Replies

The only thing that has been proven is that which is observable. MICROEVOLUTION or changes and variations within a species has been proven. MACROEVOLUTION such as fish becoming reptiles or apes becoming humans has NEVER been proven. Although scientists have HANDFUL of what they say are transitional fossils, there is not one PROVEN transitional fossils to support it's claim that one species has changed into another. The evolutionists have been playing with a stacked deck in the fossil record for years now and unfortunately for them, they are now being called on it. One of my favorites in the fossil record is "Nebraska Man." The constructed an entire ape/man charicature of him around a tooth they found. It turns out that it was the tooth of a pig. What is really amazing is that many evolution text books still list this as a transitional fossil. I really can go on for those who want to know more, but I will save it. The theory of evolution is taught as if it were the theory of gravity. We have solid support for gravity. It has been observed, measured and documented. MICROEVOLUTION has met that test also. MACROEVOLUTION does not meet the test, nor can it ever. There is really no way to ever construct a proper model because everything must be done based on assumptions that can never be empirically proven. Creationism is a belief and Evolution is a belief. Science itself came into being out of philosophical roots. Speaking philosophically, I believe creationism makes the most sense. If MACROEVOLUTION is true, there is no moral reason for our existence and no moral consequences. That in itself is very attractive becasue it's gives us freedom to live any way we want to without repercussions. We are really no better than the cockroaches we step on. We need not worry about laws or hurting one another, or helping one another because after all, it is survival of the fittest isn't it? We mustn't lose our edge. I believe that our existence has purpose, just as life itself has purpose. It is much more than blind chance and the collision of molecules. I applaud science, but I think sometimes people really need to do some DEEP thinking. How can one not look around and notice intelligent design. Now going back, you really expect me to believe that a few clueless molecules collided by chance and then later mixed up a pot of primordial soup and brought life into existence? Soup is GOOD food ;). When we break it down to basics and use a bit of simple reasoning, Creationism looks much more attractive.

When we break it down to basics and use a bit of simple reasoning, Creationism looks much more attractive.

Of course it does. It makes you feel special. It's why many people are into religion. It's attractive. You find a niche. However, ,just because it is a nice sounding belief doesn't make it true. In fact, just the opposite. By the way, what are you breaking down into the basics? What simple reasoning are you using?

I believe that our existence has purpose, just as life itself has purpose. It is much more than blind chance and the collision of molecules. I applaud science, but I think sometimes people really need to do some DEEP thinking. How can one not look around and notice intelligent design.

Evolution does not exclude purpose...That's ignorance perpetuated by Creationists.

Micro-evolution is like measuring the distance between each step I take (2 1/2 feet) and it can be well documented.

A scientist can use a video recorder and watch me as I walk to the grocery store a few block away. He is able to document that my movement of 2.5 feet per step is able to get me to my local grocery store.

To prove his theory, he takes a few still images. One is at my home at 5:23 PM and another is taken at 6:01 PM when I arrived at the store. He knows the distance between my house and the store, and using my walking speed, can easily demonstrate that I can walk that distance in that period of time.

Now this same scientist has spend time to research my history. 10 years ago, I lived in New Mexico but today, I am living in Minnesota.

This scientist does not know how I moved between New Mexico and Minnesota, but he has a theory of how it was done.

He can compute that in 10 years, it was very possible that I could have walked the 1,000 miles between the different locations. Actually, I drove the distance in only 2 days, but he has no idea about my car.

A scientist will evaluate the facts presented to him and present a theory that can explain the known information. As he learns more information, his theories will change to adapt to the new information.

If this scientist learns that I had a car at the time, and it can move at the speed of 55 mph (ok, 70 mph when no cops around), he will adjust his theories about how I traveled between New Mexico and Minnesota.

What are the facts in this simple example?

1) I can walk at the rate of 2.5 feet per step.

2) Still images demonstrate that I do move between locations.

3) I moved from New Mexico to Minnesota. The actual dates are not recorded, but we have pictures taken 10 years apart showing the change in locations.

Even if the current theory of evolution is wrong, scientists are working with the facts provided to them.

My hypothetical scientist may conclude that I actually walked the 1,000 miles between New Mexico and Minnesota. He would be in error, but his analysis was based upon factual information.

Now you may think that this demonstrates how stupid scientists are. On the contrary, a good scientist will adapt their theories as new facts are learned. Eventually, a good scientist will get so close to the truth, that the differences are trivial.

And with luck, no scientist will tell the cops my exact driving speed!

Micro-evolution + time = Macro-evolution.

Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

Using my example of a walking speed of 2.5 feet per step, it can be very well documented that white males can walk between locations around New York city.

In 1849, a huge number of white males showed up in California during the gold rush.

Using the rate of 2.5 feet per step, is it possible that these white males actually walked between New York and California?

And with my example of a car, the scientist may not know about ships transporting people between New York and California.

Micro-evolution + time = Macro-evolution!