Evolution?

Question

OK, so, scientists/athiests are super-confident that evolution can explain just about everything-- starting with the origins of life. Now I must say, I am personally not totally averse to evolution, in fact, I think it is a solid theory theory that can explain many things. However, the fact is, there is no way humans came about by evolution or that life came from non-life sheerly by pure coincidence. A leading British mathematician puts the chances of this happening at around 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Besides, scientists have never been able to synthesize amino acids in the presence of water, or create life from non-life. Also, humans are so special, there is no way they came about through chance. Now getting to the actual question. If evolutionists are so confident in their theory, then why do they get all annoyed when people say that some sort of creationist theory should be taught alongside evolution?

If you are really confident in a theory, the theory should be able to hold up to criticism. In fact, that is the scientific principle at its most fundamental level.

I would hardly call evolution testable. It's about as testable as creationism. It's basically speculation. Very good speculation, but speculation nonetheless.

Answer 1

i agree with you.
and i dont really know why they get mad,
but
mhm
coincidence i guess.
pure luck.

Answer 2

You've misunderstood...

I know what mathematician you're talking about, and the odds he gave... But those odds were for the formation of a, "Modern," cell being produced by chance...

Those odds do not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections spanning billions of years.

By the way, the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment simulated early Earth's atmosphere with water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane and an electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex organic compounds like amino acids.

Also, humans are 96% genetically identical to chimps. We're not THAT special...

Furthermore, creationist hypotheses (creationists have no more than hypotheses because they have no evidence. They don't have any actual theories) should not be taught in a science class, because there is nothing scientific about them...

The Theory of Evolution is entirely based upon scientific facts. The intrusion of non-scientific material into a science class would rob the students of a proper science education.

Answer 3

okay. there are two problems in your question.

1. you say that the odds ar that bad. well you fail to mention that the odds of a creator are thousands of times larger than that.

2. you say that humans are so special that there is no way that we came about by chance. the problem with that theory is that you say that humans are SO SPECIAL. but to say that you would have to automatically assume that we were designed instead of evolved. but the problem there is that the only way that your theory could be right is if some percentage of our parts less than 100 percent was completely un-useful. but think about it, if a bird has only 55 percent of its wings, it will still be useful to save its life from a certain height. therefore, you cannot say that we are unique, because 70 percent of an eye would do an adequate job for some sort of creature.

you creationists look at the problem as all or nothing, like a vertical cliff. Evolutionists look at the problem as a gradual process. like we are on the backside of your verticle cliff, climbing up a slight incline. the only way you could ever be right is if you could prove that a percentage of one of our parts is not useful in some way.

Answer 4

A) Withing the entire universe, there are well over 100000000000000000000000000000 planets suitibal to sustain life. Thats why we are alive, if this planet wasnt lucky enough, we wouldnt exist and nor would this convo.

B) amino acids havent been shown to form into life because it takes too damn long for simple aminos to become a complex life form. IT first has to become a complex protien, then has to evolve into many, then has to hopefully get the one in a billion chance that it will have a mutation that strives for survival and have the capabilitys to ensure its survival. Then from there it has to slowly evolve into a bacterium. THIS IS A VERY LONG PROCESS!

C) Because, unlike evolution, creationism has no evidence what so ever!!!!!!!! Its all faith based. Saying that something had to create us or we couldnt be here. Everything is too perfect. Duh, if our universe wasnt this perfect, we wouldnt exist. Lucky for us, we fell into a perfectly balanced enviroment and had the ability to evolve.

If you wanna teach creation, why dont they teach the fact that a big ball of spaggetti made the universe. Its just unprovable as yours.

Answer 5

LOL. Had to laugh. Scientist/atheists aren't annoyed in it's comparison to evolution, we're annoyed that it would be taught at all considering it's just ridiculous. That's the point. What I've always found amusing is that christians come along, at least it's leaders to and try to say that science is attempting to prove there is no god....NOT SO. It just so happens that most of us scientists happen to be atheists which upsets many political and religious leaders thusly leading them to try and discount anything we say. How ironic. We have proven forms and function of evolution and that's all that need be said, end of story, christianity was written by man hundreds of years ago and has no proof whatsoever.....except words in structure like "faith" and "hope"..... All just words made up by man because he is incapable of understanding what something means or is... that word....is. What is amusing within your question is you mention the british mathematician.....YES, YES, that IS the point....we are a 1 in a trillion happenstance and YES YES that IS what makes us so special. That IS the point. be well, Jack

Answer 6

Because creationism does not meet the standards of science. Science requires that all hypotheses be testable. Creationism is not.

And you're wrong about the amino acid synthesis. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

Answer 7

You don't have to explain how life occurred/occurs to notice that single celled organisms occurred first in the lower rock strata, followed by more and more complex life forms over millions of years as you rise up the rock strata to the present day, with not one instance of a creature being out of place in time.

Answer 8

the British have never really been good at math

Creation should not be taught alongside evolution because it is not science, its religion, and people should be exposed to it, but it is different. Assuming you are a Christian, would you like the Koran to be taught to your children at school...I doubt it. If so you a pretty open minded Christian. Rare. My point is that religion is not science. Religious people would like their religion to be considered science because real science contradicts the technicalities of their religion. If my child has a class concerning religion, I would like it to concern all religions. You Christians need to understand we are not all Christian, no matter how bad you want us all to be.

Answer 9

Here is the best theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR2gYYnGrTc&eurl.

Answer 10

You think too much but not enough. Creationism is an insult to intelligence. How long to you think Mars has existed? Please tell me it's 6,000 years so I can laugh my *** off.

Answer 11

the only reason Evolution is belived is because they don't want to belive the alterative of Creation