Given that particle to people evolution requires changes that increase genetic info and all we see is the sorting and loss of genetic info.
Given this observational data, it seems to me that it is irrational to dogmatically claim that evolution is a fact.
2007-05-22 08:52:19 · 33 answers · asked by HAND 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I agree with you, but for a different reason. The theory of evolution does not have an answer for the concept of irreducible complexity. Take, for example, the human eye, the process of blood clotting, and the motor that drives flagellum. In any of these things, scientists have discovered that for any of the processes to work, all steps and chemical reactions must be in place and in the exact order, meaning that if one step was missing, the process of sight, of clotting, and of movement would not be possible, and natural selection would cause the would-be function to not be passed on in the next generation. Evolution fails by it's own rules.
2007-05-22 09:23:54 · answer #1 · answered by pook 2 · 4⤊ 13⤋
I don't understand why people look at this question as if there are only two answers. If you say Evolution is not accurate than for some reason you are automatically lumped into those that believe in God. Science is about seeking answers based on research. The truth is that as we delve deeper in the genetic make up Evolution as it is understood today kind of falls apart. That does not mean that there then must be a God it simply means a better model must be created to demonstrate the origins of species.
2007-05-22 09:02:53 · answer #2 · answered by aslan186 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ironically, one of the original things that drew me to Jehovah's witnesses was that they took a strong stand regarding evolution and published what I thought at the time was a great book about it - Did Man Get Here By Evolution or By Creation?
Since I quit them in disgust several years ago, I felt it necessary to throw out everything they'd taught me and start from scratch. In the course of objectively doing that, I've learned a lot about what has been considered the evolutionary process. I don't think enough is known to really conclusively say that it could have come about without a creator. I don't feel the need, actually, to require that it's the only alternative explanation. In fact, I can accept that I may never find out.
2007-05-22 09:02:43 · answer #3 · answered by Suzanne 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree with you - science contradicts itself more than the Bible for sure. 2nd law of thermodynamics is that everything breaks down, not gains momentum. Inertia states that nothing can move without being pushed - there is only reaction. So what set our atoms in motion? I'll tell you: God - a living being in a higher dimension/plane that we cannot even comprehend but by faith.
The only "evolution" we see is adaptation in order to survive. What caused a primitive animal to "need to evolve" into a human to survive? We as a race are breaking down even. We are far less immune to disease than our ancestors. Shouldn't we have "evolved" an immunity to common viruses by now?
2007-05-22 09:15:32 · answer #4 · answered by sleepy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evolution has, well, you know, evidence. Genesis has, well, the unbacked opinion of some guy who wrote it and then died thousands of years ago.
Would you trust a bank that's been tested by outside sources for reliability and ethics or a bank recommended to you by some guy who wrote a book about the bank and then died a couple hundred years ago?
Why is it rational to do that about a theory, even if you have no physical grubstake in it?
2007-05-22 09:18:03 · answer #5 · answered by Muffie 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
God is the word and what happened thousands of years ago is true and faith is all I need. It is irrational to say evolution exists but consider this. The Big Bang was a theory dehrived years ago to explain the creation of the universe. Isn't it possible it only happened thousands of years and not billions of years ago and that God was the one who created the small matter particle in the void before the Big Bang?
2007-05-22 08:57:20 · answer #6 · answered by Adam Chambers 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Like Totally Dude!!! John
2007-05-22 08:55:14 · answer #7 · answered by moosemose 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you think evolution is irrational think about how irrational it is to believe that a sophisticated senient being capable of creating galaxies and including the 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe DIDN'T evolve from a simpler life form ?
2007-05-22 09:07:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
If I take the string "atgcgt" perform a copy mutation giving me two strings "atgctgctg" and the original string and if then natural selection eliminates the original string "atgcgt" I end up with more information than when I started. How even moronic creationists cannot understand that simple concept is beyond me.
You are basically saying we never see copy mutations which is an absurdity since they are seen all the time.
2007-05-22 08:57:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
When some throws springs and gears into a clothes dryer and pulls out and completely assembled, working swiss watch (without camera tricks) then I will buy evolution.
2007-05-22 09:01:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Not as irrational as trusting a book men wrote hundreds of years ago about events that alledgedly happened hundreds of years before that
2007-05-22 08:56:50 · answer #11 · answered by rosbif 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋