danielmiessler.com - Latest Comments in How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:40:07 -0000

That gives me Deja Vu... Whatever.

Yeah, you're kind of right about that. It sort of depends on how technical you wanna get about it. The technology we use to achieve flight, in a way, is more like an extension of ourselves (please ignore the fact that I sound like a hippy when saying that). Just like how human's can't walk. We use our legs to walk. Although I suppose that's kind of faulty as well because the difference between legs and airplanes is that one is biological and attached to us and the other is technological and is NOT attached to us.

But also, I hate reading shit I made within a relatively medium amount of time ago. Because I can't help but look at the things I've said and go "Oh come on, that's retarded." or say "Dude. You could have done that so much better. You look retarded.".

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

justsomeguy — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:55:03 -0000

Actually the Bible never says how old the earth and the universe are. You should probably read it before you assume things about.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

justsomeguy — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:52:25 -0000

Your example is faulty. The things that man creates can fly but man is still incapable of flight himself. Even if he wears a jet pack or wing suite, he is not the one doing the flying. That's like saying a mouse that gets on a back of a bird can fly.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Eric Stockley — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:03:59 -0000

ever hear of the 4 cardinal directions North South East and West. Love you but really

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Eric Stockley — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 22:00:47 -0000

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Lucy — Sun, 17 Nov 2013 15:51:25 -0000

Science changes everyday because there keeps being new discoveries, there keeps being more/less evidence to back up theories and is expanded upon. This just makes science more accurate, because it sees where it went wrong or whether what they thought was right and make amendments depending on what they found out- all in all making their eventual decision more accurate because they have more evidence each day. Just because something 'has not changed' doesn't make it any more accurate, it just means it isn't adapting to the changes in the world (because there is no doubt that the world is changing, in beliefs of humans and the actual surface of the Earth) where it needs to.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Tue, 03 Sep 2013 15:06:12 -0000

(If you haven't noticed, this will be very long)
It doesn't make you feel good because people are assholes. But it's not ONLY their fault. I partially lies with you for not understanding the science. Unless you tried as hard as you could, then there's just something wrong with you that you can't control.

You also seem to misunderstand gravity. Gravity exists. This is a fact. The reason as to why, is the unproven part. And whether or not the bible does talk about understanding the universe or whether or not religious people believe in science is rather irrelevant.

But macro evolution is rather possible. It's just a lot of micro evolution. I'm sure you've already heard this before but I'm saying it anyway. When you reproduce, whether it's a-sexually or sexually, it's never perfect. If we were creatures of a-sexual reproduction (I.E. cloning ourselves) and it was absolutely perfect then we'd have mostly no evolution. No changes in our genetics during the reproduction process would mean no evolution. Except for maybe Epigenetics but I'm not read up on that topic so I'm not sure. The best I can say is that if we have perfect cloning abilities then out species would remain mostly static. We'd be the same for thousands of years unless something else changes our genes for whatever reason. I can't think of what some of those reasons might be so let's move on. The point being though, when you reproduce the process isn't perfect. When you reproduce sexually then we can get greater changes. Each sperm and each egg is a half cell with a random 50% of our genetics in each one. You could get so many thousands if not millions of possible combinations when you look at the amount of eggs a woman will ever produce and the amount of sperm a man will ever produce. Not only that, but the genetics in the half cells aren't perfect either. The sperm or egg might have a mistake making it 49% your genetics and the remaining 1% a random change during your body's creation of the cell. Or during the mixture process something could change. It's very random and both predictable, as in imperfections in reproducing is going to happen which leads to micro and then macro evolution, and unpredictable, as in we will never know what will change in the genetics and how much will. When you reproduce, it isn't perfect. This is micro evolution. A little change in the next generation. If you have random changes over very long periods of time which can spread across generations and the populous, eventually you get macro evolution. In a way, it's like a rope. You have a single thread. Over time you get more thread and spin them together until you have a bundle of thread. Then, you get more bundles and spin them together until you have a thick rope and not a single string. When you have environmental pressures that push creatures to adapt and evolve in certain ways in order to survive, then you can direct how they will evolve in some way or another. Although, when people do it then we call it "Selective Breeding". When the environment does it, it's just called "Natural Selection". If you have a cold environment, then the creatures that aren't suited to live there but are just suited enough to stay alive as a species, will adapt to it in their lifetime. To be clear though, when I say adapt in their lifetime, I mean that they will get used to it a little bit. If they survive long enough then they will breed which will mean they evolve to fit it even better. I'll just reword it slightly to make a bit simpler. Imagine species A is unsuited to the cold environment. But they can live there, even if it's just barely and cling to the edge of life every second. The current living creatures of species A might get used to the cold overall over the years. They are still unsuited but they aren't strangers to the cold either. Over time, with enough reproduction and a little luck (we're talking many millions of years), they will become more suited to the environment in one way or another. Perhaps a creature that feels the cold less. Maybe one that is capable of holding it's internal body temperature better. Maybe one with fur that protects from the cold. It could be any number of things.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Ferretman48 — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 13:53:08 -0000

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian who doesn't "believe in science". Honestly, I find the statement of this man's intellect being unexpected as both shocking and slightly aggravating. Even the Bible talks about understanding your universe. Did you think normal Christians reject the idea of gravity, which even science cannot currently prove? Physics, Biology, I love it all, I just can't see how macroevolution is possible either, and then I get labeled as an idiot peddling an agenda. Doesn't make me feel good.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

i have the same problem — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:26:12 -0000

i have the exact same problem, my self a lover of science and a i have a friend who is a die hard creationist believes in survival of the fittest and natural selection he will admit that animals adapt to there environment but when i try to bring him to the conclusion that adapting is the core of evolution he completely rejects it saying there are no "transition fossils" in which i reply "there is" and he reply "there fake" and i don't know what to do. i even have brought up the domestication experiment in soviet Russia where they took wild foxes and breed for tameness and got dog like creatures, the closest thing we can come to a strongly documented evolutionary study or at least what i've heard of, which evolution on its own takes millions of years, hardly something we can document.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

GOD — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:06:24 -0000

Funny how proof is required when science, which is changing the world and saving lives and proves it's methodology is sound everyday. But none is required for an invisible man in the sky that cares enough about us to let babies die in horrible ways, pray desperately for the safety of a loved one only to be ignored, and will torture you for eternity for not believing even though he was too inept to write a coherent book that was concise and to the point and instead chose to write one full of stuff you have to interpret which can result in any number of interpretations.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

MR.G — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:20:50 -0000

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Revelations 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Job 11:9
The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

Job 28:24
For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;

Job 37:3
He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

Job 38:4-6
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Bible doesnt say what now?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:25:34 -0000

I'm sorry but that is just the most unintelligent repeated argument I've ever heard. I can demonstrate this as well, it's not just an insult. Faith is a blind belief in something without reason. (If you wish to tell my your definition you may) While Evolution is science. Evolution is change over time, this is a fact. Evolution is random. When you have a child and mix the male's sperm and the female's egg the DNA replication is not perfect. You can get random minor changes in the DNA. When a Cell replicates it is never perfect, it is always a very slightly different cell. The theory part of Evolution is the mechanism that guides evolution. It is called "Natural Selection". Natural Selection is basically when the environment changes via food source, weather, predators or other things it makes life tougher. If for example the environment is slowly getting colder then the creatures that are unable to survive and procreate die. If creatures do replicate often enough then over time the minor changes that make survival easier will spread as more babies are made and over time across millions of years and big enough populations you will be able to see the difference. The thing about Evolution is that it's very gradual and it's practically impossible to say at what point it's a new species. If you look at a species as the weather starts to change then jump a LONG time into the future, if the species survived then you will see the big changes. If you're watching as it changes then you will never notice the changes across the species. If you were to take a photo now and like I said jump far into the future you could see a before and after. That's pretty much how Evolution works as far as I've read and heard.

As for the "Faith" part I'd like to reiterate what Daniel said. If Evolution is a belief then Gravity, Electromagnetism and Nuclear Fusion also requires faith.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Daniel Miessler — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:24:41 -0000

Yeah, so is belief in gravity and magnetism. Good point.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

ga2 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:18:20 -0000

It is called FAITH. Some have faith in God. Others have faith in evolution. Evolution is just another religion.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

moneen — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:08:39 -0000

say... i wonder if you could provide any contradictory evidence that ISN'T from a website dedicated to your nonsense "proof"?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

moneen — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:06:21 -0000

facepalm. the bible =/= evidence. and yes, there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:43:55 -0000

You know what isn't subject to interpretation? Science. Just because you believe in a ancient magical book to be true & it the entire book is subject to interpretation & you found a passage that you can interpret as agreeing with evolution or that the earth is round (which many passages in the bible contradict and there are passages that can be interpreted as the earth being round or flat) doesn't make the Bible true or what it says. Now I think Evolution is true (to the extent that we can understand based on the current data known) and that the Earth is round but I don't think that because a ancient book says it is. I say it because I researched & I understand the Science. I'm not perfect & there is always more to learn that I previously didn't know before when it comes to science & I might even get some things wrong, but that only makes me Human & when you're wrong what you SHOULD do is fix it so you aren't wrong anymore. Anyway my point is, your "Source of Knowledge" should not be a book where you have to decide if something is literal or metaphorical. It should be fact, evidence & reason. Not something you let a person decide on. I think my point is made.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

J. David Requejo — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:46:08 -0000

The bible can be very accurate... but only when you decide which parts are real and which are metaphorical... "when he says he sees the four corners of the world it doesn't mean the world is flat and square, he is just speaking metaphorically" guess what! When the bible states that god made humans it is also metaphorical, humans evolved and the bible agrees on that... xD If you guys can pick whatever part of the bible to believe and interpret as you will, so can the rest.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:12:20 -0000

Exactly. Anyone who says the bible is accurate obviously didn't think about all the details before saying that.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:07:44 -0000

Okay I suppose I should reply to this better than I did last time.

The carbon dating that you are referring to does not give evidence to a young earth. You see, carbon has a half life of only a few thousand years. Carbon does not decay completely but when we know it's decay rate & we read how much it has decayed we can find out how old the carbon in the creature is after dying. When the creature dies the carbon starts to decay. ANYway, there is no evidence for a young earth. When the carbon stops decaying at it's half life then we can't say it's age anymore. The point is, if I die right now & it's been 10,000 later then that's as far as you can count for my death. It only counts to a certain point, once you reach that you need to use other methods to tell the age of a person or a rock.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

J. David Requejo — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:04:57 -0000

Have you tried dogs? or any form of human induced evolution... we exert a lot of pressure on the natural world and therefore produce rapid measurable evolution: they can be considered as micro, but I want to see a healthy baby dog be born from the mating of a great Dane with a Chihuahua... would that be Macro enough? As you clearly understand, there is no fundamental difference between micro and macro evolution, it is just a matter of time and isolation... Evolution is scientifically sound... however science cannot prove humans and chimpazees had a common ancestor, but there is NO evidence for any alternative theory...

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

J. David Requejo — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:50:03 -0000

yeaaaah... how old is the universe? and the planet you live in? The bible doesn't seem to agree on that, does it?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:21:14 -0000

It's gonna be hard to pick through your paragraph here and tell you what is wrong and right (mostly wrong) with what you said. But let me try

1. "Science is 'the study of'. Since one cannot observe evolution (thats a
fact since it would take millions of years) it is based on the belief
that species evolve over time." We can observe evolution, we cannot see it first hand but we can connect the dots, just like in your browser history you looked at websites, we did not see you look at them, but we can see the evidence.

2. "Evolution is just as much a religion as creationism." Definition of Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. (well atleast most religions). Evolution is a science, it was a theory based on observation that was fed with evidence and has grown to be more than just a idea or theory.

(some of my other points are just fixing and correcting things that you stated multiple times and i don't feel like quoting)

3. You are comparing evolution to faith and therefor you seem to be "choosing" which one you like more and that is ignorant. Truth IS NOT A FU--ING CHOICE.

4. You talk about evolution being equal to lazy and imorale and nothing happens when you die, it does not claim that at all, all evolution is is just the science that shows that cells and creatures evolve over time.

5. "If creationism is true, you were created by God, He has a purpose for you, and wants your soul in heaven when you die. If evolution is true, how do you explain the soul" okay i think that's far enough quoting. You cannot prove any of that and you are just cherry picking what you like then chaining yourself to this stuff and unwilling to let it go.

6. "There is irrefutable evidence for the existence of them: Compassion, love.... free will. Humans are the only creatures than can express these. They are the only
creatures that do not act based on their instinct. How does one explain
that?". Compassion, love & free will is not proof of a soul. With the same logic i can say it is proof that the chicken noodle soup God gave us these. Humans are the only species that express these? 1. I'd like you to cite your sources because I'm pretty sure that other creatures have emotions. (like dogs, they have unconditional love for their owners and family, I know of some species that will protect their family with their life).

7. "Which questions are you comfortable not having an answer for?" It isn't a matter of what you are more comfortable with, it is a matter of truth. "What
happens to you when you die?" We don't know but clinging to the bible or anyother religion will not help you. "Where did life originate?" From specific atmospheric conditions where organic matter trapped and proteins and formed basic cells. "Perhaps if
creationism is true, and the Bible is right about the beginning, then
perhaps it is right about the end!" That's a scare tactic and I will not let anyone use that BULLSHIT to scare people into stupidity.

8. I can find you several videos debunking many of the stupid shit Kent has said. He also went to Jail for Tax fraud for MANY years. Screwing the government isn't very convincing.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 01:44:52 -0000

Can you prove that statement or are you retarded?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Dylancn — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 01:42:17 -0000

1. Do not claim there is no proof without looking.

2. There is no such thing as matting and producing a creature after their own kind. Each living organism from simple to complex has its own genetic structure, no other creature (except clones) will ever have the same DNA as another. We say after its own kind, but thats because we see this and say, its a dog and this is a dog too. But those 2 dogs are technically their own species.

3. Don't claim "God" did anything because you will never prove it.

4. There is more to it than, Hey mike! check it out, the bones of this ape and its genetics are so similar to us humans that means we came from it, after all it has been dead a very long time we must have evolved from it. It's not that simple.

5. You want proof the world is 4.54 billion years old? It's called Radiometric dating. With cross testing with other forms of radiometric dating we have found that the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old. The earths current age is based on the oldest rock we have found. We could find older rocks or not. But it at least shows more accurately the age of the earth. But just google this stuff.

6. I think you are referring to the Big Bang. It did not cause life or earth. The big bang was the expansion of the universe. Think of it like this. Imagine a glass bowl that is so unimaginably small, then it gets bigger really fast, but there is nothing outside the bowl, it is impossible to escape and that bowl, WAS the universe, it wasn't an explosion, it was the expansion of the universe and the 4 forces (gravity, weak force, strong force & electromagnetic force). Over time after things cooled off and energy became matter (that is how it works, the universe was energy and as it cools it changes into matter, look this up, it's the first law of thermodynamics) and heavier and heavier matter came forth from collecting quarks (and even smaller particles) until we had Nitrogen and it collected to form stars and create other elements, along with the forming of the galaxies. After big massive star go super nova, in that super nova heavy elements (like metal and rock) were created & gathered together to create rocky planets and the light elements formed gas planets.

danielmiessler.com - Latest Comments in How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would *You* Prove Evolution?

danielmiessler.com - Latest Comments in How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?