have a grasp on basic science vocabulary. Ask any of them what the word "theory" means in the context of science and they will give you an incorrect definition.
Somehow, despite an obvious lack of science knowledge, they have done the work to falsify the entire theory of evolution. I find this highly unlikely.
2007-11-27 01:08:11 · 20 answers · asked by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
what gets me is how they keep going on and on about "man from monkey" without really understanding evolution.
I don't understand how it's easier to believe that some supernatural spirit being scooped up a pile of dirt and breathed life into it to create man, then reach in his chest, rip out a rib, toss it into some mud, breathe life into it and create a woman so the man won't be lonely... surely "man from monkey" would seem slightly more logical all things considered. after all, a monkey has a head, a torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, heart, lungs, brain, blood and so on... dirt is just dirt.
The thing that gets me is they want us to prove evolution, even though we see micro evolution on a daily basis. we observe it, we can recreate it... YET no one OBSERVED god create man, we have not seen god RECREATE the process by scooping up dirt in lab and breathe life into it. So the very things they ask evolutionist to offer, they themselves cannot offer in their own defense.
2007-11-27 01:14:58 · answer #1 · answered by Pitchy 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
First, I will say I believe in evolution..then I will ask the same question of Atheists How big a grasp do you have on science? ..I see many here that claim all the fields of science as their domain. I see many science "mistakes" on their side also! Audacity runs rampant on all sides of this forum.
2007-11-27 01:25:26 · answer #2 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Another intelligent person that has mistaken an allegorical argument for a literal one.
Just as the the anti-abortion argument has nothing to do with the sanctity of life but rather the dirtiness of the sex that created that life,the creationist argument has nothing to do with science but rather with the blow to the ego that believers would have to take if they accepted the fact that they were just an accident of evolution and not purposely handcrafted by their god.
2007-11-27 01:24:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Your question truly makes you look silly. Hows that for a grasp? Are you truly so narrow minded as to think that everyone in science is a atheist? You need to come back to reality. Instead of wasting time, space and energy on these silly questions, why not simply provide some of the 'facts' that you claim to have that actually would give some creditability to your 'theory'? Would that not be much more productive?
2007-11-27 01:25:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Doesn't really matter--at the heart creation via the big bang is a faith based assumption--creation via a diety is a faith based assumption. Whether the arguements for or against are strong or weak--intellectually satisfiying or intellectually immature-the discussion is moot. Believe it or not--either position--once you make the basis assumption--what follows at least with folks with a good mind--logically derive from that basis assumption. Attacking points of logic that derive from the basis assumption have no meaning for either strongly held faith based assumption for all of those points that are attacked (for or against) derive logically from the basis assumption. The basis assumption is unprovable one way or the other. The best one can hope for in this duel of religion vs not religion is to sway those who do not strongly hold to the basis assumption.
2007-11-27 01:16:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
How come evolutionists have the audacity to say they know creation is a lie....Somehow, despite an obvious lack of science knowledge, they have done the work to falsify the entire theory of creation. I find this highly unlikely.
2007-11-27 01:13:15 · answer #6 · answered by Kenan 2 · 3⤊ 7⤋
If Darwin were around today he would be astonished at how what he wrote was taken out of context to make an argument for evolution. Darwin was a believer in God until his dying day. Theory is an unproven assumption. You believe it because you have faith in it. The difference between you and Creationist is, they are willing to admit they have faith, you are not. If you were able to prove what you believe the argument would be over isn't that right?
2007-11-27 01:23:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
Well put, Pitchy.
"Man came from monkeys? That's crazy! Everyone knows that man came from dirt. It's obvious, ain't it?"
2007-11-27 02:10:46 · answer #8 · answered by David Carrington Jr. 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I realize I will be written off as "ignorant" by calling myself a creationist here, but I would simply like to point out the inherent stereotype/prejudice inherent in this question. All creationists are not the same.
2007-11-27 01:21:06 · answer #9 · answered by monkeymonkey143 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Not to mention that any quote that they do from biologists or other scientist are, at best, taken out of context. I would say that they are willingly misquoting, but that would make then liars as opposed to just ignorant.
2007-11-27 01:17:01 · answer #10 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋