2007-11-12 05:26:16 · 32 answers · asked by DogmaDeleted 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
**Poppy.....Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them
2007-11-12 08:33:26 · update #1
Magley64** well spotted
2007-11-12 08:38:26 · update #2
Clearly a simple virus is not as complex as a mammal, but it does have much more properties associated with living things than properties associated with inanimate objects. For example viruses reproduce, evolve, contain genetic information, and have a life cycle. These are characteristics in common with a pet dog, not a pet rock.
Even today, the study of chemistry is divided into "organic" and "inorganic" chemistry. This is a throwback to an era when it was believed that only living things could create the carbon bonds that define the difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. This has been discredited in 1828, when Wöhler synthesized urea. The year 2002 marks another milestone in science, with man's first creation of a virus, a living thing, from nonliving material.
2007-11-12 08:43:53 · update #3
You would be amazed (and horrified) to learn some of the things Creationists claim to justify their religious dogma. The funniest part is that they can't agree on anything other than the basics. Their "theories" (Translation: unsubstantiated claims) contradict one another all the time and utterly deny observed reality.
2007-11-12 05:35:51 · answer #1 · answered by Scott M 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
I saw some really bad creationist arguments on this. Dinger you probably just heard it wrong back in school, as long as I remember the earth has been 4.6 billion years old.
Experiments have been carried out under conditions that would have occurred in drying pools of water on earth billions of years ago and simple atoms that would have been present formed the many of the molecules we are made of. Evolution is more than just a theory at this point.
Evolution can be seen in action with peppered moths in urban and rural areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
A rare orchid has shown to have evolved the ability to grow in harsh conditions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7081306.stm
Also none of the advances in modern genetics would ever have been made if evolution was not true.
From what I see from the answers from creationists here, they just can't understand something or don't know enough about and so regress to believing a fairy tale, they must really be that gullible.
2007-11-12 08:43:35 · answer #2 · answered by Neil G 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They feel comfortable with their bronze age myths. If you convince them that the world wasn't made 6000 years ago in a manner that even iron age Hebrews probably found comical then they can't take the bible literally. If the bible isn't taken literally then they are out in the scary world of having to think for themselves and taking responsibility for their own morals and actions, with no certainty of Jesus coming to save them. So show them some kindness, and don't scare them with facts.
2007-11-12 10:46:06 · answer #3 · answered by numbnuts222 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nah they aren't, it's mostly just peer pressure, and lack of time of reviewing the evidence.
The ones who don't think scientific testing and methods are a good way to work things out, and have no Christian/Creationist friends are the ones to worry about.
2007-11-12 07:59:06 · answer #4 · answered by Ben 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They are, but they think we are gullible for accepting evolution. Mostly, creationists don't understand the relevant science. Professional creationists like Hovind, Gish and Ham misrepresent science, and their target audience are people who want their beliefs confirmed. The professional creationists sound scientific enough to convince their audience. Those of us who understand the science know what a load of bovine excrement they are speaking.
Edit: I read the other answers after posting this comment. I rest my case.
2007-11-12 05:44:53 · answer #5 · answered by lilagrubb 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I think they're more wishful thinking than gullible.
Because of their ego they refuse to analyse the evidence that we all come about from lower lifeforms. It's not as glam as popping into existence magically, but it's what evidence points to whether they like it or not. Because they don't like it, they bury their heads into the sand while evidence surrounds them.
2007-11-12 06:05:41 · answer #6 · answered by Equinox 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Define your terms
2007-11-12 06:32:47 · answer #7 · answered by alan h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure exactly what your mean, but to believe that all of the intelligence that had to go into any animal, man or plant occurred without a plan requires more faith that believing that an intelligent and loving God made everything for the people he created. Think about it. Do you really think that left to itself nature would come up with all the intricacies that we see all around us--newborn babies, trees, birds, rain,etc? God loves us and that is why he cares for our needs. If you get to know and trust him, you will find that he cares for you too.
2007-11-12 05:44:53 · answer #8 · answered by mrshkc 1 · 3⤊ 5⤋
What do you mean gullible? When I see the temperature graphs that your scientist present to argue global warming then I know that I am right and you are wrong. The temperatures 6000 years ago fluctuated so much I dont think any thing was alive then. Which proves that the earth was without form and void just as the Bible says.
2007-11-12 05:39:11 · answer #9 · answered by Tommiecat 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Just as gullible as the noble committee for giving Al Gore a noble prize I guess.
Dont you think scientists can be pretty gullible, too?
2007-11-12 05:34:42 · answer #10 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋