Creation vs. Evolution: I'm irritated
As someone who has a biology degree in university. Who has taken special interest in evolution. Who grew up Christian... I am better able than most (including more so than most PhDs in the sciences, it seems) to discuss the whole evolution vs. creationism issue. And frankly I'm getting tired of hearing non-sense and bull from people who think they know what the hell they are talking about. Specifically those who are incredulous that people talk about teaching creationism along side evolution.
Those that know (and there are few, even among "scientists"), if they are truly confident that there is nothing to creationism... aren't paying attention/are-more-clueless than they think. I have no problem with those that disagree with the theory. I don't agree... but people believe what they want. But if the theory really can withstand scrutiny, why would people have a problem with discussing another possible theory? Isn't science supposed to be a discussion? I'm not saying it should replace it. I haven't heard anyone say that either. But that both should be talked about.
What really irritates me is that those that are really critical (at least most of the media, it seems), have no idea what the hell they are criticizing. Most of those that read this and are critical would have no idea (for or against) what the evidence for this "myth" is.
Seriously ask yourself this question: What actual information do I know that supports evolution?
Do you know anything about how all the different kinds of dating (i.e. carbon dating, etc) work? Did you even know that there are more than one kind and all have the same problem? Do you know the evidence that supports this dating?
For example, how can life start randomly from inanimate objects? There's absolutely zero, none, nada, zilch, niente proof/evidence to even begin to show how it might possibly be.
Re-read the last two sentences as many times as needed. Go ahead... I'll wait.
In fact every possible test seems to show it cannot happen. The very definition of life is that it must come from other life. Sooo... why is it dumb to talk about both again?????
Go ahead... I'll wait for an answer.
--
ሰላም ዮሃንስ
Those that know (and there are few, even among "scientists"), if they are truly confident that there is nothing to creationism... aren't paying attention/are-more-clueless than they think. I have no problem with those that disagree with the theory. I don't agree... but people believe what they want. But if the theory really can withstand scrutiny, why would people have a problem with discussing another possible theory? Isn't science supposed to be a discussion? I'm not saying it should replace it. I haven't heard anyone say that either. But that both should be talked about.
What really irritates me is that those that are really critical (at least most of the media, it seems), have no idea what the hell they are criticizing. Most of those that read this and are critical would have no idea (for or against) what the evidence for this "myth" is.
Seriously ask yourself this question: What actual information do I know that supports evolution?
Do you know anything about how all the different kinds of dating (i.e. carbon dating, etc) work? Did you even know that there are more than one kind and all have the same problem? Do you know the evidence that supports this dating?
For example, how can life start randomly from inanimate objects? There's absolutely zero, none, nada, zilch, niente proof/evidence to even begin to show how it might possibly be.
Re-read the last two sentences as many times as needed. Go ahead... I'll wait.
In fact every possible test seems to show it cannot happen. The very definition of life is that it must come from other life. Sooo... why is it dumb to talk about both again?????
Go ahead... I'll wait for an answer.
--
ሰላም ዮሃንስ
posted by Selam at 9:17 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home