Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Age of the earth?

Yep. You can't see gravity, but you know it exists because you can see and feel its effects.

Believers can see God in many things, including creation itself (which EVERYONE who isn’t blind can also see), and believers know God exists because they can feel the effects of the existence of God.

Good post Antlers.

I don’t dispute that…and to further your point, its probably the majority of them. That said, its not all of them and interspecies evolution still not the fact some attempt to suggest it is….and that is why it’s such a tumultuous topic. Without further development, its a conflict of beliefs….not a dispute of real science.

FFS. The fact that this is a "tumultuous topic" speaks to the state of the education system.

Yep.

Oh, boy....that's quite a spin. Unlike God, whatever that is supposed to be, nobody needs to believe in gravity, and anyone can test its reality.

What are these effect that can be attributed to "God?' Examples may help.

LOL. My command of the English language is certainly not the bestest, but people that can’t prove their point and are compelled to maintain debate need something to which they can shift.

You’re welcome. 😂

Who is this "Gerd Muller 2016" character? Wikipedia never heard of him.

And if you think there is no evidence in the fossil record for evolution, then you are not very bright. Or perhaps Gerd Muller is just dumb.

And you didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it: IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANYTHING IN GENESIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

But is it sufficient enough to establish interspecies evolution as a fact?

Points off for spelling and grammar are welcomed. 😉

Yes.

Yes, more than enough fossil evidence. And fossil evidence in only one of the lines of evidence supporting it as fact, you also have comparative anatomy, molecular biology and genetics, biogeography, and direct observation.

Everything the biological sciences (and allied sciences) observe points to evolution of species, not just the division into subspecies. For example, subspecies can breed together to produce fertile offspring, such as dogs and wolves. That tells us they are closely related, meaning their point of divergence (when they were the same species/subspecies) was fairly recently in geological time. Then there are species that can reproduce, but cannot generate fertile offspring (except in extremely rare cases) like lions and tigers. This tells us they are closely related, but not as closely as dogs and wolves, i.e., the point of their divergence (when they were the same species/subspecies) was further back in time. Then you have species that, although related, cannot reproduce without intervention from scientists, like llamas and camels, and then only infertile offspring. This tells us that while they are closely related, they are not as closely related as lions and tigers, i.e., their point of divergence (when they were the same species/subspecies) was further back in time. Then we have the tapir and the rhinoceros, which are closely related, but simply cannot reproduce with each other at all, even with the aid of science. Too much time has passed with them being separated, so genetic drift, and differing environmental pressures, have altered them genetically just a bit too much for that.

The above is just one of thousands of reasons science understands that species evolve, and don't merely divide into subspecies. Camels and llamas are not a subspecies of a species. They are not the same species in any sense, yet (with the help of science) they can reproduce infertile offspring. Genetics tells us that tapirs and rhinos are closely related, but not closely enough related to generate offspring of any kind, so their common ancestor lived longer ago than that of camels and llamas.

I genuinely appreciate the direct answer, however…..and I may be wrong….but there’s a number of most learn-ed and bonafide scientists, that believe in evolution, that wouldn’t make such a bold statement due to its scientific inaccuracy. Theories change. Facts don’t. Evolution is still a theory.

As is the germ theory of disease still a theory. In science, theory doesn't mean hunch. It means it explains much and has withstood the rigors of challenge over many years, and is therefore likely an accurate model. The longer is survives challenge, the more certain we can be of its correctness.

Fine. Then offer a better theory that fits with the facts. There is a Nobel Prize just waiting for you if you can.

Darwin had the balls ta admit he was wrong.

Hundredsa years later, liberals still don't.

I don’t see how the “It’s not just a theory” claim applies. Nobody is challenging it as being less than a scientific theory. But the opposite is true, as well. It is no greater than a theory, either. Regardless of what can be said….regardless of debate skill, regardless of how long it survives (as a theory), scientifically, the Theory of Evolution is not a fact.

I get it: People feel strongly about it. They’ve read about it. They’ve studied the available evidence. They have their references. In their hearts, they know it’s true.

Its still not an established fact. Faith is required.

It's not faith. It's science.

So….because the Theory of Evolution isn’t a fact, a better scientific theory has to be conjured up? Clearly, I’m not a person of higher education, but I know this isn’t the way real science works.

If you believe in the Theory of Evolution, that is okay by me. I take no issue with believers of other faiths as long as there’s mutual respect. But make no mistake, when you step out onto the field of faith beyond fact, you’re no different than any theist.