Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 18:55:20 12/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2001 at 13:28:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >But take a look at chimps, gorillas and orangutangs, there is an obvious >connection there, you hardly need to know about genetics to see that. >The idea of a common ancestor is just logical, combine that with the survival of >the fittest principle and you have a pretty convincing theory:) > >What is "micro" and "macro" evolution? *Basically* micro evolution is smaller changes over time. For example, you start with one species of dog, and over a long time period you get several hundred species of dogs (but still dogs). Macro evolution is where you take dirt and get extremely complex living breathing humans. From a creationist (see below for more on creationism) viewpoint, micro evolution is scientific, and macro evolution is not. >The only alternative "theory" I know of is the story of Adam and Eva, and the >list of observations that disproves that story is endless. >If you feel you have some proof against Darwin I'd be happy to see it >(but then lets start a new thread somewhere else :). Her name is Eve, but that's probably just a typo :) This alternative theory is called creationism or creation science, and just as you would like to see some evidence against the theory of evolution, I'd like to see the evidence that disproves the story of creation, because I have never seen any. If you're really interested in learning the other side, and the evidence that supports creation science, I'd be happy to send you about 12 hours worth of audio that would give you a pretty good idea of where creation science is coming from, and plenty of evidence against macro evolution. Creation science is (as far as I can tell) just as valid a theory as evolution is. The only real difference as far as analyzing the two theories are that with evolution, there are holes, and with creation science, you can always fall back on statements like, "That's the way God wanted it to be...", "God made it that way...", etc. Personally I lean towards creation science because I am a Christian, and I like the evidence supporting creation science (I think it fits together as a whole better than the theory of evolution), but I find the whole debate very interesting. The bottom line for me is that the belief in creation science over evolution is not vital in determining my status as a Christian. There are two basic things you need to be a Christian, and as long as you have those, you can be wrong about everything else, and you'll still get into Heaven. I don't know of any group that disputes micro evolution (although there might be), and I believe the great debate is over macro evolution vs. creation. As far as "logic" that you pointed out, micro evolution makes perfect since, while macro evolution sounds just as much like a fairy tale as creation, so it's really just a matter of which fairy tale you like better :) Russell
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.