A funny fictional story.?

Question

Please state where this story goes wrong, what is wrong, and why it is wrong. I doubt it is accurate, but I am curiouse.

1. (Person) So... what proof do you have for evolution? (Evolution) Oh, well , we see the universe is really really old, due to rock layers and all. 2.(Person) Yeah, but have you seen anything change species? (Evolution) Oh no! It occurs very rarely. 3. (Person) So... If you have never witnessed it, how is it real? how do you know of it , or how did you come upon this idea? (Evolution) Well, we see a common theme in many different species. 4. Couldnt that be explamed by a God who likes order and, thus, makes things with similarites? Well, I suppose, but what proof of God do we have? 5. Well, the fact that we are here, for one thing. But evolution explanes that. 6. All the missing links have been explained, you have not seen species changing in process. 7. All you have is a theory, and we have what you would call our own "theory".

Thank you for all thoughtful, honest, and nicely put answers.

(I also accidently asked same Q. in a dif. catagory.)

Evolutionists don use rock layers as well as other stuff t oshow the earth is old?

Bad wording there... Thank you.

Corection to #1

We see the Earth is really old. Various reasons for this, one of which is rock layers.

Please explain how denying evolution denies modern medical science?

Can you put a dogs body together like a puzzle and have it become alive? so how did it happen on a much smaller scale in the very begining...?

Answer 1

Scientific Illiteracy at its finest.

Answer 2

1) The universe predates rock layers.
2) We've observed some speciation events in the laboratory. In the field, they're tougher to gage, but there are some promising processes under observation
3) It's not the commonality of the themes, but the variations on the themes, and the fossils with the precursors to the variations.
4) You can attribute anything to God.
5) The fact that we are here merely means we can comment on the fact.
6) The fossil record is not perfect, but it is robust and extensive.
7) A theory is tested by the predictions it makes. Evolution has been tested, repeatedly. Creationism is a weak hypothesis that, by its very nature, cannot be tested.

It wasn't funny either. It went wrong before it started.


ADDENDUM: Error to error.

The Earth is dated by a variety of methods including stratigraphy.

Answer 3

The answer to No. 1 is in error. In fact, it is so stupid only a Creationist could have come up with it.

Since the underlying premise is inaccurate – everything that follows is wrong.

----------------------

edit -

You have the universe being old 'due' to rock layers.

Think about this. If evolution is false, so is modern medical science. Anyone who rejects the truth and reality of evolution also rejects the truth and reality of medical science.

Therefore, every Creationist who goes to a doctor or hospital is a lying hypocrite.

-----------------------------------------

EDIT

Without the scientific theory of evolution, every life science collapses to nothingness – so great and far reaching is its explanatory power (greater, in fact, than any general theory in any other branch of science – physics included). Without evolution, Biology (and every discipline related to it) does not exist. This includes medical science.

If biological science is false, then western medical doctors no more than witch doctors or practitioners of voodoo because there is no empirical basis justifying and validating their work.

Evolution is so all encompassing of the life sciences that even though it was introduced 20 years before the most simple genetics experiments, 50 years before cell theory, and almost 100 years before the structure of DNA was known, evolution ‘predicted’ that there must be such things and, in fact, genetics, molecular cell theory, DNA, etc., became known only because the evolutionary structure was already in place to guide scientists in their direction and give them real-world meaning.

Even more striking is the fact that if evolution is wrong, then there cannot be any such thing as human knowledge or empirical science. If we are wrong about this, then we cannot be certain that we are correct about anything learned by applying the scientific method. In short, there would be no empirical reality – reality would vary with the thoughts and imaginations of each and every person’s own mind.

In fact, we would not even be able to know if the earth really was only 6000 years old (so the young earth argument loses either way). And, if we cannot comprehend or understand any of the processes that operate in our physical (objective) world, how can we ever trust anything we believe, reality-based or spiritual?

------------------------------

EDIT –

It would be more of a miracle if life had not developed on earth than the fact that it did.

All the ingredients to form living molecules were present as was the environment (water being the critical variable here).

The difference between a ‘living’ and ‘non living’ molecule is not clear cut, obvious, or easy to define. There is no great jump or leap from one state to the other. Living and non-living molecules are difficult to tell apart at this level.

The difference is in bio-chemical reactions controlled by and resulting from known processes. What we know about how to accomplish this is light years beyond what we do not know.

Answer 4

That's all the scientist have, a theory, and it isn't even a good theory. A theory with no proof for evolution, and they call it science.

Answer 5

So you use a fairy tale to reinforce your beliefs? I guess that's the whole point of religion.