Questions for Creationists.?

Question

Can you stop saying evolution is only a theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

Can you stop saying new species aren't being formed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Can you stop asking where the missing link is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Answer 1

No to all. Creation is where I stand.

Answer 2

Evolution IS a theory. Any educated person will agree that it happened, but any Christian will disagree with ONE point of that theory: we do not believe that animals evolved from plants, or that humans evolved from animals. We do, however, believe that today's plants evolved from prehistoric ones, today's animals evolved from prehistoric ones, and Homo sapiens evolved from early humans.

New species are being formed, and old ones are dying out. That's been happening since the beginning of time.

What I don't understand is this- no one seems to care whether or not animals evolved from plants, but it seems so important to many scientists to prove that humans were once animals. If the second is true, the first must also be true; and to me at least, it just doesn't make sense that creatures who run around, eat, drink, and be merry could be related to trees. Plants don't feel, or exhibit behavior. Animals do. Animals don't think and reason. Humans do. It isn't that hard to imagine that plants were here, then animals were here, then humans were here, and each of the three diversified over time.

Answer 3

You should read the footnotes also. This is the 15th footnote from the first link you gave: "A scientific fact is obtained by objective observation or measurement, usually under controlled conditions. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty in science. Facts can have error bars due to measurement errors."

"In science, current theory is the theory that has yet to be falsified, that is there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it." Look at http://home.bluemarble.net/~heartcom/moreinthebeginning.html

The whole business that a land mammal the size of a wolf evolved into the whales of today... Come on... all based on similar traits about an inner ear? I know that Christianity seems funny to some, but do you really believe that?

I believe in animals evolving and adapting to a point. Look at man for example... Look at how much we have evolved over the last 200 years. But to say that a single celled organism slowly grew up to be me... well that is just a little far-fetched for me. I guess either way you need some faith. I have faith in God and evolutionists have faith in scientists to make the correct leaps and report those leaps of belief.

Of course wikipedia is contantly evolving and is not a 100% reliable source due to hacks.

Answer 4

I have no problem with evolution. But it IS a theory. A widely accepted theory. A working theory. A dang good theory... but a theory.

Consider the definition: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Answer 5

micro evolution may be a fact but evolutionary leaps are just theory. No proof of an animal ever gaining a conscience or the ability to ponder and invent. Animals do not know right and wrong. A bear does not know it is wrong to kill a human in his camping tent, a bear does not have a conscience. No animal has sat and pondered I don't want to live in this forest anymore I think I will invent a car and move else where. I believe Humans were given this ability from the start they did not evolve into it.

Answer 6

The links that you posted are ridiculous. Flys having different colors is not another species. It's called adaptation. Not evolution. There is no mid species between Human and ape. All the bones that have been unearthed are either humans with deformities because there is so few fossils found and the others are apes that have eroded through some decay. A jaw bone tells me nothing. If there were transitional fossils from species to species then there would be billions of them in the ground that we would have found. Wikipedia is not the authority. You believe Wikipedia over the Scriptures when the Bible has been around for more than 2000 years.

Answer 7

If I want to worship my beanie babies, what's it to you? No, I will not stop loving God and trying my best to love others. I am a Christian...and I have never said any of the above things. I believe that my faith in Jesus can co-exist with evolution, new species and whatever else you want to mention. I'm happy with it. Why can't you believe what you want and be happy?

Answer 8

After watching alot of FOX news I've learned something important- If you say something again and again, it becomes true.

Global warming is not man made

Stem cell research is murder

believing in evolution requires the same type of faith as believing in Jehovah

Answer 9

Man, they won't stop spouting their already-answered-1000-times little questions b/c they have their heads in the sand.

They can't hear what we're saying because they are so scared to examine their own faith systems, that when you present them with facts that they would have to think about and examine, they panic and shut down and try to shut you up because deep down inside they know their stand is based on sand, and too weak to stand some serious analyzing.

I don't think we need to stop trying to speak the truth. But don't get too frustrated when they show they aren't ready to hear the truth yet.

Answer 10

"In the study of biological species, the "facts" include fossils and measurements of these fossils. The location of a fossil is an example of a "fact" (using the scientific meaning of the word "fact"). In species that rapidly reproduce, for example fruit flies, the process of evolutionary change has been observed in the laboratory"

Evolution in fruit flies is an example of evolution within a species which Creationists for the most part do not deny. It is the idea that mankind evolved from an ape like ancestor that came from a primitive mammal that came from a reptile that came from an amphibian that came from a fish that Creationists dispute.

Fossil "evidence" only proves that remains of a creature that existed an unknown period of time ago exist. All of the presuppositions that people bring to that evidence are all theoretical in nature.

"There is debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over geologic time. While some evolutionary biologists claim that speciation events have remained relatively constant over time, some palaeontologists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have argued that species usually remain unchanged over long stretches of time, and that speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium"

If by speciation you mean that a wolf can evolve into a dog that is a reasonable conclusion that has major support. But the idea that "new species are being formed" isn't what the debate is about. The debate is whether a species of animal can be transformed via random mutations and natural selection into a totally different type of animal. The idea that a hummingbird once had a fish as a distant ancestor is not supported by any credible evidence but only through speculation about what could possibly have happened if a myriad of circumstances had worked out a specific way over millions of years.

Your link to "transitional fossils" is another attempt to take evidence and view it through the lens of preconceived notions in order to find a way to get it to support the THEORY of evolution. Some items on that list may be valid in that they show how changes within a species have resulted in a dramatic difference over time. But they don't show that vast amounts of useful information were added to the genetic codes of animals by random chance mutations culled by natural selection. People can only speculate that such a thing may have happened and there is a lot of evidence to show that statistically it is very unlikely to have occurred.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/143/

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead. Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters." This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it!

Adding to the complexity and sophistication of design, the genetic code is read in blocks of three bases (out of the four possible bases mentioned earlier) that are non-overlapping.

Moreover, the triplicate code used is "degenerate," meaning that multiple combinations can often code for the same amino acid-this provides a built-in error correction mechanism.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/256/

"Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up of 100,000,000,000 atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."

The "simple cell" turns out to be a miniaturized city of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design, including automated assembly plants and processing units featuring robot machines (protein molecules with as many as 3,000 atoms each in three-dimensional configurations) manufacturing hundreds of thousands of specific types of products. The system design exploits artificial languages and decoding systems, memory banks for information storage, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error correction techniques and proofreading devices for quality control.

An elegant design is more than the parts themselves: it involves information. It requires information input external to the design itself - and the deliberate involvement of a Designer.

The Darwinians cannot explain the origin of life because they cannot account for the origin of information. The technology that provides language - semantics and syntax, for example - is quite distinct from the technology of the ink and paper it may be written on. The physical features of the circuits in a computer provide no clue about the design of the software that resides within it.

Answer 11

I agree with you but wiki isn't your best source.....

People PLEASE understand the terminology of what a "theory" is in science. If you choose to make a REAL arguement that people will take SERIOUSLY do a little research.