Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 433,221 views
- 23,800
- Philippines
Which totally ignores the fact that we didn't evolve from ants... or whales... or monkeys.
Quick reference.
note that insects didn't develop until after the branching between the vertebrates and invertebrates.
We're more closely related to starfish than insects... weirdly.
Quick reference.
note that insects didn't develop until after the branching between the vertebrates and invertebrates.
We're more closely related to starfish than insects... weirdly.
- 919
A bit late, but eh ...
I think we may have touched on an essential problem here. SCJ, you need to investigate the idea of abstraction. To crib from the infamous Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
Justice is an abstraction. Happiness is an abstraction. Love is an abstraction. Creationism, by the way, is also an abstraction.
Let's address your claim about probability. Evolution is not just probable. If life begins simply, proliferates digitally (genetics), and is influenced by constantly changing outside forces, it is a causal inevitability.
Observable facts: Species breed. Some examples of every species exhibit mutations. Geographic and other environmental factors do not remain constant on Earth.
Causally neccessary conclusions: Favorably mutated examples of a species thrive and reproduce more thoroughly than unmutated or unfavorably mutated examples. Species do not remain in singular environments and as such the stimuli that 'judge the merit' of a particular mutation do not remain constant. Isolated groups of a species will, over time, become different species. This is not improbable, it is not just a hypothesis, it is inevitable. Unless you grant (as you seem to) the existence of an unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient, capriciously meddling God, events could proceed no other way. Even granting such a God, these events would still take place without his intervention because they are a logical progression.
And we've pointed out repeatedly that you're wrong - we've shown you multiple cases of species breeding - sometimes successfully - outside their kind. So no, the 'factual evidence' does NOT support your claim and if you expect to be taken seriously you must quit insisting that it does.
As for the scientific credibility of the bible, you're facing an uphill battle here. You must demonstrate how modern scientific methodology is credibly inferior to a book written by men whose ideas of science were already outdated when alchemy was the cutting edge. So far, try as you might, you've flatly failed to do so.
If Evolution claimed that there are no reproductive boundaries, we'd all, as its 'adherents', have to accept the claim that elephants breed with penguins and produce gerbils. Don't be absurd. Critique Evolution for what it claims, not what you wish it claimed. As for the primordial soup (supported by vast geological data) and common ancestry (supported by a bounty of fossil evidence and genetic legacy), do your due dilligence. Because you haven't, you're the one making unsupported speculations. If you can't prove to us why we can't rely on fossil evidence or the rock-solid (literally, ha ha) geological strata, you've said nothing of any use.
As for time, get real! These "unmeasurable abstractions" of time are measurable precisely because we have units with which to measure them! This is why you were able to call them "millions or billions of years". Further, how are long stretches of time irrelevant? What timespan, for you, IS relevant? If this timespan must be "observable" by what seems to be your measure of the term, then you limit every field of scientific inquiry to the span of a single human life - your own - because it's the only life you have from which to observe.
We don't buy it. Try another tack. Give us some data, some studies ... SOMETHING salient to the language of the discussion! And we won't countenance any whining about the "evil closed-minded scientific community" refusing to "allow" such studies. There are plenty of creationists with wads of money who could finance any study they cared to, and I'm sure they would, if, in their heart of hearts, they believed they'd uncover a single shred of data to support their claims. Instead, they shoehorn Ben Stein into some AC/DC knickers and make a vague, unintelligible movie.
And trust me, we can handle multiple topics at once. That's the beauty of higher-order brain function. Quit dissembling.
You've completely misunderstood what TM tried to explain to you. Evolution does not claim that there was some bizarre 'kablam' moment where species A begat B, or where paradigm A became B. That's the territory of Creationism, where 'A' is 'God' and 'B' is 'Everything Else'. Evolution DOES claim, oversimplified, that in certain instances A becomes A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, etc., which over time become B, C, D, and E. Your likely counter is that it's still more probable for A to remain A, which shows us that you also misunderstand probability. To return to your original example, even if A is the more probable result, that's far from a guarantee that it is the only result. B will still occur at times.
The only bearing your claim has on diversification whatsoever is to make it impossible. Things that bear repeating: How have you established this time frame? How do you conclude that since A is more likely, that ONLY A will occur from now until the end of time? Now who's operating outside the 'establishable timeframe'?
Okay, this is getting old. Now the "facts of evidence" are "similarity and commonality of makeup"? What do you even mean? And weren't the facts of evidence something else a couple of paragraphs ago? And something entirely different a few posts ago? We need some specificity, accuracy, and consistency in how you frame your points here, or we're left to assume that you're making this up on the fly.
I wholehartedly agree. This is why Evolution, which relies on mountains of evidence from the fields of biology, geology, and paleontology, is a testable and accepted theory. This is also why assuming the existence of a God-creator without any manner of evidence whatsoever is not science, and is no answer at all.
By what you claim to be the "observable" and "establishable", so are George Washington, Saturn, Carthage, and yes, Jesus.
I think we may have touched on an essential problem here. SCJ, you need to investigate the idea of abstraction. To crib from the infamous Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
Justice is an abstraction. Happiness is an abstraction. Love is an abstraction. Creationism, by the way, is also an abstraction.
Let's address your claim about probability. Evolution is not just probable. If life begins simply, proliferates digitally (genetics), and is influenced by constantly changing outside forces, it is a causal inevitability.
Observable facts: Species breed. Some examples of every species exhibit mutations. Geographic and other environmental factors do not remain constant on Earth.
Causally neccessary conclusions: Favorably mutated examples of a species thrive and reproduce more thoroughly than unmutated or unfavorably mutated examples. Species do not remain in singular environments and as such the stimuli that 'judge the merit' of a particular mutation do not remain constant. Isolated groups of a species will, over time, become different species. This is not improbable, it is not just a hypothesis, it is inevitable. Unless you grant (as you seem to) the existence of an unknowable, omnipotent, omniscient, capriciously meddling God, events could proceed no other way. Even granting such a God, these events would still take place without his intervention because they are a logical progression.
And we've pointed out repeatedly that you're wrong - we've shown you multiple cases of species breeding - sometimes successfully - outside their kind. So no, the 'factual evidence' does NOT support your claim and if you expect to be taken seriously you must quit insisting that it does.
As for the scientific credibility of the bible, you're facing an uphill battle here. You must demonstrate how modern scientific methodology is credibly inferior to a book written by men whose ideas of science were already outdated when alchemy was the cutting edge. So far, try as you might, you've flatly failed to do so.
If Evolution claimed that there are no reproductive boundaries, we'd all, as its 'adherents', have to accept the claim that elephants breed with penguins and produce gerbils. Don't be absurd. Critique Evolution for what it claims, not what you wish it claimed. As for the primordial soup (supported by vast geological data) and common ancestry (supported by a bounty of fossil evidence and genetic legacy), do your due dilligence. Because you haven't, you're the one making unsupported speculations. If you can't prove to us why we can't rely on fossil evidence or the rock-solid (literally, ha ha) geological strata, you've said nothing of any use.
As for time, get real! These "unmeasurable abstractions" of time are measurable precisely because we have units with which to measure them! This is why you were able to call them "millions or billions of years". Further, how are long stretches of time irrelevant? What timespan, for you, IS relevant? If this timespan must be "observable" by what seems to be your measure of the term, then you limit every field of scientific inquiry to the span of a single human life - your own - because it's the only life you have from which to observe.
We don't buy it. Try another tack. Give us some data, some studies ... SOMETHING salient to the language of the discussion! And we won't countenance any whining about the "evil closed-minded scientific community" refusing to "allow" such studies. There are plenty of creationists with wads of money who could finance any study they cared to, and I'm sure they would, if, in their heart of hearts, they believed they'd uncover a single shred of data to support their claims. Instead, they shoehorn Ben Stein into some AC/DC knickers and make a vague, unintelligible movie.
And trust me, we can handle multiple topics at once. That's the beauty of higher-order brain function. Quit dissembling.
You've completely misunderstood what TM tried to explain to you. Evolution does not claim that there was some bizarre 'kablam' moment where species A begat B, or where paradigm A became B. That's the territory of Creationism, where 'A' is 'God' and 'B' is 'Everything Else'. Evolution DOES claim, oversimplified, that in certain instances A becomes A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, etc., which over time become B, C, D, and E. Your likely counter is that it's still more probable for A to remain A, which shows us that you also misunderstand probability. To return to your original example, even if A is the more probable result, that's far from a guarantee that it is the only result. B will still occur at times.
The only bearing your claim has on diversification whatsoever is to make it impossible. Things that bear repeating: How have you established this time frame? How do you conclude that since A is more likely, that ONLY A will occur from now until the end of time? Now who's operating outside the 'establishable timeframe'?
Okay, this is getting old. Now the "facts of evidence" are "similarity and commonality of makeup"? What do you even mean? And weren't the facts of evidence something else a couple of paragraphs ago? And something entirely different a few posts ago? We need some specificity, accuracy, and consistency in how you frame your points here, or we're left to assume that you're making this up on the fly.
I wholehartedly agree. This is why Evolution, which relies on mountains of evidence from the fields of biology, geology, and paleontology, is a testable and accepted theory. This is also why assuming the existence of a God-creator without any manner of evidence whatsoever is not science, and is no answer at all.
By what you claim to be the "observable" and "establishable", so are George Washington, Saturn, Carthage, and yes, Jesus.
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
Well... we do have George Washington's teeth... Carthage's ruins and that smudgy blur in the telescope lens that we assume is Saturn...
None of these evidences can prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody alive today has ever seen George Washington alive... so his existence may be complete hearsay.
- 919
Well... we do have George Washington's teeth... Carthage's ruins and that smudgy blur in the telescope lens that we assume is Saturn...
None of these evidences can prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody alive today has ever seen George Washington alive... so his existence may be complete hearsay.
Now that I think about it though, by the standard offered to us, we could prove the existence of George Washington simply by virtue of the apocryphal tale of the Cherry Tree. It's of questionable origin and has doubtless been rewritten and reedited so many times that it's a mere shadow of its original self ... the very recipe for credibility in the eyes of some.
- 29,010
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Excellent post above, CLS 👍
SCJ's argument that genetic similarity and commonality of make up do not support common descent is fundamentally flawed. Of all the possible ways that various genes could be distributed in the natural world, only a tiny fraction of an infinite number of possibilities would lend any support at all to the common descent model, but that is what we see. The odds of this happening by chance are vanishingly small. That this could have been achieved by 'design' remains an unfalsifiable possibility, but begs the question why a designer - faced with an infinite number of other possibilities that would not imply common descent (let alone so clearly) - would purposefully elect to create the illusion of common descent. If this is the case, then perhaps it should be relabeled 'nefarious design'. The fact remains that of all possible combinations of genetic distribution in the natural world, the combination we actually observe supports common descent. It is not the case that "it just so happens" to be this way - it can only be plausibly explained by a concerted process, either by design or by another type of process. But while any distribution of genetic material could be claimed to support the design hypothesis, only a tiny fraction of "possible" arrangements would support common descent. There is no credible explanation as to why the observed patterns of genetic similarities in nature exist, if not as a direct result of common descent.
I reckon that many people may be sympathetic to some of SCJ's points, specifically regarding the existence of "hypothetical" common ancestors, such as that inferred to have been the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps. That such a species existed may not be directly (and nor is it ever likely to be directly) observable, but that such a species must have existed can be established from the evidence that we do have i.e. the remarkable degree of similarity of human and chimp genomes. But for those still skeptical of what this means, consider some "hypothetical" common ancestors of your own - for example, your great grandmother on your mother's side. That she must have existed is an assumption based on the evidence as far as we understand it. That she cannot be directly observed and that one may have never seen any "direct" evidence that she did exist is beside the point - the genetic similarity of her offspring is sufficient proof of her existence. Her two children (e.g. my grandmother and her sister) share so many genes from their parents that descent is not merely "implied", but established beyond any reasonable doubt. While their genetic similarities can be easily established without having to invoke the presence of hypothetical common ancestors, their relatedness can only be explained by them. The key point here is that the presence of hypothetical common ancestors is entirely supported by the evidence - the degree of similarity observed between related individuals is always higher than that of more distantly related individuals, and therefore the degree of genetic similarity is itself proof of relatedness. Similarly, my grandmother's offspring (my Mum and my Auntie) also demonstrate unique genetic similarities - they both possess genes from both of their parents, again establishing beyond reasonable doubt that a) they descended from the same parents and therefore also b) that they are real siblings. That children are always born with a mixture of their parents genes - and that this isn't a mere possibility, but an indisputable fact - lends incredible support to the idea that common ancestors can be reliably inferred from the available evidence (i.e. currently living individuals and their families). The same process that allows you to say with confidence that your mother really is your mother, and that your brother really is your brother, is exactly the same as the process that allows science to say with confidence that common ancestors must have existed if present-day genetic similarities are to be credibly explained, and are therefore only "hypothetical" in the sense that they cannot be observed directly, but their existence in the deep past is established beyond any reasonable doubt.
SCJ's argument that genetic similarity and commonality of make up do not support common descent is fundamentally flawed. Of all the possible ways that various genes could be distributed in the natural world, only a tiny fraction of an infinite number of possibilities would lend any support at all to the common descent model, but that is what we see. The odds of this happening by chance are vanishingly small. That this could have been achieved by 'design' remains an unfalsifiable possibility, but begs the question why a designer - faced with an infinite number of other possibilities that would not imply common descent (let alone so clearly) - would purposefully elect to create the illusion of common descent. If this is the case, then perhaps it should be relabeled 'nefarious design'. The fact remains that of all possible combinations of genetic distribution in the natural world, the combination we actually observe supports common descent. It is not the case that "it just so happens" to be this way - it can only be plausibly explained by a concerted process, either by design or by another type of process. But while any distribution of genetic material could be claimed to support the design hypothesis, only a tiny fraction of "possible" arrangements would support common descent. There is no credible explanation as to why the observed patterns of genetic similarities in nature exist, if not as a direct result of common descent.
I reckon that many people may be sympathetic to some of SCJ's points, specifically regarding the existence of "hypothetical" common ancestors, such as that inferred to have been the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps. That such a species existed may not be directly (and nor is it ever likely to be directly) observable, but that such a species must have existed can be established from the evidence that we do have i.e. the remarkable degree of similarity of human and chimp genomes. But for those still skeptical of what this means, consider some "hypothetical" common ancestors of your own - for example, your great grandmother on your mother's side. That she must have existed is an assumption based on the evidence as far as we understand it. That she cannot be directly observed and that one may have never seen any "direct" evidence that she did exist is beside the point - the genetic similarity of her offspring is sufficient proof of her existence. Her two children (e.g. my grandmother and her sister) share so many genes from their parents that descent is not merely "implied", but established beyond any reasonable doubt. While their genetic similarities can be easily established without having to invoke the presence of hypothetical common ancestors, their relatedness can only be explained by them. The key point here is that the presence of hypothetical common ancestors is entirely supported by the evidence - the degree of similarity observed between related individuals is always higher than that of more distantly related individuals, and therefore the degree of genetic similarity is itself proof of relatedness. Similarly, my grandmother's offspring (my Mum and my Auntie) also demonstrate unique genetic similarities - they both possess genes from both of their parents, again establishing beyond reasonable doubt that a) they descended from the same parents and therefore also b) that they are real siblings. That children are always born with a mixture of their parents genes - and that this isn't a mere possibility, but an indisputable fact - lends incredible support to the idea that common ancestors can be reliably inferred from the available evidence (i.e. currently living individuals and their families). The same process that allows you to say with confidence that your mother really is your mother, and that your brother really is your brother, is exactly the same as the process that allows science to say with confidence that common ancestors must have existed if present-day genetic similarities are to be credibly explained, and are therefore only "hypothetical" in the sense that they cannot be observed directly, but their existence in the deep past is established beyond any reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
- 13,969
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
Well, being able to roll your tongue is a hereditary trait. So is red hair, that we Irish are stereotyped as having. Detached earlobes - inherited. Skin colour - inherited. Height - inherited. An example of your parents genes mixing is if your father is something like 6'8 and your mother is 4'8, and you're of average height.
- 86,250
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 919
Nefarious Design ... nice, TM.
The general response to that is the equally unfalsifiable claim that it's a "test of faith", which sheds some light on something that creationism also has serious trouble addressing.
When one makes what one thinks to be a scientific claim about the origin of diverse life, and that claim includes a designer, the onus is on the one making the claim to describe the designer, and the mechanisms by which it designs. Intelligent Design proponents have never made any serious attempt to do so beyond saying "well, it could be God, or it could be some other indelible animating force; it could even be aliens". Obviously any critical thinker knows they mean God, but if they were to come out and say it they'd immedieately poison their own well for future court cases regarding teaching ID in classrooms.
Even if you gloss over the strategic issues there, the age-old problem of infinite regression surfaces. If all of existence is designed, and a designer exists, the designer itself demands a designer. Who or what designed the designer? Christians will say "well, he's always been here", but once again we're squarely outside the realm of science and back on the turf of unfalsifiable faith claims. Someone who honestly supports ID divorced of Christianity can't do any better - his answer must be "I have no idea and I have no way of finding out". Again, not science.
The general response to that is the equally unfalsifiable claim that it's a "test of faith", which sheds some light on something that creationism also has serious trouble addressing.
When one makes what one thinks to be a scientific claim about the origin of diverse life, and that claim includes a designer, the onus is on the one making the claim to describe the designer, and the mechanisms by which it designs. Intelligent Design proponents have never made any serious attempt to do so beyond saying "well, it could be God, or it could be some other indelible animating force; it could even be aliens". Obviously any critical thinker knows they mean God, but if they were to come out and say it they'd immedieately poison their own well for future court cases regarding teaching ID in classrooms.
Even if you gloss over the strategic issues there, the age-old problem of infinite regression surfaces. If all of existence is designed, and a designer exists, the designer itself demands a designer. Who or what designed the designer? Christians will say "well, he's always been here", but once again we're squarely outside the realm of science and back on the turf of unfalsifiable faith claims. Someone who honestly supports ID divorced of Christianity can't do any better - his answer must be "I have no idea and I have no way of finding out". Again, not science.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
To quote Paramore:
Ignorance isyoura creationist's best friend.
But you say that on blind faith! I have tons of evidence! Not just abstract thinking like you! But I'm not going to tell you what this evidence is, even when you ask me 5 times!
- 13,969
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
But you say that on blind faith! I have tons of evidence! Not just abstract thinking like you! But I'm not going to tell you what this evidence is, even when you ask me 5 times!
Forgive me for playing the part of Captain Obvious, but something tells me you're taking the piss out of creationists.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Why do you make that assumption? You're only taking that on faith! Unlike me, I know that God is real!
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
http://freethoughtnation.com/index....n-crete&catid=53:archaeology-archaeoastronomy
Here is a startling article which posits that pre-humans were making boats and ocean voyages some 175,000 years ago!
This is contrary to both the Bible and to conventional science.
Here is a startling article which posits that pre-humans were making boats and ocean voyages some 175,000 years ago!
This is contrary to both the Bible and to conventional science.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Not contrary to conventional science. Just unknown to it. If they actually do prove that the artifacts were Neanderthal... that would be fantastic!
Over the past few decades, we've learned lots about the Neanderthals. Their tool-making behavior and abilities are now beyond what we used to think them capable of, and their lives and eventual downfall were not as abrupt or closely linked to Homo Sapiens invasion as we once thought (they coexisted for thousands of years, apparently).
The current theory is that Neanderthals did not lose out the Homo Sapiens specifically because they were less intelligent, but simply because Homo Sapiens was more adaptable in his diet... allowing him to find sustenance when food was scarce and survive rapid climate changes and upheavals.
Over the past few decades, we've learned lots about the Neanderthals. Their tool-making behavior and abilities are now beyond what we used to think them capable of, and their lives and eventual downfall were not as abrupt or closely linked to Homo Sapiens invasion as we once thought (they coexisted for thousands of years, apparently).
The current theory is that Neanderthals did not lose out the Homo Sapiens specifically because they were less intelligent, but simply because Homo Sapiens was more adaptable in his diet... allowing him to find sustenance when food was scarce and survive rapid climate changes and upheavals.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Thanks for that, Niky. Now here's another one to chew on, this time from your own neck of the woods. It says the hobbits may have arrived by boat at Flores no less than 2 million years ago. These guys were only 3 feet tall with huge feet, had brains only the size of an orange, but were able to make astonishingly good tools.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/21/hobbit-rewriting-history-human-race
And here is yet another archeological dig, this time in Turkey, which is revolutionizing the history of humanity, the first cities, agriculture, and religion.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233844/page/1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/21/hobbit-rewriting-history-human-race
And here is yet another archeological dig, this time in Turkey, which is revolutionizing the history of humanity, the first cities, agriculture, and religion.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233844/page/1
Last edited:
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
- 919
Quite right. I see nothing to indicate that those tools weren't redistributed by later societies who found them to be of some value. That said, it's probably reasonable to assume that the abstract you linked leaves out description of the dating methods employed, but I'd be interested to see them. The findings themselves, if valid, are fascinating.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7060327.ece
Here is strong evidence that modern human evolution reached a zenith in terms of brain size about 28,000 years ago.
The ancient Greeks lamented that the youth of their day were slackers and wastrels, and the same claim has been made by every generation since. Imagine the fantastic heights from which we must have descended.
Here is strong evidence that modern human evolution reached a zenith in terms of brain size about 28,000 years ago.
The ancient Greeks lamented that the youth of their day were slackers and wastrels, and the same claim has been made by every generation since. Imagine the fantastic heights from which we must have descended.
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
This article is over a year old now, but hey - old news is just history, which is relevant so long as history exists.
So:
Originally published January 21, 2009 - The New York Times
Full Article
Obviously this is one of the more explicit examples of Creation Vs. Evolution and brings us to a direct point regarding not which is 'right' - but that which should actually be taught.
In solidarity with a hypothetical 'alternative explanation' of evolution to be taught in schools, I can only support that a non-scientific origin of Earth & origin of life curriculum be taught in the context of a Religious studies class, which places equal weight and emphasis on the most culturally relevant explanations to America:
the Judaic explanation; the myriad of Native American (including South American) cultural explanations; the Islamic origin - with its' subtleties highlighted in contrast to the Judaic principles; Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh traditions; and an assortment of pagan (including of course, Greco-Roman 'mythological' explanations). As per the country's origins, one would also expect a detailed breakdown of the appreciations to be had between policies of the Catholic Church circa 1648—American revolution and its' relationship between the people, formation, and contribution of Protestantism to America.
What'chy'all think?
So:
Originally published January 21, 2009 - The New York Times
Full Article
Obviously this is one of the more explicit examples of Creation Vs. Evolution and brings us to a direct point regarding not which is 'right' - but that which should actually be taught.
In solidarity with a hypothetical 'alternative explanation' of evolution to be taught in schools, I can only support that a non-scientific origin of Earth & origin of life curriculum be taught in the context of a Religious studies class, which places equal weight and emphasis on the most culturally relevant explanations to America:
the Judaic explanation; the myriad of Native American (including South American) cultural explanations; the Islamic origin - with its' subtleties highlighted in contrast to the Judaic principles; Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh traditions; and an assortment of pagan (including of course, Greco-Roman 'mythological' explanations). As per the country's origins, one would also expect a detailed breakdown of the appreciations to be had between policies of the Catholic Church circa 1648—American revolution and its' relationship between the people, formation, and contribution of Protestantism to America.
What'chy'all think?
- 5,054
- Panama City, FL
The previous 6502 posts didn't give a clue to this question??
"Weakness" in a theory does not mean the theory is wrong and should be discarded. Every theory is weak somewhere. Why are there no magnetic monopoles? What carries gravity?
Just as every anti-evolution argument ever presented, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, both its material and its methods. The lack of understanding brings on a mistrust. After all, "scientists" are the people that brought us H-bombs, mercury poisoning, and ozone depletion. What do they know about how things actually work? Why should anybody know how things work? Just cozy up around your table, talk to the air, and let God's will be done. That's LOTS easier than actually learning about the real world and finding out that you're just another animal.
- 239
- zepheadGT3
regarding your article publictwin... Besides being an atheist, i believe that creation should not be tought in SCIENCE class because, well, it has nothing to do with science. Instead, incorporate creation into a study of major world religions in history class... see where im going with this?
To put it simply, creation is a STORY of how everything was created, and evolution is the scientific principle which accounts for all living things on the earth... you can not teach stories in science class, so why teach creation as a science? Its absurd...
To put it simply, creation is a STORY of how everything was created, and evolution is the scientific principle which accounts for all living things on the earth... you can not teach stories in science class, so why teach creation as a science? Its absurd...
- 13,969
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
Creationism is just a re-hashed version of what many ancient religions have been saying about the origins of the Earth for around 5,000 years. Do you think it's any more correct than our modern scientific discoveries when it hasn't been modified or updated for millenia? Keep creationism out of science. Calling creationism science is like calling Kias fast - stupid.
- 24,309
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Watch what you say there - I've seen some quick Kias.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
3.6 million years ago, pre-humans walked upright with a striding gait, the "Laetoli footprints fall completely within the range of normal human footprints".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032902894.html
Now here's news of the missing link between men and apes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032902894.html
Now here's news of the missing link between men and apes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html
Last edited:
