When people find out that non-directed evolution doesn't really explain?

Question

the way life came about on earth, what will you think? What about years olater when people laugh at you for ever believing it?

By the way, do you think they'll give you that kind of news in Hell?

bless you

Answer 1

Just turn to Jesus, my love.

Answer 2

So, you're a creationist then? Or do you believe in Intelligent design? Both are crap. Intelligent design is just a createonist front for displacing evolution. There is no way we can disprove intelligent design, but we don't need to. There is sufficient proof of evolution, none of intelligent design. Many of the reasons ID believers cite for it being true is that there are holes in evolutionary theory. To therefore suggest that God created the world is seven days, or that an omnipotent being designed all life, is laughable as there is no proof whatsoever for that cause (well there is, but it's either false, biased or taken out of proportion). It's God of the Gaps, and nothing more.
Yes, there are some small holes in Darwins theory, but likelyhood is they will be explained as humans increase their scientific knowledge. In recent years some of the holes have been filled in, I don't doubt the rest will be too. In years to come all the gaps will have been filled in and people will laugh that anyone ever believed in creationism of ID. The laughing part is even happening now.


Evolution has been proven time and time again, it can be easily observed in bacteria, among other things. Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Also, look at the fossil record. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions, which is essentially proof of evolution. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transition fossils (fossils of organisms between two lineages) may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.

They also claim that evolution relies purly on chance, and is therefore statistically impossible. There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Evolution has been, for all intents and purposes, proven. While it is still technically a theory, it is one backed up with a huge amount of evidence. Creationists and IDists have ignored this huge amount of evidence so far, methinks they'll ignore it for a while yet.

Answer 3

Yeah, just like they used to laugh at people who didn't believe the earth was the center of the universe.

Answer 4

I'll think 'Oh no, I live in a Theocracy where Science and independent thought has been banned'.

You know, there are people who laugh at me *today* for believing in Evolution. That doesn't bother me much though, since those people are overwhelmingly morons.

Answer 5

The "God did it" theory has been around for thousands of years. Oddly enough, it has nothing more to support it than it did when it was first proposed by wandering goatherders.

Even if evolution was totally wrong (which it isn't), that would do nothing to advance the "God did it" argument. And, the "God did it" argument has been rejected by most rational, intelligent people since no credible evidence supports it.

Answer 6

Evidence suggests that there may be some forms of mutaion that are directed from within the organism. It's controversial, but important for you to understand.

Answer 7

You seem to be schizophrenic about this. First you say we'll be laughed at and go to Hell, and then you say bless you. And what you are presuming...it is only a presumption...doesn't mean it will happen and it's the truth. DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK!

Answer 8

You're about 40 years behind on evolution, you better catch up

You and your hell don't scare me believer

Answer 9

Did I sneeze? I frankly prefer "Gesundheit!"

How's this:

When people find out that you're an incredible moron who refuses to believe anything not hand-fed to you by Christian "Scientists" who got their degrees at "Patriot Bible University", what will you respond?

Good thing I don't believe in Hell, huh? ^^

Answer 10

You're an insult to good Christians everywhere. Jesus didn't preach about hell fire and brimstone, neither should you.