View Single Post
Unread 05-12-2003, 12:38 PM   #29
utabintarbo
Cooling Savant
 
utabintarbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sterling Hts., MI
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Yo-DUH_87
...

I respect science, I respect scientists, but trying to explain creation with a bunch of hooey is getting kinda old.

I accept most of the "laws of science," or so they have been defined by humans. But saying that we all are distantly related to the monkeys in the zoo and the (stupid) cat I cheerfully call "fluffy" is a bit bizzare Not to mention the pig I just had for lunch today (sorry Uncle chester!)
While evolution is yet "just a theory", it is one that is based upon scientific methodology, and can be (at least partially) proven (natural selection re: microbes and fruit flies would be most recognizable examples). I suppose "proof" will have to wait until time travel is available, or we see one species actually mutate into another species. Given the short attention spans of us impatient humans, the former is more likely.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on what? Legends passed down over thousands of years. Then compiled into "book" form, then re-written and re-written untold numbers of times before the printing press made it (somewhat) more consistently repeated. That, and the emotional reactions of those who wish not to be associated (in any distant way) with "animals". How does creationism explain dinosaurs, australopithecines, or carbon-dating? Before you answer, please review previous posts re: faith as a valid source of knowledge.

And BTW, I am sorry to hear about your Uncle Chester!

Bob
__________________
Sarcasm is yet another of the free services we offer!
utabintarbo is offline   Reply With Quote