...from their current beliefs, no matter what evidence is provided? Because I gotta tell you I have written enough proof of evolution on here to write a book. I guess what I am getting at is ...well is it all in vain? What's the point in answering these questions if the answers are not even considered? Should we all just give up on these lost causes?
2007-01-29 06:42:06 · 27 answers · asked by bc_munkee 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
lundstrom: Thank you for proving my point. I have a degree in Biology. While I am not currently in a field using this, I do have a pretty good understanding of science. Your arguments have no merit. Let's just look at the first one.
Thermodynamics: This is usually referring to entopy (2nd law of thermodynamics) when used as anti-evolution proof. Entropy is the fact that order will always move towards disorder in a closed system. So it is said that evolution could not occur because it would involve species becoming more complex, or more ordered. Anyone with ahigh school diploma can easily shoot down this argument.
The earth is not a closed system. Each day it receives lots of energy from other sources whether it be the sun providing heat, light, and other forms of radiation; or the moon with its gravity providing tidal effects.
My advice to you is go to school. You might just find that your internet provided pseudo-education is not all it's cracked up to be.
2007-01-29 06:57:13 · update #1
It is in Vain my friend, Especially on YA, I myself have had to literally take some of my Christian friends out and show them transitional fossils and show them evidence, and let them talk to scientists and proffesors that I know in order for them to believe. Alot of them get really upset and some have even broken down and cried but its to be expected. I convert more people by showing them rather then just talking on yahoo answers.
2007-01-29 06:46:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
I think I would have to say that it is mostly in vain. People that are anti-evolutionists are, sorry to say, delusional. They like the safe, warm, fuzzy feeling they get in convincing themselves that there will be more to life after death. And unfortunately your evolutionist theories don't fall into that secure little bubble. So anything that might mean an evolutionist theory may possible be right in one sense; religion will discredit it completely so they don't have to make up new rules to fit or inconvenience those that religion is truly meant to serve.
I mean think about it if there was no religion what would happen?! LOL People would go insane, there would be nothing or no one to answer to for your behaviour except man's law, therefore the world would be in total chaos. And all the religious wars and murders in the past and that are currently going on would be proven to be exactly what they really are...excuses for government to murder and exploit susceptible people for more money. I think originally religion was created by high forms of authority to control people and it just took off from there and became more elaborate, why else is there no proof except for man made objects that can "prove" Gods existence?
Thats just my opinion though, I could be wrong.
2007-01-29 15:08:00 · answer #2 · answered by West_End_Girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BC_munkee, you have answered many of my questions quite well compared to other evolutionists who stick the knife to their own throat on a daily basis, and barely have any diploma. The reason I don't just accept evolution is because I literally have at a minimum 100 questions about evolution and in my history have asked about 40. (Which about 26 were answered incorrectly, and I would like to ask them again another time.) No matter what evidence is provided would be wrong in my case, but I am not a satisfactory case to most evolutionists because I ask too much, and I always want concrete evidence. It is puzzling how 1 celled organisms did not get killed (extinct not 1 of them killed) by natural selection, but animals which evolved from that 1 celled organism, and were multi-celled died off (became extinct) by natural selection. Why did the lesser animal not get killed off by natural selection, but the multi-celled, which is more complex did die off?
(I don't have a degree in English Grammar, so I probably did not write my question the best way.)
2007-01-30 16:00:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would say so but I had an IM from a lady who wanted more information about evolution after asking a question about it and me answering the question. So I gently took her hand and guided her through just some real simple thought experiments that showed her how a lizard population could split and become two separate species and then how it could go from cold blooded to warm blooded simply enough, which would have certainly been a change in 'kinds'.
She seemed thankful for the gentle and personal instruction. So I can't say it's guaranteed that they're unswayable. But in five months, that was the only one I saw.
2007-01-29 14:50:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you that those who denounce evolution don't really bother to look at the evidence that exists. This is not surprising because the average person is not particularly intelligent and is rather ignorant and narrow-minded. I don't claim to be an all-knowing genius, but from what I have seen, I find evolution to be quite plausible. Those who still doubt that a huge body of evidence exists supporting evolution should seriously look at the following website:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
It provides answers to many of the topics that have been debated COUNTLESS times. These answers are all supported by reputable references to scientific studies. In other words, thousands of researchers have dedicated their lives to studying this issue in an unbiased, objective manner. Those who sincerely don't believe the evidence probably don't understand it.
2007-01-31 00:27:31 · answer #5 · answered by RyVu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's safe to assume that people who post anti-evolution nonsense may not necessarily believe their own words, but rather may enjoy stirring up debate (or ridicule).
I don't doubt for a moment that there are people who take the Bible as God's word in a literal sense, because I know a couple of them. Still, as a devout Christian, it's difficult for me to refute evolution, and I don't see a conflict with my faith.
2007-01-29 14:49:57 · answer #6 · answered by oaxaca_so_long 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you read S.J. Gould's comments at Talk origins he sums it up perfectly. The weight of evidence for evolution is such that only the ignorant or the bigoted can deny it. There is just no way anyone can actually look objectively at the evidence supporting evolution and believe it doesn't happen.
2007-01-29 14:47:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. Because they aren't willing to learn. They're so afraid because it causes questions in their religion and they can't handle it. So they immediately retreat into the "You're wrong". They don't actually want proof. They want to say that you're wrong. Nothing more.
2007-01-29 14:50:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably. they just want to pick a fight, and when you fight back they say "oh, he's arguing, that must mean i have a point, and therefore i must be right!" i didn't tell you logic had anything to do with it.
i just satisfy myself with the fact that over 99% of scientists assume evolution is true. if some people don't want to accept it, then fine, less people for my children to compete with for spots in college. :p
2007-01-29 14:48:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Xians are too stuck in fairy tale land for your 'facts' and 'data' and 'irrefutable proof'... it's called magic you hippie! God is magic and he makes magical things happen!
Evolution is as true as 2+2=4.... but to a xian 2+2 can equal 12,000 with a little Jesus Magic!
2007-01-29 14:55:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋