Why is the hypothesis of evolution still discussed today as even being possible as science has debunked its possibility?

Why is the hypothesis of evolution still discussed today as even being possible as science has debunked its possibility Macroevolution and spontaneous life from non-life chemicals has been totally discreditted. My question is: Does the bias against the Intelligent Design Theoryworry the Darwinists so desperately that they have no other possible theory to offer up but this old disproven one in the face of the obvious answer that the universe was created by a creator, thus Intelligent Design? Asked by JdDucky 4 months ago Similar questions: hypothesis evolution discussed today science debunked possibility Society > Religion & Spirituality.

Similar questions: hypothesis evolution discussed today science debunked possibility.

The law of causality claims that everything that is caused has a creator. We are caused so we need a creator. The universe was caused so it needed a creator.

God Exists "above" space and time according to theologians like CS Lewis and The apostle Paul. By definition God was before the universe to be able to create the universe. As you know the universe is expanding and so thats how we know it all began at one singular point in time, hence "Big Bang".

A huge unbelievable uncalcuable release of energy that created millions of galaxies in a flash instant. This can be traced back to the very begining of our time. Before that the creator was not in time he was BEFORE time.

Therefore there is no needed cuasality for the creator of time and space, he created time and space. He is infinite. I know its a little "heady" but its based on science.

JdDucky 4 months ago .

People don't want to let go of lies. The only other choice is the Creator.

Yes I agree with you that any two sides of an issue can take a singular fact and create a favorable argumant for their side with the same data! It does matter who is doing the funding, etc. Our biases are what we need to examine. The reason its important though is the answer has eternal implications.

JdDucky 4 months ago .

Both sides will meet in the end at the same place. From what I gather, the latest science revelation is that "all is consciousness".

Thats a philisophical theory, or hypothesis. Certainly not grounded in any emperical data of science. But its an interesting idea.

JdDucky 4 months ago .

Just a few added thoughts here -To say that God created time and space is fine but if you take it to a more comprehensive image it'll become clearer. The Spiritual Laws are above and beyond the Natural Laws because they are at a higher frequency, or vibration. When these vibrations are lowered we then descend into the realm of time and space.

I'm no scientist and there are many other ways of describing the process, so just add this one to them.

Religions die hard. The reason it's still taught is malarkey like all the response you got here. Obviously, by definition, there must be the uncaused causer, and that's God the Creator.

And macro-evolution has been discredited by the utter absence of proof--the fossil record isn't a tree but a lawn. But you'll note that the folks here are HOT about being challenged in this area because if they're wrong, they really are responsible before a Just and Holy God. Oops.

Dunno where you're getting your info, but it's not from any mainstream scientific source. (1) Science has not "debunked" its possibility. ( And shouldn't it be "bunked"?) If you de-bunk, you're removing bunk.(2) Macroevolution has not been discredited.

You're perfectly free to believe whatever you want, but may I ask that you keep your beliefs to yourself, or if you must blab about them, have the courage to state them clearly, not in the form of an indirect rhetorical question? .

Without this even Darwin himself said his theory would be wrong without the transitional fossil record. In order to "Prove" Macroevolution there HAS to be transitional fossils, how do you respond to the fact there there has never been a single transitional fossil record? How long do you want to wait for one solitary, just one, transitional fossil record to be found?

One more thousand years? Explain also the cambrian fossil explosion which presents not a tree of life stemming from a single bit of primordial ooze branching out like a tree as darwinians suggest, but a more biblical explosion of ALL fossil records appearing at once similair to the creation story found in Genesis? That is science.

These two items alone not only severely question the "theory" but are actual death blows to the theory. Lets just start with those 2 before we proceed "scientifically" shall we? Please explain how we can continue to exhort this hypothesis as fact to our children when it is yet unproven, and as each day passes more scientifically doubtful?

JdDucky 4 months ago .

I'm sorry that your've been deluded by all those slick-talking chin-waggers. I know, they sound good, but there's really nothing there. >there has never been a single transitional fossil record?

Yes, I know, the ballon-juice producers harp on this, over and over. Unfortunately, they're either clueless or lying. The most basic, high-school level book on evolution documents the extremely well defined fossil record.As just one example, out of hundreds, our auditory nerve and the very winding path it takes can be traced back, in about 20 steps, back to where it was just heading to a fish's jaw and tooth.

Over the eons the tooth very slowly migrated to become your inner ear bones and it dragged the nerve behind it. A total slam-dunk, to anyone that's taken the 10 minutes it takes to look this stuff up.So those friendly yokels on the Tv and radio that go on and on about no transitional records, finding the watch, the impossinility of evolving the eyeball, yadda yadda yadda, they're not helping. They've either not taken a few minutes to look this stuff up, or they are intentionally not mentioning the evidence and claiming the exact opposite.

I understand there is no refuting that as there are no transitional fossils and never will be any transitional fossil records. Avoiding the entire cambrian fossil explosion I also understand. Evolutionists don't even have a reasonable theory to explain why the fossil records don't represent the "tree of evolution" that darwin set forth in his theory.

Interesting about the fish jaw nerve thing though. Irreducible complexity? How do you explain that away?

Do you concede the points of the non existence of a transitional fossil record which Darwin himself saqid would disprove his theory and also the cambrian fossil explosion, those two you concede at this time correct? I only ask as they were not rebutted by you except to say that you felt sorry for me for being deluded. With those two points conceded to Intelligent Design Creation, the argument is really over.

However, what are your views on irreducible complexity as an evolutionist? Just Curious. JdDucky 4 months ago .

I understand there is no refuting that as there are no transitional fossils and never will be any transitional fossil records. You keep repeating this like it's true. It's not.

You could start with: asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.htmlAs for "irreducible complexity", that's totally disprovable. The fact that one modern-day yahoo can't see how to reduce something does not prove a thing. The usual example of the eyeball is an excellent example.

There is nothing "irreducible" about the eyeball. There are dozens of species, still around, where you can trace the eyeball from start to finish-- from a little light-sensitive spot, to a cluster of such spots, to a cluster of spots depressed into a well to provide some crude directional sensing, to the well closing over with a pinhole to provide some focusing, to the pinhole covered over with some clear skin, all the way to a full eyeball. And it can independently be followed in the three separate times it's been evolved-- in insects, in fishes, and in mollusks.Html.

Science and religion....." "science project is asking for a hypothesis" "Religion & Spirituality" "what are the differences between science and spirituality.

Science project is asking for a hypothesis.

What are the differences between science and spirituality.

I'm sorry that your've been deluded by all those slick-talking chin-waggers. I know, they sound good, but there's really nothing there. >there has never been a single transitional fossil record?

Yes, I know, the ballon-juice producers harp on this, over and over. Unfortunately, they're either clueless or lying. The most basic, high-school level book on evolution documents the extremely well defined fossil record.

As just one example, out of hundreds, our auditory nerve and the very winding path it takes can be traced back, in about 20 steps, back to where it was just heading to a fish's jaw and tooth. Over the eons the tooth very slowly migrated to become your inner ear bones and it dragged the nerve behind it. A total slam-dunk, to anyone that's taken the 10 minutes it takes to look this stuff up.So those friendly yokels on the Tv and radio that go on and on about no transitional records, finding the watch, the impossinility of evolving the eyeball, yadda yadda yadda, they're not helping.

They've either not taken a few minutes to look this stuff up, or they are intentionally not mentioning the evidence and claiming the exact opposite. Ancient_Hacker 51 months ago.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.