Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 22:00:52 12/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 25, 2001 at 21:55:20, Russell Reagan wrote: >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 :) If you believe that God speak only english. To me, it is Adan and Eva, maybe the typo is in Adam :-) >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. You are mixing religion and science and that is not serious way of working scientifically. >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. Of course not! most of the christian world already do not reject evolution. In fact, I was surprised to see that in US some groups still rejects it. >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 :) It might sound a fairy tale is you think that a chimpanzee is that different than a human. Regards, Miguel > >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.