As you won't stop when asked... I don't have an opinion on Evolution. I don't need to. Others far smarter than I have already done the work and published their research for all to see. Opinion only really plays a part where there are potential alternative views and with Evolution there aren't any. I would like to point out this is my thread, you are someone late to the party, and without anything to offer so far, if you want to stop the conversation stop responding! Why do you think that macroevolution is the only option? How do you know that there is not something else that is trapped behind the only option you have created in your mind? If you define something as true, how can it then not be true? Is that a good way to do science, is it a good way to do life. So I would be right in saying then that as far as you are concerned, macroevolution is fact because science says so? It’s a faith you have perhaps, I am not trying to be offensive to you I am just being as honest to you as you are being to me. Now you are pretty old, would you be about 40 perhaps? Would you think it healthy for someone my age to question what the …show more content…
Is it the best 13-year-old Darwinist controlling this thread, or a free open-minded thinker who dares question if the emperor actually does have any clothes on, it seems to me a child is demolishing the best Darwinists have, just by limiting their ability to invoke a God. Where is one scrap of evidence in your post that you can offer me, other than have this irrational view and fear of theists continually attacking what you plainly know little about, cease from that, tell me your evidence for macroevolution, evidence so strong that you indoctrinate your children with it. It’s a simple question that does not need you to continually skirt
M1, Introduction There is always a question which can’t be answered by scientist all of which relate to the perceptions of science as there is difference in how science is currently addressed. Also, people have different believes, opinions and interpretation of science in general. Questions science is currently addressing- cure for cancer?
I am amazed that Christians still use the worn-out " Irreducible complexity " argument which has been proven to be untenable and false every time they are brought up. This article is no different than the " flagellum Motor, " an organism seemed to be so complex it could not function if it were changed in anyway or if its " fine tuning " was off. Then came real science which had proven that you could remove part of the motor and it still functioned in one way or another and POOF!!!! another Christian apologetic false claim gone. It should be noted that this article is from the " Institute For Creation Research " which as the name implies is a Christian apologetic agenda driven organization which means nothing they say is credible or at
Answer – Phyllis Tickle borrows an amazing analogy from an Anglican bishop named Mark Dryer to describe an occurrence that happens around every 500 years in the church; in which, the changes of the culture forces the church evaluate beliefs and doctrines (Tickle 152). Specifically, Tickle says, “It is the business of any rummage sale first to remove all of the old treasures that belonged to one’s parents so as to get on with the business of keeping house the new way” (Tickle 535-536). Her point can be seen in the example of the church teaching the earth was flat and the center of the universe, only to find out through Copernicus’ theory; and the later the sailing of Columbus, that the earth is round and not the center of the universe (Tickle
Macroevolution however, refers to evolution on a much larger scale. Macroevolution refers to the evolution of groups larger than an individual species and concentrates on change over a much larger time frame. Macroevolution studies the change of species into a new type of species in contrast to microevolution which studies change within a
However, evolution is very important and should be taught in Biology classes because students need to understand how Homo sapiens evolve if they don’t believe in the biblical story. Everyone may not be Christian, so it’s important for students to get an idea or perspective of where we may have possibly come from. Whether it’s from the eyes of God or from monkeys it at least gives people a chance to choose what they believe, but as well as understand what they
Instead the belief revolves around the idea that natural causes are sufficient to explain everything that exists in the
Over the eras, many scientists have expressed concerns with Darwin's evolution theory and in "Was Darwin Wrong?" by David Quammen one can learn about the proof behind the theory of evolution. Many people do not believe in evolution due to an overall unawareness about the theory and religious upbringing. However, Quammen clarifies the truth behind evolution in his article. The article states five positions of evidence biogeography, embryology, morphology, paleontology, and the bacterial resistance to antibiotics discovered in humans.
One thing I found interesting is that the Big Bang is 96% IMAGINARY! Only 4% of it is real which is insane! Cosmology goes to the creationists because it cannot be proven. The final idea of evolution is Ethical Implication. Ethical implications is people from different points of view on evolution.
In another example of Brady’s misconception about his study of the bible and evolution, Brady says, “I say that these Bible- haters, these ‘Evil-ution,’ are brewers of poison” (70). Every one has their own faith in what they believe and Brady should not force people to believe in what he believes in. Brady is wrong when he is trying to get people think of evolution is wrong and his knowledge of the bible is right. He argues against the teaching of evolution because in the theory of Darwin about human transformation.
The Truth Behind the Rhetoric of Carl Sagan One of the largest debates known to modern man is that between creationists and evolutionists. Is human existence evidence of a divine power? Did humankind reach its current state on the reliance of genetic mistakes? Is it of any concern to know one way or another? In his insightful essay, “Do we care what’s true?
Students are encouraged to form their own opinions and think open-mindedly based on the information presented to them, yet in the topic of life’s origins, they are no longer being afforded this opportunity because of the ban on the teaching of creationism. Creationism should be taught in schools because it does hold validity with several well-respected scientists and utilizes evidence observed by scientific studies to accurately support its main aspects. Critics often dismiss creationism as a hoax that lacks serious thought and accreditation from accomplished scientists. However, several well-respected scientists agree with the theory of creationism as a rational explanation for the
Truth is often a term that is taken into consideration when one is verbally speaking, but most find it rather difficult to truly define truth. While every person can attempt to uniquely give their own interpretation to what the world regards as truth, the realm of philosophy presents several brilliants ideas about the concept. In general, the study of philosophy recognizes two truths: objective and subjective. Objective truth can be described as truth that has always existed whether one knows it or not, while subjective truth is dependent on the person’s ideas and feelings towards a reality. Influential and well-known philosophers such as Mortimer J. Adler and Plato have contributed thoughts that often present similar ideas about the definition
Imagine what would happen if we lived in a world where water was kept 8 feet off the ground and there was absolutely no way you could get it if you weren’t tall enough. Most likely, the short people would die off. The taller ones would multiply, and before long, instead of a population of people of all sizes, you would have a population of only tall people. Living things that are best suited, or adapted, to their environment survive and multiply. Those that are not, are unable to survive.
By saying that if you were to drop a stone, and it falls to the ground. Logically and scientifically explained it would be because of gravity. And you would not say that it was being pushed down by a God, just because we do not understand it. In respect to evolution, Dawkins replied. Dawkins replied to Lennox on his accusation that the principles of going from simple to complex is the belief of the atheist.
There is a big argument among the world discussing the issue of evolution verses creation. The evolutionists believe that everything has evolved from similar ancestors, and over time they changed into the different species we have today. Creationists believe that everything that is on the earth was put here by a higher being that put all of the complexity and variation of the animals that are here today. I believe that everything that on the earth today was created by an intelligent being because evolution is just a theory, evolution is no longer happening, and it is unscientific based on the scientific method.