I mean just once I would like to see something reasonable argued by the other side. It's like racing a sloth, just too easy.
2006-09-12 07:30:59 · 25 answers · asked by bc_munkee 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Alexander: I wrote the question to see the answers. Do not assume to know me or my intentions.
2006-09-12 07:35:41 · update #1
p_lgray: Show me a viable creation theory with some evidence, and I will be more than happy to argue it with you.
2006-09-12 07:36:54 · update #2
Will: maybe so...
2006-09-12 07:38:51 · update #3
Consider the source. Therein lies your answer.
2006-09-12 07:32:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
I have myself gone to the other side, visiting the arguments "answersingenesis.com" has to offer. The funny thing is that most of the anti-evolution arguments here are the same ones this website has listed as "Arguments against evolution creationists shouldn't use".
EDIT: bigrob's links
I have read the links and the inherent argument these "researchers" have are that if science can't explain it, then God must've done it. They make their research look legitamate by formatting it in the way a scientific journal does. But in all the articles (I only read the abstracts) they all boil down to "we can't explain it, so God must've done it". This isn't scientific at all, espeicially since it's "research" with an agenda.
2006-09-12 07:51:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe you should do some research on pulonium and maybe some research into the law of angular momentum or maybe the amount of shrinkage the sun suffers each year in diameter as it burns up it's fuel (then mutiply the amount by one million years and see how far it's surface would have been from earth). An intelligent, curious person seeking truth doesn't have to study hard or long to find more proof of creation than evolution.
2006-09-12 08:06:23 · answer #3 · answered by jusap 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe in evolution but it can't be the absolute truth or you will shelter yourself from solving the greater mysteries. Of course we evolve and you can't argue that. But we also can't explain everything and some things are just more than coincidence. Do you feel better? What would be intelligent about disproving hard science, but until we find the missing link, we can never claim absolute truth, just speculation.
There may be many candidates for the missing link but we need to find whole cultures and civilizations of them unless they were nomadic and hunter/gatherer..does make it harder but "something happened"...and I can not answer that and even if I knew I wouldn't tell you.
2006-09-12 07:41:44 · answer #4 · answered by Corey 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Probably the same reason that I haven't seen any intelligent or reasonably argued "anti-creation" questions.
Added:
That's not what you asked for, now you're just being argumentative. Show me a valid evolutionary model that isn't theoretical and speculative.
Your views on creation and evolution are just as unreasonable to me as mine are to you. You can't prove yours without doubt, and neither can I. Both imply a level of faith.
Both require a thoughtful process of research and understanding.
It is naive of you to argue a point from a position that your "theory" is infallibly right when it is still only theory.
Ultimately in my opinion you are making an argument between to unconnected topics.
Evolution tries, and fails to explain the origin of man. Not the origin of the universe. Creation explains why it was created in the first place. The difference is lost on most people, but I'm sure that you will understand it. You are truly comparing the effect to the cause. Something like saying, "The bubbles in the water came from the heat of the Bunsen burner" I can explain in great detail the science behind it but.... Who turned on the Bunsen burner, and why?
Theoretical models of the origin of man will NEVER explain why.... from a scientific perspective, it can't be answered.
2006-09-12 07:33:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
It is your choice to believe that you as you stand today, living, breathing, person put your beliefs of ancestry on an idea that someone thought of centuries ago on an island watching turtles and iguanas.
Why is that the so called "missing link" has never been found? Eventhough is was a complete class of humanoids that walked the world supposedly. They found "all" the classes, meaning monkeys/gorillas like skulls and humanoid skulls, but nothing regarding the so called "Missing Link."
Only one answer, they never existed !
It si your choice to believe that you're a desendant of Chita, but I would rather be related to Tarzan.
>>> Besides, Baylor Univ. released a research study made by their dept. of Sociology, only 10.8 percent of all americans don't believe in some type of God or religion.
2006-09-12 07:43:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I like the question regarding the calibration of carbon dating,
This is a valid science question but really has no affect when we are talking about wether or not a dinosaur is 65 or 66 million years ago and human was 300,000 or 310,000 years ago, so because of the calibration difference its too much of a question on wether or not humans were contemporary with dinosaurs,
my wording is bad but you get the point,
2006-09-12 07:34:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
God is Intelligence Personified, The Grand Instructor. Supremely Divine. Great Spirit Creator with feelings.LOVE----
Evolution is not.
Is there a question here?
2006-09-12 07:41:47 · answer #8 · answered by avaddohn-Apollyon 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Here's one:
Give me some examples of beneficial mutations that have given a new species?
As far as carbon dating goes; Without knowing your measurement uncertanty, your measurements are meaningless. Chew on that. What are the instruments calibrated to? Nothing? There's your answer.
2006-09-12 07:35:27 · answer #9 · answered by TubeDude 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Christians do not like to challenge their beliefs. Its based on a mythical book - HELLO! If you make them think differently then it could shake their fragile foundation.
2006-09-12 07:55:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anne A 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
One guy in the last question just used a "thermodynamics laws began at the fall from grace" argument, which even **answersingenesis** the creationist website has said is complete and utter ********.
they've asked creationists to stop using that argument because it makes creationists look like uneducated morons.
2006-09-12 07:33:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋