Title: "Best Critique of Evolution You Will Ever Hear" Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Sep 1, 2017 Author:PNN Post Date:2017-09-01 17:33:27 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:16909 Comments:71
I have been saying this for decade or more. Evolution only works with in species and there has never been a species to species change.
Faith is faith. They claim science when in fact it is no different than religious faith. Creationism should be taught right along with evolutionism because both are just as plausible as the other.
The problem with creationism is that it pretty much cannot be proven. I've considered it a "default" theory, which can be embraced when no other theory, such as evolution, is found to be satisfactory.
If one is to embrace creationism because of lack of satisfactory proof of evolution, then a logical question is, if proof is a requirement to believe, then where is the proof of creationism?
The narrator asks if evolution observable, demonstratable, repeatable and quantifiable, but those requirements are completely lacking in creationism. To be fair, one must judge both by the same measure, and creationism most certainly fails on all 4 points.
So far as I know, evolution theory does have more to explain than has been explained thus far, namely how a new species can arise that has more genetic coding than the species it supposedly evolved from. On the other hand, science is claiming that much unused genetic material exists in plants and animals. For example, chicken DNA supposedly has coding for growing teeth. I would consider DNA coding for teeth in chickens to be evidence in support of evolution. I also read that Bananas, have about 50% more DNA material than us humans do, in spite of being a far simpler form of life.
I do understand why it is important for bible-believing Christians that creationism be the explanation for the origin of life, and it's because it's the only way man (us) can have an immortal soul existence. If all life is simply a complex biochemical reaction, and man evolved from animals, then we are the same as animals and face the same fate as animals. We live and die, gone forever. A very bleak thing indeed.
My personal understanding and outlook on the matter allows both for evolution and an immortal soul existence, without any conflict whatsoever. The human race may well have evolved from apes and lower life forms, including bacteria without compromising us as immortal soul entities. And frankly it makes a huge amount of sense. And, Ironically, it does allow for both evolution and intelligent design. I consider it possible that it is a combination of the two.
The problem with creationism is that it pretty much cannot be proven.
I do understand why it is important for bible-believing Christians that creationism be the explanation for the origin of life, and it's because it's the only way
If there were any conflicts with science and creationism then people would abandon it.
But there aren't.
Evolution is a theory that has been disproved and for which there is zero zilch nada no evidence.
I understand why it is important for atheists to cling to evolution and other wacky fantasies. They don't want to be accountable and they reject the truth.
Also we only reproduce after like kind. For example bananas never turn into people.
The absence of evidence is not evidence.
A horse and a donkey produce neither a horse nor a donkey, but a mule or a hinny.
Centuries of inbreeding produce... uhhh... royalty.
I can neither prove the Theory of Evolution absolutely correct or incorrect based on scientific evidence. Nature offers oddities such as dolphins and whales being mammals.
Wouldn't the observation that we only see creating like things be evidence that things don't change into an entirely new creature, plant etc.
Short answer, no, it would not.
#1) Evolution doesn't teach that a newly evolved creature is "entirely new", but rather carries a strong majority of the characteristics of it's parents. It would be very similar to the species from which it descended, but somewhat different. For example, evolution does not teach that an ostrich can lay an egg from which a squid could hatch.
#2) But more to the point, in order to show that evolution can't happen by observing a lack of cases where offspring qualify as a new species, one would need to qualify what percentage of reproductions are expected to be a new species in nature, and then apply sound math statistics to show that it is mathematically improbably for evolution to be true. For example, if evolution should occur in 1 out of 20,000 reproductions and 500,000 were observed with no new species generated, then one could possibly argue that THAT is mathematical evidence that evolution does not occur, at least at a rate of 1/20,000.
But even then, it's possible that environmental factors could play a role that, by some un-theorized or unknown mechanism, increases the odds of evolution occurring.
