It is amazing how people are like sheep; if a scientist says it's true, then it must be true. One thing I can't get over is the law of Biogenesis which states that life comes life, not life from non-life. If the Earth is billions of yrs old, it's magnetic filed would of been as strong as a magnetic star -- highly unlikely
2007-03-08 06:19:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Defender of Freedom 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
You're talking about changes in the shape of life occuring over the course of 3.5 billion years. So it's quite plausible, and it is also well attested by the evidence.
What I find laughable is that we have access to the entire geologic and fossil records, which are testable evidence of evolution, and primitive minded people won't believe it, but they will believe magical tales of gods, angels, demons and devils without a shred of proof.
Some children simply refuse to grow up.
2007-03-08 14:15:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well there is a lot of evidence you know. Here is my list. There is more, I just tried to stick with the easy to understand ones.
* Fossils - the order can be determined by stratification alone (no radiological dating) it is unarguable and life started simple and got more complex. Here is a simple chart to show what I mean: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html
* Anatomical similarities between species.
* Chemical similarities between species.
* Mitochondrial DNA regressive studies. - This comes only from your mother and the only changes to it are through mutations. These mutations occur at a known rate, and converge world wide 150,000 years ago give or take. If Eve (6000 years ago) was the only female, it would be almost identical world wide. It is not. The flood gives a second bottleneck that matches the facts even less well.
* Geographic distribution of related species. Meaning related species are usually near each other.
* Wisdom Teeth - there isn't room on your jaw for them anymore.
* Your little toe - totally useless. Nice intelligent design here.
* Your appendix - totally useless now but it does digest cellulose in other species.
* Your inner eyelids - They don't even work now, but they do for lots of other animals like house cats. Bet you didn't even know you had 'em.
* Vestigial DNA - meaning chromosomes that we have but don't use, but that are used in other species. We have several that other primates use but are totally useless to us.
* The fact that we share so much DNA among species
* There are no wild milk cows. They evolved through artificial selection and are totally man made.
* Different breeds of dogs, cats, livestock.
* Viruses and bacteria evolve quickly and you can actually see it. This is why you need a new flu shot every year.
* Your tail bone. It is even not that uncommon to be born with a tail.
* Goosebumps - this would be useful if we had fur because it fluffs it and makes more insulation. For us it is worthless.
* The hair standing up on your neck when you are frightened. Animals use this to make themselves look bigger. Doesn't work when you walk upright and don't have fur.
* The fact that humans have gotten measurably and heritability taller since the 1600s
* The fact that humans jaw have gotten measurably and heritability smaller since the 1600s
* The fact that humans little toes have gotten measurably and heritability smaller since the 1600s
* Human lower back problems. Your back is intelligently designed to have support from your shoulders.
* Transitional fossils - here are several lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
What have you got?
2007-03-08 14:16:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Alex 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
The theory i.e. the mechanisms involved might be difficult to understand-perhaps even laughable to some who fail to grasp its complexities, but what about the indisputable fact of species evolution? You can't laugh at a proven fact.
2007-03-08 14:17:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Talking snakes and donkeys, virgin birth, rising from the dead--all so much more believable--especially since there is no proof of any of it. Evolution on the other hand has lots of evidence that even you could see and study if you wished. Actually, you did make me laugh but not in the way I think you intended.
2007-03-08 14:17:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Zen Pirate 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Creation teaches that we were molded by invisible hands out of dirt. Then the invisible hands blew on us and we were animated... That's infinitely more ridiculous than anything evolution claims. Don't forget, evolution has evidence to support it. Neither creation, nor intelligent design have that
2007-03-08 15:10:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Silly scientists. I'd rather listen to the other "explanations" not based on reality.
We came from incestuous relations of the sons and daughters of a woman made from a guy's rib--although no rib was needed for the guy--who also was tricked by a talking snake and caused the guy and herself to be punished by having sex and reproducing outside of a magical garden.
2007-03-08 14:19:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Evolution is a fact but it is not an atheistic concept like some would have you think. Evolution was Gods method of creation. Who the hell are you to limit God and say that he couldn't have used evolution to his benefit.
2007-03-08 14:15:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nope. Is something that actually has bases, fundaments, many proves, and a solid background. Is it perfect, nope, but it has it’s good premises, and as I said, is a solid theory pretty much.
But can you say the same about religions and God?
Show me one REAL solid base that can sustain any religion and/or the existence of God.
I dare anybody to do so. And please, go to national TV to show it if you have one, because you will become famous.
2007-03-08 14:22:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dan D 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
If those who believe in evolution would investigate the history of it-they would be ashamed of themselves. Its really a lame attempt to steer potential believers away from the Bible.
This idea has grown so far away from its original suppositions it is actually funny.
2007-03-08 14:17:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by John S 3
·
1⤊
1⤋