupidity and lying and rehashing old junk but they do it themselves.Luckily they have not started to chop our heads off yet but I am pretty sure they would like to get us into re-education (brainwashing) programmes so that all can share the faith. It was all going so well until these creationists/ID proponents came along...Pride keeps them going. The galapogos finches shift back and forth -they change within a range -they remain finches and no new genetic information is added -nothing new is added to the finches, just variation and natural selection, the same old stuff that creationists agree with anyway. They must ,there's proof, we see it every day.
As for Tikaaklik -some birds have teeth, some don't; some birds have claws on their wings, some don't. Some very strange creatures exist that seem to come from nowhere as well -creation perhaps. No reason to assume Tikaaklik is an intermediate form unless you first assume evolution.Evolutionists see a new intermediate in so many things. Why would a fish, a competent swimmer develop arms and legs and walk away? So many other body systems have to change to make that vaguely feasible.It should remain ungainly on land for at least a few million years -and natural selection should get rid of it.You can only assume they made it and turned into other land forms if you first assume evolution.What about just some type of weird extinct fish? That's what creation would assume and it would fit. Variation, natural selection works on living organisms but all within limits according to all we ever see in nature. I don't think so!