The rejection of evolution by religious groups (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) involves an ongoing, recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. Species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation in accordance with creationism, but since the mid-19th century evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.
Evolution is one of the most verified theories out there. I'd say it's no longer even up for debate among those with functioning brains.
Speaking of, anyone else hear about this one. Two variants of the same fish less than a mile apart, separated by impassible currents.
Evolution in the Deepest River in the World
I'm confused by the odd wording of the question. Are you asking what people would prefer to be true or what they actually think is true?
5 out of 5 have already voted for evolution.
Do they exclude one another?
Today, Christoph Adami at Michigan State University in East Lansing sidesteps many of these problems by analysing the origin of life from an entirely different point of view. The basis for Adami’s new approach is the idea that life is fundamentally a phenomenon of information. This allows Adami to ignore all the messy details of chemistry and instead consider life’s most basic properties as ones determined by the nature of information and the laws of physics that govern it.
...
The key idea in Adami’s formulation is that living systems do not exist in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium but somehow maintain themselves in a state that differs from maximum entropy by a deficit that is equivalent to the information they contain. A characteristic feature of living systems is that they can maintain this difference indefinitely.
Oh, but he does!
He is a fine caretaker!
Then why has he not replied to my initial comment that requested clarification on the question?Oh, but he does!
He is a fine caretaker!
How can creationist explain scientific evidence as in human fossils and cave drawings going back 60,000 years and further.
One argument I read from a creationist is when god created a tree, it would have rings in it the moment it was created. That is, creation of the tree would bring with it the built-in appearance of age. This far out explanation accounts for fossils, cave drawings and other scientific evidence.
Regarding most creation myths, yes, they are mutually exclusive. In essence, however, there are gray areas worth exploring. Was DNA created, the universe, the stars, the clouds, the rains, etc?
I'd say we have enough evidence to suggest nothing on that list was "created" unless we stretch the creation myth into meaning all of existence is a series of Simulations. That's not to say it can't be.
My most recent reading suggests that existence is nothing more than information.
Read more:
Information Theory And The Origin of Life
How can creationist explain scientific evidence as in human fossils and cave drawings going back 60,000 years and further.
One argument I read from a creationist is when god created a tree, it would have rings in it the moment it was created. That is, creation of the tree would bring with it the built-in appearance of age. This far out explanation accounts for fossils, cave drawings and other scientific evidence.
Is that in reference to your research of evolution or your abandoning your religious obligations?When it becomes an exact science, then, perhaps I'll pay more attention to the dating process...
Is that in reference to your research of evolution or your abandoning your religious obligations?
I didn't expect such an evasive answer I was only joking when you said you'd pay more attention to the dating process. Though it didn't quite fit because according to Rumpel's hate propaganda you're allowed to date..In reference to my search for truth...
I didn't expect such an evasive answer I was only joking when you said you'd pay more attention to the dating process. Though it didn't quite fit because according to @Rumpel's hate propaganda you're allowed to date..
When it becomes an exact science, then, perhaps I'll pay more attention to the dating process...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?