I know you read the Bible, but what I’m talking about is all these statements about evolution that I constantly read that are completely incorrect.
Just to set the record straight on a few things.
A scientific theory is no a “guess”
Evolutionary theory does not predict that we evolved from Apes, but that we have a common ancestor who lived about 5 million years ago.
Carbon 14 dating is accurate, but is not used on anything older than 50,000 years.
There is no scientific evidence to support creationism.
Science does not attempt to predict the supernatural, because there is nothing to measure, observe or in any other way experiment with.
2006-09-25 08:55:06 · 12 answers · asked by trouthunter 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Again the nut jobs that work for the Discovery Institute are sited as "scientific" sources. 100 Scientist say creationism and 500,000 say evolution...hmmm wonder who to trust?
2006-09-25 09:02:08 · update #1
DNA sequencing in the past few years has allowed scientist to accuratly model evolution without fossils. However there are many fossils that support human evolution, including the 3.3 million year old child that was found recently. And again Carbon 14 was not used for dating. There are other radioisatopes such as uranium and if decay products that are used for such ancient fossils.
2006-09-25 09:05:41 · update #2
Posting links to christian psuedo-science sites does nothing to help your argument. Been there read that...its all been debunked long ago.
2006-09-25 09:07:25 · update #3
I think we should stop even trying to convince them.
They have not the slightest idea of how science works (but neither have some "believers" in science, so I blame the schools) and can't grasp the concept of a system where everything is open to new interpretations in the light of new facts, or a different interpretation of old ones.
It is so diametrically opposed to their own belief system that most of them find the very idea extremely frightening, once you get the concept across.
Talking science to a certain kind of Christian is just a waste of time, because whatever factual "proof" is offered, they discard it in favour of holding on to their blind faith
2006-09-25 09:06:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Evolutionary theory does not predict that we evolved from Apes, but that we have a common ancestor who lived about 5 million years ago."
There is no irrefutable evidence supporting a common ancestor nor that life is that old on the earth
"Carbon 14 dating is accurate, but is not used on anything older than 50,000 years."
Actually, the half life for carbon 14 molecules is a little over 5000 years and therefore is useless for the evolutionist. It can only be used with living or formerly living things.
"There is no scientific evidence to support creationism."
Sorry, but you are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence in geology, biology, astronomy and paleontology. Scientific methods cannot prove nor disprove creation, same with evolution. We look at the evidence and determine on which side the evidence points. You may not want to accept it, but the evidence is strongly on the creation side.
"Science does not attempt to predict the supernatural, because there is nothing to measure, observe or in any other way experiment with"
Obviously. Scientific methods of testing, retesting, falsification and repeatability is only useful for things or events in the material world..
2006-09-25 09:13:32 · answer #2 · answered by BrotherMichael 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many scientific problems with Evolution. Most are found in the scientific literature and were put ther by professional scientists. Many times Christians do a poor job of repeating the criticisms, but the crticisms themselves are valid
If you want to learn something from scientists about the debate visit this site:
http://www.reasons.org/ . At That site are many mp3 files you can listen where they discuss these issues.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution
Go to Amazon and look for books by Dr Hugh Ross. The latest is Creation as Science.
2006-09-25 09:04:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anthony M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The world is finite. Can you dispute that. I have been reading scientists once thought the world was infinite, but are changing.
Where is the proof of a 5 million year old ape-man. Did I miss something?
Who said carbon dating was completely accurate?
Where did the feeling of Love come from, or your conscious.
The big bang theory says the universe will actually come back to itself over and over. Do you really think this will happen?
2006-09-25 09:00:19 · answer #4 · answered by Casey M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where do they get it? Probably answersingenesis.com or somewhere.
It has to be somewhere like that, because every other non-Christian site about evolution describes it accurately. Wikipedia has a whole article called "Evidence of evolution." I've tried posting that link around here, but none of them will read it. I wonder why...
2006-09-25 08:58:18 · answer #5 · answered by . 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are hundreds of websites that parrot all of the same false information we have heard from creationists. There are also the big guys like Kent Hovind, who produces some of the finest comedy videos you will ever see... no doubt circulated by local churches as well.
2006-09-25 09:49:20 · answer #6 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I read, research, and study with an open mind. For the pals questioning my intellect due to disagreement, it doe not help your cause, nor make you more credible.
Point here is there are credible educated research scientists that beg to differ. Ask a few of these folks: (not an all inclusive list)
Kevin L. Anderson, CRSQ Editor-in-Chief
Ph.D. Microbiology, Kansas State University
Director of CRS Van Andel Creation Research Center
Mark H. Armitage
M.S. Biology, ICR Graduate School
Surgical Microscope Sales Rep. for Micro Specialist
Theodore P. Aufdemberge, Financial Secretary
Ph.D. Physical Geography, Univ. of Michigan
Prof. of Geography and Earth Science, Concordia College (retired)
Eugene F. Chaffin, Vice President, CRSQ Physics Editor
Ph.D. Physics, Oklahoma State Univ.
Prof. of Physics, Bob Jones Univ.
Donald B. DeYoung, President, CRSQ Book Review Editor
Ph.D. Physics, Iowa State Univ.
Prof. of Physics, Grace College
Danny R. Faulkner
Ph.D. Astronomy, Indiana Univ.
Prof. of Astronomy and Physics, Univ. of South Carolina (Lancaster)
George F. Howe, CRSQ Biology Editor
Ph.D. Botany, Ohio State Univ.
Prof./Chm. Div. of Natural Sciences, The Master's College (retired)
D. Russell Humphreys
Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State Univ.
Research Physicist, Sandia National Laboratories (retired)
Institute for Creation Research
David A. Kaufmann, Secretary
Ph.D. Anatomy, Univ. of Iowa
Prof. of Exercise Science, Univ. of Florida (retired)
Gary H. Locklair
Ph. D. Computer Science, Nova Southeastern University
Professor and Chair of Computer Science, Concordia University Wisconsin
Michael Oard
M.S. in Atmospheric Science, Univ. of Washington
Lead forecaster, National Weather Service (retired)
Answers in Genesis
John K. Reed, CRSQ Geology Editor
Ph.D. Geology, Univ. of South Carolina
David J. Rodabaugh
Ph.D. Mathematics, Illinois Inst. of Technology
Sr. Scientist, Uni-Pixel Displays
Ronald G. Samec, CRSQ Astronomy Editor
Ph.D. Physics, Clemson Univ.
Prof. Physics and Astronomy, Bob Jones Univ.
Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary, Creation Matters Editor
Ph.D., Animal Science, Univ. of Mo.
Principal Clinical Research Scientist, Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.
2006-09-25 08:58:37 · answer #7 · answered by pops 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
> Kevin L. Anderson, et al
Hmm, 13 guys from Bob Evans University, a used microscope salesman and a gym teacher can't be wrong.
2006-09-25 09:07:59 · answer #8 · answered by Nerdly Stud 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
from psuedo-science... the art of speaking above one's level of comprehension in an attempt to sound authoritative and scientific and have them believe in you just as they would a true scientist whose theories are no more comprehensible to their limited intellects....
or like pops below, drop names...
2006-09-25 08:58:23 · answer #9 · answered by Andy FF1,2,CrTr,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they just fabricate false scientific facts that some people might believe.
2006-09-25 08:57:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋