Too Many Flaws with Evolution

Excuse me!!! The ToE is still based on "theory" after "theory" after "theory" of how life somehow evolved from very simple life forms which they don't know how it first got started to complex life forms and finally to man.Show me the evidence where man has proven in a lab that a single cell life creature can evolve into a fully grown man? Until you do so, the ToE is pure delusion.

Me, I like the way that all living species that have been examined, including known single celled creatures, can be placed in a single phylogenic tree.I realize that it won't convince a lot of people, but it works for me.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

Repeating something that is wrong does not make it true all of a sudden. I can't. Can you show me how god created everything from nothing? You can't? Then why is that true, yet evolution isn't?Edited by Huntard, : changed last paragraph a bit, I was too hasty.

---

I hunt for the truth

Before you start arguing against something, you really should know what you are arguing against.We really do not like equivocation here. oh I guess I better define. It is a logical fallacy. Equivocation is the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.You are switching the definition of TheoryIn science a theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. (in other words, facts)
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.Source
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comThere is nothing higher than a Scientific Theory to explain a group of phenomena. You can't go any higher. Theories are the big leagues.You see how that works. I include facts and sources with my statements. Not just random statements with no basis in reality and fact. Here we go with another fallacy. The tried and true always debunked and discredited creationist strawman. Where does the Theory of Evolution say this should happen. Give me one example of a believer in Evolution proposing anything like this could or should happen.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts.

Fully grown men are composed of living single cells, and zygotes "evolve" into fully grown men all the time. Do you need to be shown in a lab that volcanoes can form islands? Do you need to be shown in a lab that meteors have collided with the moon? Do you think it is impossible to discover the past from observations made in the present?Examination of the human genome in a lab shows clearly that we descend from a common ancestor with the other apes, so as you're so keen on laboratory work, I'll assume that you accept that.

The ToE has burried itself in a hole in the ground by ignoring how life could have first begun from inanimate matter, and relied instead on a theory of how life can somehow evolve from a simple spark of life to complex life forms and finally to man. Nowhere is God mentioned as a rational explanation of how maybe a Creator is neceaasry for life to be created from non-life matter. Instead the ToE relys on "what if" happenings that may transpire after life somehow began. From the first maybe spark of life, life somehow figured out how to evolve form simple life forms to complex life forms and finally to man, all without a Creator.Did I miss anything in this ToE, other than it's all "proven fact" to those who are willing to stake their lives on this belief that is still a theory.

No I don't!!! But I do have to be shown in a lab that a single cell life form can evolve to a fully grown man before I would believe in this theory and call it fact that has been proven to a high degree of accuracy.

John, the theory of evolution is not about how life got started, that's why it doesn't mention it. No, it doesn't. Evolution has been proven, both in the lab and in the wild, no matter how many times you deny it. Life didn't figure anything out, it couldn;t have gone any other way. Further, you seem to imply we are the goal, we are not, so you got that wrong too. And again, it doesn't say there is no creator, stop putting things into the theory that aren't in there. And now you misrepresent the word theory again. Do you even read what others post to you, or do you just see it as letters that mean nothing? You should know by now what a scientific theory is, stop misrepresenting it. Further, I will most certainly NOT give my life for the theory of evolution, I'm far too happy living.

---

I hunt for the truth

Then why do you think that CAN happen, yet evolution can't? The evidence is the same, if not better for evolution.

---

I hunt for the truth

A scientific theory is an explanation for observed, verified facts. It is not a hypothesis, that is something else all together.Also, if you bothered with trying to understand that which you condemn, you would know that the Theory of Evolution says nothing about how life started. Do I need to explain this to you? That means how life began is not part of the Theory of Evolution.
Isn't it sad when you have to rely on deceptions and misunderstanding of data in order to justify your argument.But then again you know all this, but have no other arguments then the old fallacies that you and your ilk trot out again and again.

Funny, that's where the ToE has evolved to today. You admit you can't "show me the evidence where man has proven in a lab that a single cell life creature can evolve into a fully grown man," and you ask why this isn't true? I must be missing something in this logic?All we creationists ask for is equal consideration in the classroom as to how man came to be, rather than only being given an unproven ToE to explain how man came to be.

Sure, go on repeating stuff that isn't true.... Yep, you are. I'm not even going to bother anymore, I should've learned from earlier discussions with you, you're trapped in a certain type of reasoning, and nothing can get you out of that. I'll simply say have fun with it, and so long sir!

---

I hunt for the truth

Could you clarify exactly what sort of evidence you would be satisfied with? Go into detail about what it is you're asking for.{ABE} Creationists will never get the chance at equal time in public schools in USA due to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.Edited by CosmicChimp, : Added second part.

You are asking for affirmative action for your religious beliefs to be considered as science when they meet none of the requirements of science.In fact, they are exact opposite of science, relying on unverifiable "divine" revelation (and on only one particular version of that revelation) as opposed to relying on verifiable scientific evidence.What makes you think you should you be allowed to preach your religious beliefs in the guise of science?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No problem. Just come to my lab and I'll show you. Oh, I should mention that it takes a while, so maybe you could check your diary first. If you can squeeze in two or three billion years somewhere, I think we can work something out.Seriously, John, you should know better than to ask this. If you don't bother to familiarize yourself with some basic facts about evolution - like the time span involved - why should we bother talking to you?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.