No single piece of evidence proves that evolution happened. We know evolution happened because of a convergence of mutually supportive evidence from numerous fields such as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
For example, we know from human history that humans bred Wolves to create the dog species yet there is no single fossil proves that dogs came from wolves.
Does this show that wolves didn't come from dogs? Of course not because archaeological, morphological, genetic and behavioral "fossils" converge to reveal the concestor of all dogs to be the East Asian wolf.
A few holes doesn't discount mountains and mountains of mutually supportive evidence.
2007-09-01 07:41:51 · 7 answers · asked by Patty 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
lets hope that this was simple enough for some creationists to understand.
2007-09-01 07:51:44 · answer #1 · answered by crl_hein 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You say that all this leads to an "unmistakable" conclusion. What you ignore is that not all scientists agree with that "unmistakable" conclusion. I know that evolutionists dismiss these scientists as weird, Christians, etc. to disprove them. But apparently not all scientists share your conclusion that all of these things point to an "unmistakable" conclusion.
I have seen arguments for an against in each of these fields. Without drawing conclusions, I have seen many good scientists disagree with your conclusion.
And as is pointed out often here, all scientists believed the sun evolved around the earth . But the small dissenting voice, Galileo was correct. Sometimes the truth comes from the small voices when the larger community has become so convinced of a truth that they lose the ability to be objective.
Pastor John
2007-09-01 15:00:07 · answer #2 · answered by pastorjohn59 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your suggestion that science can lead to an "unmistakable conclusion" that creation is wrong (that evidence supporting evolution disproves creation) reveals your own deep misunderstanding of science.
The most common error in science is believing that multiple observations (however precise and wide-ranging) can confirm the validity of a theory. David Hume, one of the founders of scientifc thought tell us that, however many observations we make, we cannot be sure that we will in the future never make an observation that refutes our pet theory!
Then we can look at Popper, one of the great minds in the philosophy of science. He clearly demonstrated that the more 'likely' a theory is to be true, the more trivial it is. Science can NEVER "prove" something is true, it can only disprove it.
NOTHING in the theory of evolution disproves the hypothesis that the universe is the work of a creator (or God if you will). Maybe God had a really big firecracker and he set it off to celebrate the beginning of his creation process. The simple fact is that science can never prove OR disprove the existence of God because the variable is unobservable!
2007-09-01 15:05:20 · answer #3 · answered by KAL 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're right, and even when we do find links, each link we find only creates MORE "missing links." For example, we find one link between a million-year-old species and a modern species. Now, because we have found one link, the one link CREATES *two* more missing links. (The ones between the million-year-old species and the new link, and then again between the new link and the modern species.) The only way we could avoid this is if we are somehow able to miraculously find every single descendant of a million-year-old fossil. And that's not possible, so there will always BE the argument that there are "missing links".
2007-09-01 15:05:43 · answer #4 · answered by Jess H 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I was just skimming through some of the questions asked by a young girl on here who was upset that people bring up her age and disregard her thoughts because she's young. She asked several questions in the R&S section regarding evolution, basically regurgitating the same misconceptions others put forth (where's the half-monkey, half-human remains, how long is a "cycle" of evolution, why aren't we all walking on the half/half skeletons since they all died out, science shows similarities in species and that just shows God made them similar, science is based on faith, etc, etc). She exemplifies so many others on here who absolutely REFUSE to look at the science and instead seek out those who support their preconceived notions so they can become more firm in their beliefs. Darwins friend is right.
Edit: Who do you think is more likely to "go crazy and kill someone", the asker of this question or Captain Bozo?
2007-09-01 15:03:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
So called mountains of evidence are not evidence. Your mind will twist facts to make you see what you want. You see piles of pond scum and think "Wow! The basis of life! I see the same thing and think "Wow! Algae, an amazing creation that provides this earth with oxygen. We see the same thing, yet my conclusion is correct.
You forget, that wolves AND dogs are both canines. Not cows or birds.
Nice try, next time study up before you try to disprove Creation, or better yet, open your eyes and see how false Evolution is.
The worst thing about Evolution is that if you believe it, then racism is okay. I, as a white person am more evolved and therefore better than a black person. Or, Hitler is better than a Jew. Evolutionist are justifying the Holocaust by their sick and twisted religion. What makes this worse is public schools system teaching this propaganda. You can't figure out why some kid will kill his class mate. Why should he not? Is that not what evolution is? The strong survive and live to pass on their genes. What a crock of bull.
2007-09-01 15:02:05 · answer #6 · answered by Captain Bozo 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm afraid you're wasting your time.The only ones who give any credence to evolution claim that god brought it into being.
2007-09-01 14:54:25 · answer #7 · answered by darwinsfriend AM 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋