here's the latest:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=414678&in_page_id=1770
2006-11-06 13:32:59 · 23 answers · asked by Brendan G 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Faux paus; you know you cannot use the word "evidence" and "creationist" in the same sentence.
2006-11-06 13:34:58 · answer #1 · answered by The Dark Clown Returns 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
This is about evolution, not Darwinism. Even if evolution is proved correct, all creationists would have to do is modify the theory to include evolution. The only thing that can prove creationism wrong is proving 100% that the world was created a different way, like through Darwinism. Darwinism has been proven more likely, and more scientific. The vast majority of people arguing for creationism aren't scientists, but journalists and politicans. But you can't absolutely prove creationism wrong for a long time.
Also should i note, that this could have been the result of something as simple as a mutation? This is very flimsy proof.
(Facts as far as i know, even the bit about scientists aren't arguing for creationism as much as politicians/journalists)
2006-11-06 13:44:03 · answer #2 · answered by Mike B 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First of all its from the Daily Mail, not exactly the most trusted of newspaper in the UK, secondly Dolphins were in the ocean around 60millions years ago, well before the 55million that they have prognosed. However saying that Dolphins do exhibit some characteristics similar to land dwelling creatures such as eyelashes and a belly button and are as far as I can think are the only mammal (including whales) that live in the soley in the ocean. More likely though that they are related to a Platypus than a wolf like dog. Interesting though, but no you wouldnt get too many xitans that would say, yup your right!
2006-11-06 13:47:38 · answer #3 · answered by A_Geologist 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So, they found a dolphin with a second set of fins and they immediately leap to a regressive evolutionary gene.
What about the cows that grew another limb, is that because they are devolving into spiders?
It's amazing how fast the evolutionists jump on any concept to attempt to prove their position. I guess when you have a house of cards, you gotta try to take advantage of anything.
2006-11-06 13:41:19 · answer #4 · answered by bobm709 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Eventually through the process of natural selection they'll be ridicule enough that they will no long be able to reproduce. And thus they will be gone from the gene pool. This is exactly like how in they used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe, those who stuck with those beliefs either didn't reproduce enough and thus did not survive to this day.
2006-11-06 13:43:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Theoretically, yes. If someone could without any shadow of a doubt prove that God doesn't exist or that He did not create the universe, then yes. I have studied in all of the classes and read many of the same books that you have. I have been subject to the same "evidence", however I have also been convinced through further study that macro evolution is no more "provable" than Creationism. The facts do not add up. I believe in micro evolution. This is not in dispute. It really comes down to what you "choose" to believe.
2006-11-06 13:41:05 · answer #6 · answered by theapostle78 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
It seems pretty clear... This is definitive proof of the evolution of a dolphin...
I mean, how would a creationist explain that?
They've also found Actual whales with hind limbs... Genetic precursors, accidentally being expressed in a modern whale/dolphin should be enough to convince any rational person...
As for the person above who thinks that macro evolution is separate from micro evolution, you need to understand that MICRO evolution IMPLIES macro evolution, because small mutations will ACCUMULATE...
2006-11-06 13:41:44 · answer #7 · answered by RED MIST! 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Evidence doesn't prove or disprove. Evidence is used to support a theory, like the THEORY of Evolution..Do you know why it's still called the THEORY of Evolution?....Because it's exactly as valid as the THEORY of Creation. If it were otherwise, it wouldn't be called the THEORY of Evolution, It would be called the FACT of Evolution, which it is not. If you don't believe me, then go ask your Biology teacher.
2006-11-06 13:41:49 · answer #8 · answered by Tom I 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You can never change the presence (right now this very second) of God in my life. Unless you can go back and undo all that God has done for me, and take away the restoration of knowing Jesus as my personal Savior............no absolutely not. A monkey could walk through my front door right now and start talking to me, and I would know that even he was created by God....all things were...........period!!!!!!!!!!
2006-11-06 13:42:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Would any amount of evidence prove that they're wrong? Absolutely. There are so many arguments against creationism that you could probably write a whole series of books it...
Would any amount of evidence get them to admit that they're wrong? Nope.
2006-11-06 13:35:55 · answer #10 · answered by . 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I wonder will both Evolutionists and Creationists ever realize that they will never wholeheartedly change the other's views, I on the other hand...
2006-11-06 13:37:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋