Creationism v Evolution

[metis]

So to sum it all up and to conclude, micro evolution is a proven fact, period. As for macro evolution, I guess I'll conclude with the statement that science itself, due to its self criticism and desire for absolute correctness, isn't convinced MACRO evolution is a fact.

Generally speaking, we don't differentiate between macro- and micro- unless something specific is in mind. IOW, evolution is evolution, and it is universally accepted within the scientific community worldwide. It's only in a few countries, and mostly outside of the scientific communities, whereas "macro-evolution" is not considered axiomatic, and that is almost always done under the guise of religion.

Literally every piece of evidence that can be put together rather clearly indicates that new species have been created over billions of years and that this process continues on today (Google "speciation" for examples). Human evolution has clearly been going on for millions of years, and if a 3+ million year old human were to walk into a room, most people would be confused as to what it is.

 

[Hawkins]

Okay all you out there, convince me. I was brought up Christian, recently looked at Islam but now questioning everything. If we have evidence of man's ancestors found at various places on earth how does this equate with religious doctrine? (Adam). I wonder about complexity of our bodys evolving over long time but....?

Evolution is a result of humans (scientists) working under limits. The public is confused as these limits are never explicitly expressed. It's driven by the need of modern humans that "everything must be explained". What limits evolution is that we don't have the length of time to predictably watch through the various stages of evolution from a single cell till a fully grown (say a mammal) organism. ToE doesn't even intend to build such a predictable model which is required in all other science. A predictable model is required because it reflects a set of governing rule behind the scene. Science is the discovery of such a set of governing rules.

ToE is also based on assumptions with some of them proven not the case. It's basically based on the assumption that no critical interbreeding between species which could possible affect the advancement of a species. This assumption says that genetic change can only be brought by evolution but not interbreeding. However, it is also speculated/evidenced that neanderthal genes are in humans. To put it in a simpler way, if humans are created as said, then they messed up with the neanderthals which had previously messed up with the chimps, then no one call say for sure whether the current human genetic information is acquired through evolution or interbreeding.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ToE is also based on assumptions with some of them proven not the case. It's basically based on the assumption that no critical interbreeding between species which could possible affect the advancement of a species. This assumption says that genetic change can only be brought by evolution but not interbreeding. However, it is also speculated/evidenced that neanderthal genes are in humans. To put it in a simpler way, if humans are created as said, then they messed up with the neanderthals which had previously messed up with the chimps, then no one call say for sure whether the current human genetic information is acquired through evolution or interbreeding.

^ Silly.

 

[Hawkins]

^ Silly.

Nothing is more silly than a one line (no, it's one word) assertion without any argument.