What's with this outlandish claims that the theory of evolution claims that life came from non-life?
Evolution is the development of life, not the beginning of it.
Why do creationists constantly confused the completely different topics when making a dig at so-called "evolutionists"?
2007-04-11 21:11:53 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"Evolution pre-supposes that there is no God involved in the process of life."
That is not true. Nowhere in the theory does it say "God does not exist". What it does prove via various forms of evidence - fossils, genetic studies, etc - is that life was not created in its current form. How that effects your faith is based on your ability to reconcile the differences. To instantly discard scientific evidence, however, is simply stupid.
2007-04-11 21:29:13 · update #1
Micro & macro evolution are pseudo-scientific buzz words. Considering they have no place in scientific study you'd think people would have realised this already...
2007-04-11 21:35:53 · update #2
Vox Populi: What you just said is nonsense, as I already said evolution theory doesn't say that God didn't create the world.
2007-04-12 02:00:04 · update #3
From what I've seen here, it's only the fundimental types, both religious or otherwise, that seem to be convinced that evolution theory attempts to disprove God, not the rational thinking ones. Since when did the actions of the few outweigh those of the many?
2007-04-12 22:47:20 · update #4
Congrats, JD, you just proved my point entirely. Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing.. gawd...
2007-04-14 08:06:18 · update #5
Ignorance... possibly wilful ignorance... but more likely just ignorance.
2007-04-11 21:15:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 13⤊ 1⤋
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php
Let us suppose that millions of years ago a cell was formed which had acquired everything necessary for life, and that it duly "came to life". The theory of evolution again collapses at this point. For even if this cell had existed for a while, it would eventually have died and after its death, nothing would have remained, and everything would have reverted to where it had started. This is because this first living cell, lacking any genetic information, would not have been able to reproduce and start a new generation. Life would have ended with its death.
2007-04-14 08:59:36 · answer #2 · answered by J D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just don't understand how anybody with half an IQ point, could possibly try to criticize evolution, when anybody with a third grade science education should not be able to help but see the Bible's creation account is nothing but mythology.//////////////// I have read that evolutionists define macro evolution as just a lot of micro evolution happening over a short time span. 100,000 years for example.
2007-04-12 04:23:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, it's embarrassing when they do that. I've read entire essays written by creationists that do nothing but talk about the odds of life starting from non-life. The most annoying thing is that these people have already established a strong opinion as far as how they feel about evolution, and they don't even understand what it IS.
2007-04-12 04:21:11 · answer #4 · answered by . 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Because they know that if they stick to the subject, they'll have no argument whatsoever.
So, in true creationist form, they obfuscate, lie and change the subject.
Luckily, their tricks are so childish and puerile that a simple re-direction back to the subject at hand usually results in their time-honored argument of putting their hands on their ears and shouting "is not! is not!" and running away.
Yes, they really are that pathetic.
2007-04-12 07:04:33 · answer #5 · answered by Yoda Green 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Amen Sister!
2007-04-15 06:26:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of them have probably never heard the word abiogenesis. Some of them even think the big bang theory and evolution are one in the same.
2007-04-12 04:20:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Even Kent 'Prison Wife' Hovind doesn't get it, here's a blurb from his page:
"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution). "
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000
2007-04-12 04:36:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Because they tend to be uneducated and so they have to resort to superstition to explain their surrpoundings.
5000 years ago these very same people would have happily sacrificed things just to see the sun rise the next morning.
They fear that their control over the world is being lost, so they have to resort to all manner of distortions of the truth in an attempt to confuse normal people.
2007-04-12 04:25:55 · answer #9 · answered by Ali 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I'd love to discard the evidence if there were any. Why do you evolutionists act as though the definition of science applies only to that which you think will somehow disprove that God created the earth and all life in it?
2007-04-12 05:33:04 · answer #10 · answered by vox populi 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Evolution means "unrolling."
2007-04-12 04:15:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋