Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Do I Have to Believe Evolution?
350 Answers
Well,For 116 years it graced the halls of the National Museum of Wales at Cardiff—the fossilised skeleton of a 200m[illion]-year-old predator that once cruised the Jurassic seas,” says Britain’s newspaper The Guardian. “Then curators at Cardiff decided the remains of the ocean-going carnivore ichthyosaurus needed a brush up—and realised that they had been taken in.” “When we stripped off five layers of paint we found it was an elaborate forgery,” said conservator Caroline Buttler. “It was an amalgam of two types of ichthyosaurus plus a clever attempt at fake parts.” Instead of disposing of it, the museum will put it on display as an example of a fake fossil.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Elderman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sith, I am glad you detected a little humour in my posting. I agree with you that Elderman does not have to believe in evolution, nobody does if they don't want to for whatever reason. Nevertheless the evidence for evolution is pretty overwhelming. Many things other than living creatures evolve, you may have noticed that motor vehicles have improved over time. That is a form of evolution as 'fitter' vehicles have succeeded less fit vehicles. My remark about the koran was simply to point out that you should not pin your beliefs to strongly to your religious texts as they have a habit of being re-interpreted when they become incompatible with currently accepted knowledge.
Elderman,//I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened.//
What an irrational train of thought. You find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution, which does carry a good deal of evidence, but you don't find it amazing that umpteen religions argue over what is supposed to have happened with not a smidgeon of evidence to support any of it.
Sith, we didn't evolve from apes. Read the posts.
What an irrational train of thought. You find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution, which does carry a good deal of evidence, but you don't find it amazing that umpteen religions argue over what is supposed to have happened with not a smidgeon of evidence to support any of it.
Sith, we didn't evolve from apes. Read the posts.
Cath, put it this way. If God made man in his image, I can only assume that God looks something like an amoeba.
Sith, they're wrong. Of course Muslims believe that Allah made man, just as is he now, but that he turned some people into monkeys and pigs. Perhaps you and Elderman should have a chat. That would be interesting. ;o)
Sith, they're wrong. Of course Muslims believe that Allah made man, just as is he now, but that he turned some people into monkeys and pigs. Perhaps you and Elderman should have a chat. That would be interesting. ;o)
Elderman - “I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened... the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.”
You are simply not correct on this issue. We know for a fact that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. We know this because of DNA sequencing techniques. We also know for a fact that the earth is several billion years old and that life in one form or another has existed upon it for slightly less time but that it too is measured in billions of years.
What science cannot yet categorically say for certain is how the very simplest forms of life (such as Protobionts) came into being. In that regard, 'cathfromsaron' is far nearer the mark than you are but as Naomi rightly points out, this doesn't do the 'God made man in His own image' argument many favours.
It is a scientific fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor. It is a fact that evolution has occurred. It is a fact that it is still occurring now and that it has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protobiont
http://www.talkorigin...q-misconceptions.html
You are simply not correct on this issue. We know for a fact that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. We know this because of DNA sequencing techniques. We also know for a fact that the earth is several billion years old and that life in one form or another has existed upon it for slightly less time but that it too is measured in billions of years.
What science cannot yet categorically say for certain is how the very simplest forms of life (such as Protobionts) came into being. In that regard, 'cathfromsaron' is far nearer the mark than you are but as Naomi rightly points out, this doesn't do the 'God made man in His own image' argument many favours.
It is a scientific fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor. It is a fact that evolution has occurred. It is a fact that it is still occurring now and that it has been observed both in the lab and in the wild.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protobiont
http://www.talkorigin...q-misconceptions.html
Sandy - “Bishop Usher of Armagh calculated that the world was about 8000 years old. If he's correct then this entire evolution business is a nonsense.”
Not quite true. Bishop James Ussher actually said that the day of creation was 23 October 4004 BC – so the world is only about 6000 years old.
However, I'm splitting hairs. If the Bishop is correct then I completely agree that this evolution business is just a lot of hot air.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
Not quite true. Bishop James Ussher actually said that the day of creation was 23 October 4004 BC – so the world is only about 6000 years old.
However, I'm splitting hairs. If the Bishop is correct then I completely agree that this evolution business is just a lot of hot air.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
Here is an intersting take on the search for the last common ancestor of all life on Earth.
http://www.newscienti...ary-megaorganism.html
http://www.newscienti...ary-megaorganism.html
If evolutionists lack explanations, why do they preach their ideas so loudly? Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature.
The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.
Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed that, mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.
The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.
Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.
Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed that, mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.
Elderman ..If by your reasoning the theory of evolution cannot be justified because it is not known exactly what intermediate stages there were in the evolution of every species, the you should throw your bible away because there is a lot less detail in that and there are far more contradictions than in the theory of evolution.
