Hypothetical question. What type of proof are we talking about here? For me to believe in creationism, I would need carbon dating to trace dinosaur bones back only 6000 years. I would need to understand how so many species of animal can exist at one time, how dinosaurs affected the food chain, and why Homo erectus went extinct.
Please answer this hypothetical question.
2006-10-10 16:39:55 · 11 answers · asked by Asilos Magdalena 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm sorry, but that's really ignorant of you to say. Evolution DOES NOT go into how life started.
2006-10-10 16:49:05 · update #1
What carbon dating has shown that dinosaur bones are only 6000 years old? Read.
2006-10-10 16:50:46 · update #2
Evolutionists put too much stock in what science says .Science is not always correct,and there's absolutely no way to prove that dinosaur bones are millions of years old as opposed to thousands of years old. It is all hypothetical. The Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory,and I'm certainly not going to take a gamble with my soul based on a theory,and I really can't understand how anyone else could take such a risk with their souls.I don't have to be a scholar to know that some risks just aren't worth the price you pay.
2006-10-10 17:06:15 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Your question doesn't make any sense.
As a "creationist" to use your label, I'm educated and understand the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is provable. Macro evolution isn't. So I'm not sure what answer you are looking for.
Unfortunately your stated requirement for proof has already been offered. Several studies have de-bunked carbon dating as errant. Several non carbon based dating systems have showing fossils once thought to be millions of years old to be only hundreds of years old.
What you say you need to understand to believe in the creation account isn't adequately answered by Darwin or his theory either so why do you hold to that theory over creation? If you were intellectually honest, you would eschew both until formidable proof exists.
2006-10-10 16:46:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know this is kind of off topic but I want to present again a third possibility. This is for creationists as well as Evolutionists. First why do we assume it was only 6000 years since the creation of the world. The Bible says the "days" of creation were periods of time which were called days. Who are we to say it happened in 6 of our days or 6 billion years. Second. There are laws we follow in this universe. Gravity is a good example. These laws apply to all, none is exempt. God asks nothing of us which he does not himself honor. Any law we must keep he has kept or there is a higher law we do not understand. Who is to say that evolution is not one of those laws, though we still consider it a theory if a well proved one. Here is my thought. There is no difference. Science is the tools of man and the tools of God. I think he used Evolution to create the Earth.
For the evolutionists out there. Have you ever seen a chotic system sudenly become orginized with out an outside force acting on it? Chaos and chance do not lead to increased complexity but instead tend to form into increasing degrees of simplicity. Rocks are weathered into their individual elements. Only when acted upon by heat and pressure do they reform into compounds we know as rocks or minerals. Just somthing to think about. Maybe none of us are wrong and we can stop arguing about it.
2006-10-10 16:49:25 · answer #3 · answered by Richmond C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would have to be a discovery of an animal that evolved from being a cold-blooded reptile to a warm-blooded mammal, even if it was only a fossil.
There would also have to be an instance of a scientist recreating the same conditions that existed at the beginning, and causing life to come from non-life.
As far as the rest of your statement, I'm a Christian, and I don't believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
And by the way, there IS proof of evolution. MICRO-evolution, that is!
2006-10-10 16:45:47 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure what it would take to prove evolution. Carbon dating has proven very fallible and so should be take with a grain of salt.
If our existence is to be credited to evolution, then why have we stopped evolving?
Also, I'm very fascinated by the fact that all of the laws of the universe are very mathematically connected together. Everything is so precisely tuned, that if anything, I find that science supports creation more than it could evolution.
To me, saying that we evolved from apes is no less crazy than staring at my computer and saying that it just exploded into existence a few moments ago.
2006-10-10 16:46:31 · answer #5 · answered by CE S 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It would take God appearing before me and saying "Yeah, it's true" lol.
Since I am one of those who knows that God and science go hand in hand, I guess the proof there is is proof enough.
2006-10-10 16:46:51 · answer #6 · answered by arewethereyet 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't ask creationists that question. They don't understand science. Their idea of "proof" is that a banana is vaguely hand-shaped and tastes good. They'll go on believing what makes them feel good, no matter what evidence is offered, and everyone else will go on believing what makes sense.
2006-10-10 16:46:05 · answer #7 · answered by RabidBunyip 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Whose to say creationists can't believe in aspects of evolution and God?
2006-10-10 16:46:12 · answer #8 · answered by LIVINGmylife 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not much. Just an actual mechanism to make it work that doesn't violate the laws of entropy or statistics.
This question is REALLY getting old......
2006-10-10 16:48:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Transitional fossils in abundance.
2006-10-10 16:42:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋