Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People seem to misunderstand that the belief that evolution based on Darwin's theories as the best explanation for speciation is provisional. Attacking the inconsistencies in evolutionary theory doesn't hurt my feelings, and if it's discarded in the future for a theory that explains biodiversity then good. You'd better have plenty of good evidence to support your hypothesis, though.
Completely disproving evolution doesn't mean the creationist's construct is any more accurate. It doesn't have to be only one or the other.
Good post. And I take no issue with Creationists who believe that the Earth is as old as suggested by science, and that speciation could have occurred after an initial, mass Creation event. There are a lot of those people and they get lumped in with the more extreme crew. If people believe in a divine Creator, that's cool. To each his own. It's the Young Earth Creationists that I have a problem with, and those who deny all manner of speciation across the board. There's just too much concrete evidence against those claims for them to be taken seriously.
When i was going to school back in the 50's and 60's we were taught evolution in science class and creationism in scripture class, most of us thought that evolution was the more logical way things came to be as some pan dimensional being throwing worlds and universes together in a week just sounded like a fairy tale.
I also remember pledging allegiance to the flag and saying the lords prayer at the start of every school day..
So, you attempt to sidestep the argument completely, by arguing irrelevancies.
It doesn't MATTER if some use X, some use Y, and some not. For those that use the cycle, there's no way to get from NOT, to using. There's no intermediate step. It is, in a word, sophisticated, and it is a model of interdependence that does NOT happen by accident.
It's like saying that cars evolved from stone wheels without anyone specifically inventing the engine.
But, the question was... And still remains... Can you tell me it was purely by accident? Of course not. There is no explanation on earth that can stand scrutiny which can describe the process of evolving from an Amoeba to a human. It is full of "uncrossable bridges". And they are uncrossable because of sexual reproduction. The idea that something may mutate... not even a theory. It's fact. The theory that two complex, opposite sex (insert what you wish to argue here) were in close proximity, had the same higher quality mutation (mutation is almost always negative, not positive), and then reproduced a whole new species...
Yeah. You have to have FAITH in that.
^^^
Why is it that people who try to argue against evolution always seem to have bizarre, silly and completely wrong ideas about what evolution is?
The theory that two complex, opposite sex (insert what you wish to argue
here)
were in close proximity, had the same higher quality mutation
(mutation is
almost always negative, not positive), and then reproduced a
whole new
species..
What in heaven's name would make you think they'd produce a whole new species? You're not making a lick of sense.
Quote:
Why is it that people who try to argue against evolution always seem to have
bizarre, silly and completely wrong ideas about what evolution is?
^^^This
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.