English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean really there are so many holes in this Theory that it is not even funny. For example they say that they have proven that fossils are billons of years old by radio active dating, but if you look for carbon in said fossils it can be found, which therefore proves they can not be that old, cause carbon does not last that long. Another big thing is that those pictures you find in your text books are usually put in order in a way that makes them look more like they evolved from one another, there not even put in order by there age. This is only two of the many false or covered up things I know that evolutionist try to hide from people.

2006-08-19 18:43:17 · 11 answers · asked by science or theory 1 in Science & Mathematics Biology

Yes I know that bacteria can adapt and become immune to certain medicines but it only because that one or more bacteria with the ability to survive through it does multiplies and then you have bacteria that now are immune to it. Or mutations can allow for bacteria to survive and once again multiply but they are still only bacteria. Also I know that they use uranium testing, but my point was that they never look for carbon in the fossils to see if it is there, cause if they did that would mean that the fossil is not as old as they think. Also uranium testing can be flawed by radiation in the earth. Oh and about the bible and things that are known I agree that the things that are proven and scientifically factually are correct but this does not disprove the bib because every scientific fact goes along with the bible and does not disprove it.

2006-08-20 08:37:19 · update #1

11 answers

Radio active dating uses several other isotopes besides carbon, you corndog. Certain isotopes of Uranium, Potassium, Rubidium, and Thorium have half-lives measured in the billions of years, which makes them useful and accurate in dating of biological and geological samples.

The photos in the books are put in an order that looks most logical. It gives people a visual idea of the way evolution may have progressed. They don't intend it to mean "this is exactly how it happened", because they already have evidence that it happened...which is why it is studied so intently - to discover the route it took.

You should mention some more holes in the theory, so we can hear what they are. Or tell us what really happened if it was not evolution.

2006-08-19 19:12:37 · answer #1 · answered by iandanielx 3 · 0 0

The question should be how can people NOT
believe in evolution? The evidence supports
evolution entirely. To deny it you have to throw
out not only biology but most of many other
sciences as well. The bible is not a science text
book and it is a mistake to try to use it as such.

Whether there is carbon in billions of years old
fossils or not is irrelevant. Depending on the
method of preservation it is possible that carbon
would last that long, but it would probably be
replaced by minerals by that time. Radioactive
carbon, of course, would have lost its radioactivity
long before. It is good for dating only within about
the last million years.

Most of the arguments against evolution that one
hears from evolution's opponents are old ideas
that have been refuted many times over a long
period. When a creationist says, for example, that
there are no intermediate fossils between major
groups it is very hard to believe he is not flatly
and consciously lying. There are many such
fossils known, and more are being discovered all
the time.

No matter how many times they are proved wrong
the creationists continue to trot out the same tired
fallacious arguments, secure in the knowledge that
very few people will know they are false. They are
propagandists, not truthseekers. They do not
believe in evolution for the simple reason that they
do not WANT to believe it, and evidence means
nothing to them. There is really nothing opposed
to religious faith in evolution unless that faith is of
such a narrow, rigid fundamentalist sort that it is
unable to cope with truth and isn't, therefore worth
having.

2006-08-21 03:21:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Do insects become resistant to pesticides?
Do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

If you answered yes to the above questions, what is the process of that change?

Evolution is a change in the DNA of an organism with time. The change in DNA results in altered phenotypes. Some of the changes are successful, and some aren't.

We don't understand all aspects of cancer. Does that mean that it doesn't exist?

Your form of argument is similar to that used by the extremely small minority of the educated masses that argues that global warming is not occurring or that it is simply a natural cycle, and that humans have no role in the global events.

I presume you believe in the bible. Please apply the same type of questioning you raise about evolution to that extremely old text. One of the major problems with that text is that it has not been allowed to evolve with the gaining of new knowledge during the past 2000 years!!

Text books are revised, ohhh about every 3 years. Shouldn't we consider that parts of the bible might be out of date?

2006-08-19 20:06:28 · answer #3 · answered by Chowchilla Kid 1 · 0 0

i believe the bible to be the word of god as long as it is translated correctly. However, I wouldn't put my trust in someone who gets $100 000 a year by brain washing people with his 'pentecostal' zeal. Unless you believe it is all part of some elaborate setup by god to test people, I think you need to see that this earth is more than 7000 years old. There are physical laws that even god must obey or he would cease to be god. This earth is millions of years old and this can be proven in numerous different ways. I don't believe we evolved from slime but I do know that life has been around for a long time.

2006-08-21 21:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by uselessadvice 4 · 0 0

fossils are billions of years old? man you need to get your facts straight. text book is fogging your view? i think its designed to make it easier to understand the concepts.

seriously, did you even read the text? i hope you don't have a test in this b/c you don't prove something is false by using imaginary data to prove it wrong. Thats a Type I error

2006-08-21 18:10:39 · answer #5 · answered by wing_gundam 3 · 0 0

Just because some is unknown doesn't mean that all the known is wrong. If you use medicine like antibiotics it is because the scientists that developed it were right so they know much more than you. What you say just shows that you don't understand the science.

2006-08-19 18:51:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

And the idea that some invisible superbeing created the whole universe and just popped into existence itself does not have holes in it?

You've got a serious case of selective blindness.

2006-08-19 21:44:23 · answer #7 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 0 0

Evolution is just a Theory. Nothing has been proven yet. So many holes that it leaks like a sieve. To plug these holes, they come up with new theories and explanations which only serves to discredit them more.

2006-08-19 18:54:21 · answer #8 · answered by P P 5 · 0 3

Because people believe by seeing. Even though it is proven that you can decieve the eyes very easily...

2006-08-19 18:50:48 · answer #9 · answered by Angelus 4 · 0 0

AND WHAT ABOUT THE HOLES IN THE BIBLE I AM A BELIEVER BUT I ALSO HAVE A MIND AND I LOOK AT THINGS AND FORM MY OWN OPINION .THERE IS MORE PROOF IN EVOLUTION ( WE CAN SEE & FEEL)THEN IN THE BIBLE...

2006-08-19 18:54:32 · answer #10 · answered by meemeemee40 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers