In their written comments the audience made statements such as "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact", and "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence".
Now that i agree with completely. Evolution is just a theory, nothing more.
Now i know a lot of the poeple are going to say things along the lines of "What a crock this bible malarky is" but evolution is a bigger crock if you ask me.
In their written comments the audience made statements such as "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact", and "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence".
Now that i agree with completely. Evolution is just a theory, nothing more.
Now i know a lot of the poeple are going to say things along the lines of "What a crock this bible malarky is" but evolution is a bigger crock if you ask me.
So what's your theory then, and what is it about the evolution theory that you have a problem with?
In their written comments the audience made statements such as "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact", and "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence".
Now that i agree with completely. Evolution is just a theory, nothing more.
Now i know a lot of the poeple are going to say things along the lines of "What a crock this bible malarky is" but evolution is a bigger crock if you ask me.
So what's your theory then, and what is it about the evolution theory that you have a problem with?
Well i'm a Roman Catholic creationist.
GOD created the heavens, Earth, Man and then Woman.
But just because i am religious doesn't mean i am close minded to the evolution theory. quite the oposite actualy. i've always had a keen interest in science. oh us human beings are fickle creatures.
In their written comments the audience made statements such as "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact", and "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence".
Now that i agree with completely. Evolution is just a theory, nothing more.
Now i know a lot of the poeple are going to say things along the lines of "What a crock this bible malarky is" but evolution is a bigger crock if you ask me.
So how do you explain the fact that we are different from humans who lived five hundred years ago. Bigger bodies, different speech, different values. Hey we evolved.
Joel wrote:
Marcus wrote:How can you not believe in evolution. It's happening all around you.
How come we still break bones? People must have been breaking bones since the dawn of time through one reason and another - surely that's time enough to "evolve" stronger unbreakable bones for instance.
Fossils can be created in the right conditions in 24 hours and the things tyhey use to work out the age of fossils are so wrong (thousands and millions of years out in some cases) that it is impossible to understand correctly the age of some of these fossils that "prove" evolution.
.
I'm sorry that is just bunk. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. Look around you. Everything is evolving constantly. To ignore that evidence is burying you head in the sand and ignoring the facts. The reason it is like saying the world is flat is because that is what the church insisted for many years against all intelligent opinion.
Our bones have evolved off course. People haven't been breaking bones since the Dawn of time. There were no people for the first few billion years of the life of the Universe. Animals with bones have appeared very recently in the life span of the universe.
Now i know a lot of the poeple are going to say things along the lines of "What a crock this bible malarky is" but evolution is a bigger crock if you ask me.
I'm willing to accept that the theory of evolution is just a theory, but it's at least got some sound scientific fact to support it. But to you a book written 2000 years ago by humans barely on the brink of civilisation which has since been handed down and down and translated in and out of different languages is more valid?
And since this is a religion debate, I might as well make my usual point; if God is watching over us and is in control of our environment and our development, then he knows that the last time he said 'hi' was in a time when these facts couldn't be accurately recorded in an irrefutable form. He also knows that if he dropped in today, that his existance could be recorded beyond all doubt for eternity. Given that so many people doubt he exists, wouldn't that be a good idea?
Since he's the big powerful guy and we're the little plebs, why should we have to seek to find God when God could so easily show himself to us? If God exists, the way in which he is making us reach him is akin to a parent loosing their young child in a shop, and then waiting for the child to find them instead of them going to look for him/her even though the parent is supposed to love their children and is much better equipped to reunite them then waiting for it to happen the other way round. Yet if God exists, this is exactly what he's making us do - doesn't seem very loving to me.
Ah, yes, but we're back to the faith problem. It would be very easy for God to do that, if he was about, but it would render faith as a concept rather pointless. The idea is that we have to have faith regardless of all other evidence that he does, in fact, exist - we have to use our free will to make that choice. If God came down and waved his arms about and said, "Look! Here I am!" he'd be forcing our hand. Sorry, I didn't explain that very well.
Anyway, I think some of the problems arise because of the nature of the word "theory". In popular terms, a "theory" means something which hasn't been proved, just a vague idea. In scientific terms it's quite different. For example, we have a Theory of Gravity, but no-one's going to deny that gravity exists. As I understand it, a theory in science is something which explains in a coherent and almost incontrivertible way the information which we have to hand at any given time - ie, evolution explains why there used to be some animals which have gone extinct, why some animals in certain climates and surroundings seem to have adapted to them, it explains, even, modern genetics and how traits are passed down from generation to generation. In science, a theory is a theory and always a theory until it's proven wrong.
Now, in maths or physics, you can have "laws", because they're mathematically provable (I stress the word mathematically). You can write an equation which will prove a law or theorem (the latter isn't the same as a theory, incidentally). So Pythagoras' Theorem (a squared plus b square equals c squared) or, as all good GCSE Physics will recall, Hooke's Law, relating to the elasticity of springs. A "law" is however not empirically better than a "theory", they're just two words of describing what, in popular terms is essentially the same thing.
So when people say of evolution that "it's just a theory, it might be wrong", they misunderstand what the word "theory" means unfortunately. Evolution exists. It's happening right now. Why do you think polar bears are white and grizzly bears are brown? They've evolved to fit their circumstances. It's rather more compelling than the supposition that, in 4004 BC, some omnipotent being decided to create them all on a whim, and then buried some confusing bones deep underground to confuse us.
Not that God doesn't exist, but unfortunately if he does he has nothing to do with this. Either directly or through "intelligent design", which is another way of saying the same thing.
