Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais
Then I would challenge you to demonstrate evolution to me with a simple experiment. Go outside, set up a video camera that I can connect to from my home, and train its focus on a pile of rocks lit by sunlight. Then all we have to do is wait, and the rubble should eventually become life. After all, that's what the theory of evolution claims happened, so surely you can just demonstrate it again, right?
If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. All that can possibly result from such an experiment is rubble, potentially dust if we waited long enough. If we add design to the equation, however, presto! Life! Thank science for the addition of information!
Well there's one fallacy, right there. Evolution is not the theory that accounts for the Beginning of Life. That's completely different.
But then we could talk about how Scientists are working to replicate such a thing. They have already found that cell membranes can form spontaneously from their component molecules to form spherical 'bubbles' in the correct conditions. We also know that DNA can operate on an incredibly simple level. I won't go as far to say science can "prove" how life started, but we're slowly connecting together the dots.
You're suggesting that rock (not what kind of rock, but lets say calcium carbonate in general) is going to spontaneously gain atoms, deconstruct its molecules and recombine to form a rabbit. You have some huge misconceptions about what Scientists put forth as the beginning of the life - they start incredibly small.
By the way, since when does the majority dictate what is true? If a society as a whole unanimously decided that 1+1=892365892375892738947293857892345789023748923798523, would that make it true? Of course not. I think here I can refer back to the reference to Galileo in the thread about homosexuality.
Furthermore, as a biology teacher, how do you explain the existence of animals such as the beaver or giraffe from an evolutionary standpoint? The way I see it, they would have had to have been created as they are today in order to survive at all. Evolution claims small changes happened over time, but if that's true, these animals couldn't have survived at all.
Anyone who supports evolution either does so blindly or hasn't looked at the ridiculous assumptions made by the theory itself. I do not state this as an insult, but as a fact, no more or less charged than "1+1=2."
The Giraffe is like the standard explanation of Natural Selection. Giraffe's ancestors favoured longer necks to reach areas where food was under less competition > Long neck Giraffe Ancestors were more likely to breed and pass on their genes > alleles for longer necks become more prominent > overall necklength slowly increases as the generations pass.
I have a degree in Biology, I teach it, I still study further in my own time. How can I possibly be looking at this 'blindly' when you're refuting Science that the vast majority of Scientists agree on. In the UK knowledge of Evolution
and Creationism are both covered by the curriculum. I believe I've been dealt a fairly balanced hand when it comes to information.
Interestingly, I don't know any Christians IRL who outright deny Evolution or believe in Creationism as in The Bible.