Much props to Zach and GT40FIED.
I used to have a good Christian friend. He always liked debates on issues and basically wanted to convert me, however he wasn't ever forceful about it....so I humored him. He handed me this little pamphlet one day from a Christian "scientist" talking about evolution and why it's not real. A couple pages later I started to realize the fundamental flaw of his argument, and consequently many Christians' arguments, against evolution. Definition.
Now this guy went on and on and on about how evolution can't exist because you don't see frogs hopping around with limbs growing out of their foreheads. But he did say the Bible supports change. He had some quote from somewhere in the Bible where God (actually some guy who claims to be writing God's words) says that He created creatures with the ability to change over time. Now slap me silly and call me your favorite blonde bimbo or tell me that isn't the basic definition of evolution.
This jackass (pardon my insult) defined evolution as spontaneous mutation rather than the painstakingly slow process of slight, and usually unnoticeable in a few lifetimes, change. Humans have been on this planet for a mere blink of an eye in cosmic and evolutionary terms. Think of time as a tangent. When you see a straight line, can you tell me whether it is merely a straight line or if it is part of a circle? You can't tell me the answer without knowing more information. Draw a circle, zoom in billions of times, then tell me if you see a circle or a straight line. We live on the straight line of a circle or arc.
Why do snakes have feet? Yep, that's right, many snakes (if not all, can't remember the amount) actually have the skeletal structures of feet wrapped up within their scales. Now why would a slithering reptile have any need for the bones of feet attached to its skeletal structure if it hadn't been a walking creature at some point?
Quote:
anyway, i just don't think it's even logical for evolution to have taken place. if evolution has/had/is taking place, there would be INFINITE numbers of strange animals and creatures walking around that are halfway between two different creatures... really, the only "in-between" species that have been "accounted for" have probably been synthesised... archaeologists found little bones from a bunch of different animals/creatures/people and put em all together to make a skeleton of a "transitional species"
|
Now tihs just tells me you have no understanding of what evolution truly is. Evolution expressly prohibits the INFINITE number of strange animals and creatures walking around that are halfway between two different creatures. Things change slowly over time, they don't just leap partway from one creature to another. There is NO halfway point if you look at today's creatures. They are constantly changing, there is no beginning or end for any specific creature. You can't say "Well here's Monkey A, he's the base model monkey. And here's Monkey B, now as you can see Monkey B has mutated himself to have longer arms, stronger teeth, and a cuter smile. And here's Monkey C, Monkey C has half as cute a smile, half as strong teeth, and half longer arms than Monkey B.....he's still working on becoming a B monkey." That's just ridiculous. The theory of evolution is based upon the principle of advantages and disadvantages. Mutations that are advantageous will propagate through the species while mutations that are disadvantageous will die out. Objects that do NOT have the advantageous mutations will die out as well since the one WITH the advantage will take over.
And technology being the difference between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens? Haha, you obviously completely ignored the skeletal differences that were specifically mentioned. Has technology changed our skulls?
Science is never 100% correct. In fact, science rejects the very possibility of being 100% correct. You can't make such a claim for religion, can you? Religion is never 100% correct either. I'm not sure that science hasn't disproven things in the Bible, but it also hasn't been able to offer any support for much of it either. And claiming that science has proven portions of the Bible doesn't mean the whole thing is true. Would you say the movie Titanic with Leo was a documentary? Sure it was based upon much fact but had much fiction added as well. Here's a basic scientific princple we can take from mathematics: It only takes 1 failing condition to prove a statement false, whereas it takes ALL true solutions to prove its truthfulness.
b