It seems as though some people will not believe evolution is happening until a complete history of every animal is found fossilized. Of course we have hundreds of 'intermediate' species connecting the dots, but not all. Forensic, geographical, biological, etc, etc....evidence but still they deny it.
Why then do you believe in a god and a 'theory' of creation based on a total lack of evidence? Why is there this double standard when it comes to something that you want to be true, and something you don't want...but it is...to be true?
2006-11-17 09:11:18 · 16 answers · asked by bc_munkee 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jesus was a lot like Socrates. He liked people, had great friends, liked good food and drink, he spoke in parables and allegory, he popped people's balloons all the time, he was accused and sentenced to death by religious fundamentalists of being irreverent, he could have escaped death, he did not, so to send a message to future generations.
No, I have only one question. This is not a question about creating a new breed, or that a germ can be learn to be resistent to antibiotics by selection. This is not about gene duplication, which does not create new functions and capabilities.
Also, evolution as the fossil record is a fact and well studied. The issues are macro evolution, and the originations of life.
This is from the Talk Origins Web Site, a very technical Pro-evolution web-site. Here is an example of one of the issues that got to get on the table.
"Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change
How was it elucidated? This is the question that is never answered. It is like, "then God created the world".
At one point in time, there was some DNA. Later, 100's to Millions of lines of new DNA came into existence, that causes a heart, a lung, a kindney, a liver, a brain, skin, hair, or whatever to exist. Find a lake of bacteria, and show how it can create a simple multicellar thing, naturally, with lightning and chemicals and anything. It has not and will not, for a lot of new, highly engineered DNA is needed in a new way. Random chance is discounted, for any calculation shows it is not a factor.
The issue is a lot a people give evolution a lot of scrutiny and then see that there are some fundemental issues, that seem to be intractable. This is just one.
I do not think you can anwer this logically, and objectively. Though I do hope you try. I'd like to know I am missing something.
2006-11-17 09:37:19 · answer #1 · answered by Cogito Sum 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hiya Silicon Lemming! the project is once you make the most of medical documents it fairly is empirical ...you do not use words that havent been got here across through using that very same empirical technology. ....alongside with ,,,,,which will be Abiogenesis. Scientists that purport recommendations without empirical documents to help their lab exams supply what's accepted as ideal conjecture. Empirical documents helps that life does certainly adapt really nicely to all pressures. some thing like interpreting the small bones that help whales to mate authentic ...then utilizing entirely conjecture to purport a theory that they are extremely * leg bones * of even as they were a cloven hoofed animal earlier the advanced right into a whale.... or the advanced from wolves or undergo.... that is definitely organic conjecture. there is no empirical data fossil or in the different case to help the conception. butterflies cats and giraffes rhinoceros sea horse octopus cherry sequoia poison ivy walnut petunia violets pear peach evergreens Empirical technology shows range and layout and version..not organic decision and evolution technology does not educate creation. technology proves there's a dressmaker. only As Lab experiments do not only ensue....they are designed for reaction. interesting concept in you responses i need to assert. thanks Fer~ask~n~! .
2016-11-25 01:13:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lack of evidence ? The evidence is all around you,yet you don't see it.You have eyes but you're blind.God is the reason that anything exists.Get a copy of the bible and read it.
Psalms 19:1-5
1 The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The skies display his craftsmanship.
2 Day after day they continue to speak;
night after night they make him known.
3 They speak without a sound or word;
their voice is never heard.
4 Yet their message has gone throughout the earth,
and their words to all the world.
2006-11-17 09:20:25 · answer #3 · answered by Soupy 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Obviously, referencing the responses to this question... no, they don't.
And that's all I ask of any of them. And it's the one thing they refuse to do.
Edit - Cogito Sum - Whether a god exists or not, in some form or fashion, is not really an issue for atheists. It has been PROVEN that the god of Abraham is false. Science disproved the bible several hundred years ago.
That is the issue. If the god of Beeblebrox, or the tooth fairy, or the FSM created the universe, then so be it. We don't know. But it certainly was NOT any of the "gods" that are worshipped, killed for, and spoken for, by the religious leaders currently in power in the world today.
But regardless of this obvious fact, the scientific theories for the creation of the universe make far more sense than the "it was magic" theories of creationists. I'm embarrassed for anyone who can't see this.
2006-11-17 09:21:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
There isnt a fossil record of even ONE animal changing into another animal. Another FORM of such an animal??? Sure, but not a completely different animal... So for us to believe bird evolved from lizards, then you would have to show that this took place. However, the Bible says that animals were created by their own kinds, and as fossil records still show, this is true. Birds were always birds, cats were always cats and so forth. The burden of proof is now on those who claim differently.
2006-11-17 09:18:57 · answer #5 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I believe in God and believe evolution probably happened. The evidence for evolution is so obvious, it is not even a particularly interesting question.
The question of whether God lives however, is a lifetime question.
2006-11-17 09:17:40 · answer #6 · answered by Indy Mind 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2006-11-17 09:23:00 · answer #7 · answered by j_d_barrow 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find it hilarious that when presented the idea that God created Adam & Eve as the first living humans, secular humanists laugh. But when someone tells them that the entire universe simply exploded from a piece of matter smaller than the head of a pin, they nod their heads and say, "ok".
Good grief!
2006-11-17 09:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by The Truth Hurts! Ouch! 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe that God created the creatures on the earth to evolve.If I feel in my heart and my mind that its true,then I believe it,regardless if the evidence is good enough for some one else or not.
2006-11-17 09:15:24 · answer #9 · answered by Myaloo 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's fundamentalism, it doesn't need to make sense.
This is one atheist who loves to receive your email! Send me some of your thoughts on how rediculous I am, and I'll gladly reply. Speedy service guaranteed. Comments/Complaints/Hate speech/etc. Go to my profile, then send me a message. I look foreward to hearing from you.
2006-11-17 09:13:24 · answer #10 · answered by Seth 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋