How dare you introduce evidence that contadicts creation? You will not convince a believer with hard facts!
2006-07-12 11:04:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by theswedishfish710 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem with this question is that you will never sway somebody that has blind faith in the creation. I don't think that science has ever set out to disprove God because there is no need to. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming but will always be denied by people not willing to open their eyes to, and are afraid of science. The pseudo science of Inteligent Design just does not hold up at all. It is always said that the eye is too perfect an organ to have been evolved, therefore there must have been some inteligent thought behind it's design. Why isn't it better designed than it is then? A nice UV filter would be nice.
I am not trying to waver someones belief in God. Peoples beliefs are a human right as long as they do not harm others. My belief is that evolution has been and is happening now. It cannot be scientifically disproved.
2006-07-12 19:14:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dazza 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What you are observing is not evolution, but rather 'natural selection'.
Evolution is the theory that life came from random chemicals coming together by chance with no guiding intelligent force and then continuing to become more and more complex over time. This premise is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which HAS been proven) that states that all things automatically decrease in order and complexity - the exact opposite of evolution. It also violates the law of biogenesis that states that life can only come from life, or rather that something alive cannot come from something which is not already alive.
If I suggested that the four presidential faces of Mt Rushmore were natural rock formations, the product of random natural events with no intelligent guiding force behind it, I would be the object of EVERY scientist's ridicule and the butt of every joke.
Yet, if I suggest that not just the image of the face, but an actual living face, attached to a living body, millions of times more complex than Mt Rushmore, was the product of random natural events with no intelligent guiding force behind it, I would be considered correct by these same 'scientists'.
The 'simplest' living cell is so complex, with millions of micro-machines inside it, each one dependent on the successful function of the other to maintain life.
In natural selection, such as your bacteria example, those who survive do not gain any genetic information, so they are not considered to have 'evolved'. Creatures that change over time are 'adapting', that is, the genetic code for the adaption was already there, it just was not pronounced.
Evolution states that us people were apes 500,000 years ago, yet, there are well over a million major genetic differences between people and apes. You would have to have had an average of two major genetic increases per year to get from ape to man, yet NO genetic increases have ever been observed.
There has been a standing offer for many years now of $250,000 for anyone who has empirical evidence for evolution. So far there have been no takers. Check it out at: www.drdino.com
2006-07-12 18:31:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
mx3baby: I wouldn't go so far as to say it proves religon, but it cannot disprove either.
Evolution obviously happens, I am a firm believer in it. I also believe in the big bang theory. But God could live behind the big bang, we simply cannot look beyond that point.
Personally I am an atheist, but nothing science has, can prove that God is not real.
KENNY G:
"Just because a virus adapts to new situations, it isn't radically changing it's way of life."
You are completely wrong. If it was a smart bacteria, and put on a scuba suit in order to live in that toxic environment THAT would be adapting.
The bacteria that did survive did so because they already had evolutionary differences that, well made them different and able to survive. They were the fittest for that environment, their off spring will also inherit that trait, this is how evolution works. DUH
2006-07-12 18:06:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by tm_tech32 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes of course evolution does take place in the world today. No Christian would argue that, but you are attacking creation aren't you?
I don't accept the theory of evolution. Because its a theory. Stop trying to prove that God does not exist, your doing a rubbish job at it.
Evolution has never really been proven, even Darwin denounced his claim. Science has theories not fact when it comes down to evolution. All you have is what man say's and some stupid books. Wait a minute thats the attack that the Atheist say to Christian's and other people that believe in God. So basically it comes down to faith. Faith that maybe evolution is right, and Faith that God is real. (Notice i didn't say mabe God is real because whether you believe or not he is real, evolution is still a theory.)
Where is the prove that we come from monkeys? Where is the prove that their was a big bang? Where is the prove that we crawled out the primordial soup? You don't have any and neither does science all you and they have is theory and not real fact.
But even if we did came from apes (which i doubt) that still doesn't disprove that God isn't real, it still proves he is real.
I don't know that man came from apes, but man is certainly going to the dogs. And your question proves it.
2006-07-12 18:36:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Smart_Guy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
First of all, christians do believe in adaption but not in macro evolution. The example you give is adaption. How does that work? There have always been superflies with resistant to antibiotics. But they in normal circumstances they are not as strong as the non resistant ones. So they die out quicker. But in the case antibiotics are admitted to there environment, the normal induviduals die out. The resistant ones survive and start multiplying. And there you have your "new"strain. Although they are weaker then the non-resistand strains, and more in danger of dying out.
What you need to prove is that normal induviduals can change to resistant ones. And that is not the case here. So I dont have to prove evolution to be wrong. Evolution has no prove to substanciate there claims yet.
2006-07-12 18:57:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Preacherman 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
but the problem here is look at the differences between a chimpanzee and humans there is a huge shift in shape and size and specialities and yet only a 2% shift occured between their dna and ours. and the big problem in evolution to even achieve that much of a difference requires a genetic MUTATION where the strands and codes on a dna are shifted to create something new. it does follow to specialize inside the enviroment that the specesis resides, but mutations only occur in actuality once per 50 years or so probably more. so if that were true to go from an aomeba one celled living creature to a specialized mammal that would develop sentient intelligence would require 5 times more years then our solar system has even been around!
2006-07-12 18:28:00
·
answer #7
·
answered by mournyngwolf 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I must tell you that I think you have more faith than I. I work in the medical field also and I am here to tell you that the THEORY of Evolution has NEVER BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN. But you choose to believe it because 2 bacteria can become antibiotic resistant in a matter of weeks. Should you not know how much more complicated we are I would recommend you go to the John Hopkins School of Medicine website and look at one picture of the spinal cord which connects nerves, tissues, electrical impulses, bone, muscle, etc. And then come back and tell me with a ringing sincerity that you do not believe that there was a designer for mankind. Intricate and creative. The bible tells us we are fearfully and wonderfully made. I choose to believe in CREATION instead of the THEORY of evolution. Darwin couldn't kill his dad---who was a sadistic fellow who treated him terribly----so he decided to try to kill God instead. So let DARWIN be the monkey's uncle----I personally choose to come from a different family tree.
2006-07-12 18:21:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually point mutations in bacteria and other animals occur by loss of information
An antibiotic might attack an enzyme in a bacteria and a new bacteria form that is misisng that enzyme and therefor immune
Is is supe bug, or super wimp
In reality the bacteria you are describing are superwimps that came about missing information.
see
In the Begining Was Information by Werner Gitt
webcast
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4391webcast10-13-2000.asp
article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/gitt.asp
Macro evolution cannot explain the original sourse of information since in mutations informatio is lost. Its like a sotre owners saying they lose money in each transaction but make up for it in volume... not
2006-07-12 18:04:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by whirlingmerc 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution takes not 10,000 nor a million years. Evolution takes well over 50 million years and drastic environmental changes, such as natural disasters so the specie can survive and breed in its new habitat.
2006-07-12 18:08:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by GreekMonsta090 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's adaptation not evolution.
The definition of evolution is "a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage"
Just because a virus adapts to new situations, it isn't radically changing it's way of life.
Because we live in houses and not huts... have we evolved? No, we adapt to our environment, which all living organisms usually do.
Evolution DOES take thousands and millions of years. It's just with single cell lifeforms, bacteria and viruses they have so much further to go to change even a little.
DUH!
2006-07-12 18:06:15
·
answer #11
·
answered by KENNY G 2
·
0⤊
0⤋