2006-08-02 05:03:56 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
the word is anti-evolutionists for some reason it's not coming out that way. Sorry
2006-08-02 05:07:47 · update #1
The issue of evolution raises the hackles of many because they believe that one side must be about a mysterious God and the other about some willy-nilly naturalism. It seems to me that most have decided to be on one side or the other of this issue and only then used evolution to support or deny that position. Frankly, that's just wrong.
I don't think that being against evolution makes much sense. However, if pressed, I think that those who say they are against evolution would say that they don't believe man evolved from a monkey. Personally, I don't either. After all, we still have apes. Although religious in nature, the site below seems to put it pithily.
In many cases, a portion of evolution is a fact; ignoring the Galapagos Islands and what Darwin actually said, even in The Descent of Man, the leap from observation to theory in many cases is just that. Thomas Huxley was the one who took up the forward guard position on the evolution issue. It is he most unknowingly reference on the issue of ape and man.
The facts remain, for example, that we have scallop shells locally. These scallops have developed two more ridges on their shell in comparing them to the refuse from the Indian villages at the time of the Spaniards. Hence they have evolved and there isn't much of a question about that.
However, I would be interested to see the evidence concerning the evolution of any new species. There is no such evidence, as far as I know. Unless you consider skin pigmentation and stupidity, the latter of which all groups of people exhibit in abundance, I see no case in which evolution should be applied to man, but lots of cases where animals have adapted to their surroundings. None of these adaptations are new species.
Hence, to answer your question, I tend to think that if either side hadn't already decided what to believe about God or mutant protozoa with self generated appetites, talking about scientific evolution might be fruitful. However, when you get to having theories about anthropology, heck, it makes psychology start to look like an exact science!
2006-08-02 06:27:22 · answer #1 · answered by Bentley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not anti-evolutionist if such application can be giving by an scholar, if apply and the context been taking from the Soul, the mind and also the Spirit. as its until evolutionist try to explain how intelligent Nature is and has been I expect more from the evolution of matter, which will always be in pursue of some more and new mutations. Moving along the very thin line between good and bad, a/o between negatived and positive?, what? Mutations?<<< Also, this can only go, to show that we, man, demons, evil, and mutants, and non-humans, have broad, the battle between good and Evil to the planet Earth? >>>>> The perfect thing to once again accomplish, and out way from God, to freely and in our own, this time pursue one more mutation. Why, not better start giving money to the united ***** college? So, we can also create a united Jewish fund? God bless evolution.
2006-08-02 05:30:37 · answer #2 · answered by paradiseemperatorbluepinguin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
galactic evolution, not suported by data
planetary evolution, not supported either
moon eveolution, no support
non life to life, not supported
single cell to multi cell, not supported
animal type to animal type not supported
ape (i orig had money not monkey ooops) to man not suported and the Lucy fossil is the star witness against evolution
you should probbaly drop the word theory and use the term speculation cuz thats what it is
ironically... this was the issue of the scopes trial.. where evolution could be taught except ape to man..
see Inherently Wind by Menton for an interesting description of the scopes trial contrasted with the revisionist holyywood description often taught in schools in English and History classes
2006-08-02 05:09:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that there is some merrit to Darwin's theory but it is not the answer to the question "where did we come from?"
Natural selection is valid but evolution is not; there is a big difference between the two.
2006-08-02 05:09:40 · answer #4 · answered by Report Abuse 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
since i have studied biology and have seen the natural selection process in nature, i already believe it. by the way, Darwin was a Christian, and didnt believe in evolution. just natural selection. it was other scientists that came up with evolution.
2006-08-02 05:08:54 · answer #5 · answered by brainlessbandit 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Key words to focus on in the question you asked are:
1) THEORY... and
2) BELIEVE...
your point of who or what the theory refer to is irrelevant because..
It was JUST a Theory...
2006-08-02 08:33:18 · answer #6 · answered by 247 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are proofs everywhere.... god, you guys are so ignorant... why cant you just believe in god and accept that there is evolution going on... if you dont believe me search "shrinking Y chromosome".... it states that after millions of years there will be no males left in the world thats is because the Y chromosome is shrinking... thats called evolution... and change... god didnt just pop people in the world and animals and insects.. be realistic.
2006-08-02 06:01:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They'll deny it for anything the Bible claims to be created by the hand of God.
2006-08-02 05:09:38 · answer #8 · answered by Kenny ♣ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
isn't it weird how every single creationist on here spelled the word monkey "money"?
2006-08-02 05:13:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
god created man
and the animals and fishes
so...no
glad money don't turn into man
2006-08-02 05:09:16 · answer #10 · answered by coogle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋