Has evolution been proven ?

Hi Snippy,Evolution can not be proven true because it is false.I can give you two examples you can work on your own which might show you that evolution could not have happened.Imagine or draw a fish on the left and a salamander on the right. If you draw then the pictures can be stick pictures; just something to help you organize your thoughts.Now, focus on the on the fin of the fish and the front leg of the salamander. Again, a simple drawing is adequate for organizing your thoughts.Now, imagine or draw some detail on the left and right. On the left you will note a straight, flat, nearly weightless, boney material. On the right you will note two comparatively heavy bones, at least two muscles, associated cartilege, and a cushion inside the joint.Finally, logically disassemble the elbow then try to reassemble it "in thousands of changes over millions of years" (Darwin). You might see the difficulty of a fish or a salamander having part of a leg. Now, step back and see that the foot, wrist, the elbow, the shoulder, and supporting skeleton all had to exist at once. Stephen Gould's puncuated equilibrium is God's equilibrium with no punctuation.The second example is the 38 trillion barrels of oil found in an oil field in Iran in 2003. You can do the arithmetic. What you will find is that a huge pile of plant-life (9 cubic miles if I remember my numbers correctly) for a long period of time did what no plant-life does normally (changed to oil instead of topsoil) then quit - to fill a 12x12 mile by 1000 feet deep hole that waited to cover itself until the plants stopped doing what they do not do normally.Please think on these yourself. You might come to the conclusion that they could have happened by accident - or you might conclude that they could not have been accidents. If not, then the only alternative is Creation is it not?Thanks for reading,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Estaban,
Thanks for the reply.I am happy that my post amused you. I do want to point out that incredulity refers to the inability to accept truth when presented. I add that discernment refers to being able to identify lies when presented and nievity (sp?) refers to being unable to identify lies when presented.Your two examples (acorn to oak tree and fertilized egg to human baby) confused me since they are the thesis of creationism. Are you implying that a fish is a baby salamander? If so, it is possible then that "evolution is smarter than you are". I will assume that this is not what you meant and wait for your reply.I have a great imagination. I can imagine the two of us at the throne of God. I hope we will be there as friends.Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, and Eve.

Hi Quetzal,
Thanks for your reply.I do want to point out that showing two animals that look alike is not related to my post. What I asked Sniggs (not Snippy, sorry) was to work the process of being born in successive generations with various stages of the development of the elbow and consequential loss of the straight fin. Every attempt I have made has resulted in a youth that can not survive to adulthood to reproduce.I will give a few examples of how the youth might emerge from the egg:
with loose skin where the stiff bone was, with cylindrical bone where the flat bone was, with a jointed circular bone where a stiff flat bone was, with muscles hanging loose where the fin was, etc. All of these leave the youth unable to move about and unable to forage (or "fight or flight" assuming the youth had enemies) as either a finned or legged being.To save time, I will state that I am not saying "show me the next intermediate". I do not play that game since it is, at best, a distraction. I freely give you that if evolution were true then finned-to-elbowed would be onw of a few transitions required between amoeba and mankind.In summary, the selected pictures do not address the survival issues of the transition from fin to leg. I look forward to a reply which does so.Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, Eve "and Adam"

I appreciate all the posts related to mine. Thank you.I could use three things at this point:1) time to do some more reading so that I can present more clearly since I have not been able to make my (I believe) provable point about the elbow. I see books recommended here and will look into them. What I specifically need is a description of the evolutionary lineage of the salamander.2) a verification of my arithmetic on the oil point (I think my first calculation was wrong):((38,000,000,000,000 x 55 / 7.5 ) / 5280^3)^1/3 = 12.37 cu.mi. (of oil)My compost pile reduces to about 1/5 (or less) but I'll use 1/4 to complete this calculation. That much oil would then require 24.74 x 24.74 x 12.37 cu. mi. of vegetation (keeping precision for clarity - sorry)3) some respect:You (those who believe in evolution) are experts (or at least students) in your fields. I accept and respect that else I would not be here. When I am disrespectful, I hope you will call me on it.I am somewhat of an expert and surely a student in spirituality (not religion). My clear relationship with God (spirituality) is of great value to me. Please do not refer to me as ignorant or stubborn or afraid.Thank you,
Bob, et. al. (thanks, I like that)P.S. My real interest is quantum mechanics as it relates to encryption (thus the Bob, Alice, Eve) which is what originally brought me into this group. My son said he took a quantum mechanics course in the 6th grade (he's the one working on his Phd) and it is clear to him. I was hoping to get a little help here but will look for a primer instead. Any recommendations?

Hi Quetzal,The pictures are grrrreat. When they popped up I said "Wow".I am working to correct my fishey-fish-to-salamander attempt at defining the problem. Evolution must be debated within the evolutionist's definitions. I accepted the time-lapse "movie" often shown on TV, which I am sure shows a fishey-fish turn into a salamander, as the evolutionist's definition and now stand corrected.I will review the lineage you suggested in message 21 by locating one of Carrol's books listed in message 41 (I have both titles written down at home).I am glad that we do agree that we are discussing Darwin's "thousands of changes over millions of years". I am also glad that we agree that the fishey-fish would have had a real struggle developing a leg (at least my foundational thought was correct).If this does not address your responses adequately then I look forward to your next request (that seems to be the correct word). I did not see a need for me to wait on responding until I do additional reading but I do reserve the right to revise - just in case.Very best regards,
BAE

Oops, Quetzal. I was referring to the IOW sentence in post 21. Looks like I have another distinction to learn - legs, ray-fins, and something else.I found the first book on-line. May have to go to the U bookstore to find the second?Denetia, (horrible memory so sorry if the spellingis wrong). thanks for your post also. I can imagine a showcase of thousands of teethy little jaws!!Read you all soon (like see you all soon).
BAE

Hi Quetzal,The problem this True Believer (tm) has is different than you state above. The evidence for evolution is there, alright, but it is a subset of the same evidence that God created it.Just as I dismiss the conclusion that evolution is the better answer, my conclusion that creation is the better answer is dismissed. The latter dismissal occurs even though I have perfect evidence of the existence of God, as compared to the admitted imperfect evidence of evolution - not counting the nullification of the TOE by the existence of God.Which would I rather be: a ridiculed TB or a praised follower of tToe? The answer is obvious from the outside. From the inside, there is no comparison between the peace and joy I have in my life from knowing God personally and a pat-on-the-back from my associates.To update you on the status of my seeking Caroll's book, the county library system is trying to get it.It's always a pleasure.
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Crashfrog and company,Below, I throw out some itemized statements which might be usable to avoid repetition. They might even be the beginning of a foundation of agreement on several things.Crashfrog and I have repeatedly had the short discussion regarding feelings and evidence. I have clearly stated that my knowledge of God is not derived from my feelings. I can not tell if Crashfrog thinks that I believe that feelings are evidence or has simply minusderstood my statement. This may resolve the issue.EvC001: In the discussion of the theory of evolution, feelings derived from a non-believer's association with God are, to those who believe in evolution, not evidence of the invalidity of the theory of evolution.
--------------------------------------------Now, what about interpertation of and selection of evidence? An innocent man is taken to a court of law which convicts him of murder and punishes him accordingly. Twelve people and a judge somehow are not able to reach the correct conclusion even though they have (they think) all the evidence. Obviously, the set of evidence which convicted the man is a subset of the evidence which would have exonerated (sp) him.To say that his innocence was "refuted" seems inappropriate?EvC002: Evolutionists and Creationists may never identify a common set of evidence from which to make a decision regarding the two possibilities.
-------------------------------Some evolutionists believe that the theory of evolution has been proven true and others think/feel "it is so darn close". Some creationists believe in ex nhilo creation and some belive that the the word used actually means organized. Some evolutionists state that the enlargement of a birds bill is a proof of evolution and others state that it is simply an adaptation which will disappear when the rains come once again. Some creationists insist on a literal six day creation while others point out that the sun was not yet created when the first day was declared.EvC003: Regarding the theories of evolution and creationism, there is no consensus in either camp about the state of their individual case.
---------------------------There are parts of cosmology and evolution that are untestable. On other parts, tests have been run but we are required to rely on the veracity of the instrument and the reporter for the results. Some parts of the physical world can be sensed but not tested or described. The existence of God is untestable by instrument.EvC004: That a portion of a theory is untestable does not, in and of itself, invalidate the theory.
----------------------------I am guessing that we can not even agree on all of these statements. That would make EvC005 but I will not add it until I hear from the group. Would it be a good thing to see where we agree? Possibly, we could work up a very simple "necessary and sufficient" list and stop this endless loop. I, like you, have seen the same general arguments for many years? I think Charles Darwin was on to something when he said "If one part of the theory of evolution can be disproven then the whole of it is false." (that may be a paraphrase but it is close - I do not have my "Origin of the Species" handy). Could we look together for specific failures so that we can "drop it like a hot potato" if there is a breakdown?I have no delusion that I will be personally instrumental in disproving tToE (I am not expert enough) nor do I believe that everyone will be pursuaded should it be proven false (no one can pursuade the closed minded). But I do believe that there is a single point of failure and that the experts will find it. Could it happen here?Very best regards to all,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Quetzal,Sorry to appear to be gone - I have been busy in the garden and not had time to do this post justice. As time is short, I will respond to the easy part today and try to finish up tomorrow.First, to the other's who posted;A part of the world which exists but can not be described or measured: the taste of salt.Regarding Darwin statement, I read on page 175 (in chapter 8) "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."I will extend this tomorrow but I think it applies to all of evolution, not just selection (unless we are looking for a multiple-out).We agree on EvC001, I think. However, feelings do have an important place in relationships. They can be falsified but are tested over time much like data.In EvC003 I see a similar scope of agreement amoung Creationists: that God created (organized) Adam and Eve and that they are our first parents. I do not follow all the lines of creationists so am not an expert. I am aware of Steven Gould's punctuated equilibrium which seems 180 degrees out from Darwin - but maybe not.In EvC004 I am setting up for the possibility that untestable does not mean not real (as in the taste of salt). Just as scientist make their rules of evidence, God has made His. Under His rules, He is completely discoverable.I'll come back tomorrow (or at least soon) on EvC002.Thanks for the nudge back,Very best regards,Bob, Alice, and Eve

So, MrHambre, I have never tasted salt. Describe it to me.
Thanks much,
BAE

Hi Quetzal,Again. I am pressed for time (got to get to work). My apology but I want to get something out today.As I see it, your rule 1, by implication, has two parts:1a - A theory must be able to be proved false.
1b - A theory must be able to be proved true?I think we agree that God can not be proved false (that is the impetus of your rule 1 is it not?).Since God can not be proved false there is always the chance that God is truth. As long as there is a chance that God is truth then evolution can not be proved true. Therefore, tToE is not a valid theory. Sorry for the sophistry.I really want to do more with this and my Saturday morning looks better at this point so I hope to "read" from you tomorrow.Very best wishes,
Bob, Alice, and Eve