I have just opened the door to evolution, and quite frankly I'm a bit confused, all the creationist try to disprove me and i can defend myself that well. So could somebody list some evidence supporting our case.
2007-01-24 03:16:17 · 10 answers · asked by Theoretically Speaking 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Contrary to popular interpretation, creation and evolution don't contradict each other.
It's not known when the primates of old first became "human." Anyone of them could have been Adam or Eve. Notice that the Bible doesn't say the "first primates," it says the "first man and woman."
2007-01-24 03:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is not supported by facts at all."
Herbert Spencer
What makes Behe's non-explanation a brontosaurus rather than an elephant is its resemblance to a famous Monty Python sketch in which a television newsman interviews a theorist.
Q: You say you have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
A: … This theory goes as follows and begins now. All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle; and then thin again at the far end.
As though that explained anything. Which brings us to last week's cross-examination of Behe by Eric Rothschild, the lawyer opposing the school board in the Pennsylvania case.
Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
The interrogation goes on like this for pages and pages. Like the theorist in the Monty Python sketch, Behe throws up a blizzard of babble: process, intelligent activity, important facts. What process? What activity? What facts? He never explains. He says the designer "took steps" to create complex biological systems, but ID can't specify the steps. Does ID tell us who designed life? No, he answers. Does it tell us how? No. Does it tell us when? No. How would the designer create a bacterial flagellum? It would "somehow cause the plan to, you know, go into effect," he proposes.
Can ID make testable predictions? Not really. If we posit that a given biological system was designed, Rothschild asks, what can we infer about the designer's abilities? Just "that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration," says Behe. "Beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the evidence." Does Behe not understand that extrapolating beyond initial evidence is exactly the job of a hypothesis? Does he not grasp the meaninglessness of saying a designer designed things that were designed?
William Saletan
Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism?
A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author
of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?
Q: But isn't the Bible religion and not science? A: Truth is truth. It's a poor sort of science that ignores truth.
Q: But isn't there a lot of evidence for evolution? A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn't write papers they wouldn't have jobs.
Q: How big was Noah's ark? A: Big enough.
Q: But what about radioactive dating? A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.
Q: What about the fossil evidence? A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.
Q: Is there any other evidence for Creationism besides the Bible? A: Yes.
Q: Can you give us some? A: Yes.
Q: Could you give us a specific example? A: Yes.
Q: What be a specific example of evidence for Creationism? A: I've already answered that question.
Q: What about the Antarctic ice core data? A: Now I put it to you. Coop up a bunch of men in a Quonset hut in the worst weather in the world, with nothing to do but gather data and drink, and what do you expect?
Q: Did the dinosaurs coexist with man? A: Look, the liberals were preaching coexistence with the Communists, and you saw what happened to them.
Q: Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution in the schools? A: Creationism should be taught instead of Evolution in the schools.
Q: Doesn't the Geologic Column prove that the Earth is very old? A: The geologic column proves that some things are on top of other things and some things are underneath other things. But we already knew that, didn't we.
Q: Hasn't Evolution been demonstrated in the laboratory? A: Students are demonstrating everywhere these days. To their shame, many professors are demonstrating also.
Q: Aren't Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action? A: No.
Q: Why not? A: Because they aren't.
Q: What is a kind? A: A kind is cards of the same rank. Thus 4 aces and a king are four of a kind, but four spades and a heart are not.
Q: Doesn't genetic variation indicate that life has been going on a long time? A: Let's be up front about this. That's deviation, not variation, and yes, there is a lot of deviancy out there. That just shows that there has been a lot of Sin since the garden of Eden.
Q: What about Neanderthal Man? A: Hey, you take one of those geezers and put him in tweeds and give him a pipe and he could be a professor anywhere.
Q: Some scientists state that the earth's continents are drifting around on top of a molten interior which has shaped life as we see it now. Are they right? A: As you well know the Bible says that beneath the surface of the earth is Hell where there is eternal fires and brimstone. If the continents appear to be moving around that is Satan's doing.
Q: Why do almost all of the scientists believe in Evolution? A: The real scientists don't. As for the rest of them, that's a very good question, isn't it?
Q: Are you talking about a Satanic conspiracy? A: Did I say anything about a conspiracy? You might want to think about the shape the world is in since the Evolutionists and the Liberal Humanists captured academia and Evolution is hand in hand with Godless Communism and crime in the streets but I certainly wouldn't want to say anything about a Satanic conspiracy. I just want you to think about it with an open mind.
2007-01-24 03:28:07 · answer #2 · answered by KC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you learn about evolution, you should also learn about all the holes in the theory that they can't explain. Don't just blindly believe in something, without getting outside unbiased information on the subject. If I gave you some information, would you teach it as fact, without checking to see if it was correct first? You wouldn't want to make a fool of yourself, would you?
2007-01-24 03:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a bait. But if you really want to equip yourself for this kind of discussion, visit talkorigins.org -- lots of good stuff there.
2007-01-24 03:20:30 · answer #4 · answered by mullah robertson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Can't tell which your case is, and you're not going to get a serious answer in a page. If you're really interested, there's a well-written article at:
http://www.angelfire.com/in3/creationvsevolution/#collapse
2007-01-24 03:22:21 · answer #5 · answered by cmw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like bait to me. just be honest about your position.
2007-01-24 03:18:45 · answer #6 · answered by james p 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
But evolution doesn't need to be defended any more than gravity or electricity. The only question is who understands it and who doesn't.
2007-01-24 03:22:08 · answer #7 · answered by eldad9 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
what are you confused about???? now I am confused of your question maybe we put our heads together there maybe a solution
2007-01-24 03:20:05 · answer #8 · answered by Debbie M 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Humanity is Brain Dead.
2007-01-24 03:19:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
what?
2007-01-24 03:21:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋