How can evolution be right?

Question

I do not believe in evolution because most of the body is designed in such a way that it would be impossible for it to slowly develop and must have happened through design. For example, the human eye is made up of several intricate parts, changing any one of them would mean the eye would not function. I don't mean not function well, I mean not function at all.

Another example of this can be seen in the human brain. It is said that if our brain was any larger, the electrical signals that carry signals from one part of the brain to another would take longer. Although we would have more 'computing' power, we would be less clever. Furthermore, if our brains were any smaller, the signals would travel faster from one part to another, but we would have less 'computing' power.

I am not religious in the sense that I don't believe in the Bible or any other faith. I do however believe there must be a 'design' to everything as any other explanation seems logical.

It may though be true that evolution does not happen over a long period of time, but in just one generation. Although even if this was true, surely there would be many different types of humans? How canevolution be said to be 'trial and error' or 'mutations' but only one type of each species dominates across the entire globe? i.e. an ant in England is the same as an ant in Australia.

Answer 1

This is known as 'irreducible complexity', and is simply overlooked by most evolution supporters... as are many other logical dilemmas with their theories. They won't tell you this in school, but it requires a leap of faith to believe in the Darwinian account of human evolution. Anyone who tells you it's based on factual evidence (and NOT conjecture) is either lying to you, or doesn't know any better.

Answer 2

On the eye: eyes first started as spots of light-sensitive cells. Later, other structures could develop such as cells that could perceive color, cells that could form a lens, etc. You start off simple, and build your way up, and eventually what you end up with is so different and complicated that removing one part would make it not work, because it has evolved to depend upon it. Make sense?



There are larger brains than human brains, I hope you realize. It has been shown that brain size does not necessarily affect intelligence. Besides, there are many factors that can affect how quickly the nervous syetm function, such as genetics and stimulant chemicals.



"I do however believe there must be a 'design' to everything as any other explanation seems logical." Really? So why don't you believe in it if it seems logical? LOL.



Evolution DOES occur over many generations. Small changes (mutations) can occur in single generations, but pronounced differences take much, much longer. You ant statement shows you are neglecting a few key things: 1.) Even within each country, there are several species of ants, not just one like you imply, and 2.) it is possible that a species may not change much if there is no reason to do so. For example, crocodiles and sharks are such excellent predators that they have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years, except for the small variations that divide them into several more specialized species.

Answer 3

Evolution is the explanation of how species eventually change or a long period of time. You need to take some biology courses, you speak like if there was variation in species (which there is), we'd all fail to survive. Many people have different eye conditions that impair their sight, but most of them can see to some degree.



You have no idea how the brain works. Nerve impulses travel VERY fast, and people (because of biodiversity) all have different head and brain sizes, does that make them less capable, thinking wise? Move your hand, and then move it back, that only took an instant for your brain to do that right? The frontal lobe of your cerebrum controls movement of voluntary muscles (etc. walking and speech), and that area seems to be the furthest from the brainstem and spinal cord. Some people have FASD, with much smaller brains, and they don't seem to be any more clever. Also, don't you think it's clever how we LEARNED to use tools and weapons, don't you think it's clever how we use science in every day life? What other animal is clever enough to survive better than humans? Dogs have smaller brains, sometimes my dog, even though trained, gets mixed up on words like "sit" and "lie down."



Have you ever compared ants in england and ants in australia? Dude take some biology courses.

Answer 4

First off, consider that eyes haven't always worked in the same way, some eyes (such as frogs) detect movement, others (such as some insects) only detect light and darkness. By the way, an ant in the UK IS different from an ant in Oz. Like the difference between carpenter, black, brown, and fire ants here in the US where I live. Merely because one form of insect can be found in many places doesn't mean that evolution is false, merely that long ago, individuals of an ancestor species ended up somewhere else, and their descendants adapted to the environment. You'd find that american carpenter ants wouldn't survive in the same environment as, say, saharan fire ants.



And there are many kinds of human, hadn't you noticed? Caucasians, asians, arabs, africans, native americans, and more cover this planet, what makes us all one species is our reproduction, we can interbreed without problems. We can do that because our adaptations have affected only our external physical adaptations, not our genes or chromosomes. If ants had the will, most of them could interbreed as well, but most often they end up killing each other instead.



Are you aware of fractals? They are shapes that dominate nature, thousands of iterations of the same basic shape make up clouds, mountains, your veins, your skin cells, everything. There is an underlying order to things, nature is self-organising. This can help explain eveolution, it doesn't disprove it in any way.



Our brain is the result of many millions of generations of trial and error on natures part.



How would you explain Rhinos? They have the same brain-mass as we do.



Brain size has nothing to do with computing power, efficiency determines that, think about a Jack Russel Terrier, trainable, highly intelligent animal. Now look at a Tiger, much larger brain, much less intelligent.

Answer 5

"changing any one of them would mean the eye would not function"



That's not at all true, sweetie. The working of the eye is changed all the time - rods or cones are misshaped leading to things like color blindness or an inabillity to see in low light. The eyeball itself can be the wrong shape, the lens can be wrong, the fluid in the eye can have problems. My sister has a problem with the neurological connection between eye and brain and can only see in two dimentions - but she's learned to compensate. A million things can be changed in the eye and are on a regular basis.



As for your view of how the brain works - you're parroting someone else and you don't understand. it really would take too long to explain the brain to you - take a class in neurobiology of neuropsychology some time - it's amazing stuff.



An ant in England isn't the same as an ant in Australia. Do some reading about the turtles in the galapagos islands.

Answer 6

Before I begin, let me say I am hardly the most qualified person to answer your question. Your best bet would be a biologist. I do however, have a good understanding of evolution/natural selection.



The things you have pointed out, such as the eye and the brain are actually good examples which help prove evolution.



Natural selection states that between generations of organisms, there will be small change. If two lizards with 20/20 vision mate, their offspring may have 19/20 vision, or 21/20 or whatever. If its vision is so bad that it can't see, it will be killed by other predators. If its vision is better - say it can see predators from further away - it is more likely to survive. When these things stack up, you get complex organisms. The best survive in the long run, mate with each other, and have better organisms.



Now to the brains. Before humans had the power to change their surroundings so greatly (towns, roads etc.), we lived in the wild. The humans with the most efficient brains would survive. Thus, we have the 'perfectly sized brain' right now. Any bigger back then would mean slow communication and death. A smaller brain may have lacked power.



So say we have two ancient humans, Oog and Ugg. Oog is your average human, but Ugg has longer, more powerful legs. Oog and Ugg are sitting around a fire when a large tiger bursts out from the forest. Both of them start running. Because Ugg has longer, more powerful legs, he is able to outrun Oog. The tiger catches Oog and eats him. Ugg lives to mate, and his offspring have powerful legs, just like him.



Another thing about natural selection. Organisms like the octopus have barely changed for a long time. Why is this? They work pretty well in their environment. There isn't much more they can do to survive than what they already have. Once an organism, like the human, or the octopus, has adapted very well to its surroundings, natural selection doesn't work anymore. Think of it like an elevator that gets slower as it rises. It might keep going up, but only really slowly. Our human species has proved itself to have adapted the best to the Earth. As a result, we dominate. We can adapt better than most things out there. And there are different 'kinds' of people. If you look at Nordic people, they have bigger builds. Their people lived in colder climates, and thus, over time, grew more 'insulation'. People that live in jungles are generally smaller, big people in jungles wouldn't be able to navigate easily. Humans are a very diverse race, we just don't realize it.



One last thing: the ants. Ants in England and Australia are very different. You've got your regular, run-of-the-mill ant up in England. But there's a nasty species of ant called the bulldog ant, or the jack-jumper ant. This one lives in Australia. Wikipedia it (running out of space) and you'll see the difference.



I really hoped this has helped you, but I recommend that you see a person who has majored in Bio for the best answer.



Cheers!

Answer 7

Although the human eye is an intricate mechanism, there are many examples in nature of eyes that lack many of the features of the human eye - and yet still function quite well for that organism (just not as well as human eyes). From the simple ocelli of insects through the light-sensitive organs of jawless fish, through a number of minor variations throughout the vertebrate lineage, we have a very good record of exactly how such an organ could indeed evolve in small steps over time.



As for the brain, who said that if the brain was any larger, we would be less clever? I am unaware of any quantifiable data to support this.



Larger brains would certainly require more development, and more metabolic energy to support the increased cerebral capacity - so until such traits give a significant reproductive advantage, brain size will remain where it is. Having a trait that is perfectly suited for the ecological niche of the organism is pretty good evidence for evolution, not against it.



Although there is only one type of human now, there were many others in the past. It appears to be just fluke that there's only species extant at the moment.



As for ants - there are thousands of different species of ants. The ants in England are in no way, shape or form identical to the ant species that make up the Formicid fauna of Australia. There are thousands of different variations on the ant theme, each crafted through evolutionary pressures as modifications on the basic ant morphology to suit each individual environment.



That ant morphology itself is just a variation on the Hymenoptera plan, with ants essentially being wasps without wings. These social insects have been very successful, but aren't even the only variation in the Order of wasps and bees - in which there are thousands of different varieties of solitary and parasitic forms of wasps. Each of these species is also formed through evolutionary mechanisms as slight variations from that one type of insect characteristics.

Answer 8

I can easily understand, from what I have learned, how evolution takes place little by little over millions of years. You can imagine, can't you, how the working eye could develop and change and continue to change a little at a time until we get the eye we have now? I don't understand what you are saying, about one part of the eye not function if you changed one of them. You have no idea, it is clear, how the eye evolved... so probably you shouldn't be speaking on this subject. You are probably repeating something you heard someone else say.

I differ from most people who believe in evolution in that I believe that it is guided by God through directing mutations to occur to help the creature survive. Creative mutations. But it still took millions of years. I don't know anyone else that has this belief exactly. It doesn't seem so hard to understand that this could have been the way it happened!! Maybe you would like to share my idea.

Answer 9

If the eye was changed or a part removed, it would not function as a HUMAN eye. However, many species have less sophisticated eyes than we do and they get along just fine. Fish, for example. On the other end of the spectrum, hawks and eagles have eyesight that is many times more powerful than ours, yet we don't consider ourselves slighted because of this. The "eye argument" is a weak one because species are able to survive with any amount of vision ability, which shows that animals are able to excel at any point in the evolution and development of eyesight. It's meaningless to imply that we would be rendered handicapped if one part of the eye was changed.



And there WERE different types of humans. Ever heard of neanderthals?



BTW, an ant in England is NOT the same as an ant in Australia. There are literally thousands of types of ants.

Answer 10

Denial of evolution is based upon ignorance, dishonesty or both. Partial eyes work.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html



The statement about the brain is patently false. The sperm whale has a larger brain. The major limit on the size of the human brain is determined by the size of the human pelvis.



Ant's in England are not the same as ants in Australia. There are numerous, vastly different groups of ants (14,000 species, over 19 subfamilies).

Answer 11

This is an argument from ignorance as the evolution of the human eye is explainable. Your argument about the brain is just another claim from the standpoint of incredulity.



"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.



Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.



In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. "

Answer 12

The reason 1 species (humans) dominates over the entire globe is because humans migrated. The evolution itself took place in 1 location, and then people moved out of that region. Neanderthals are also believed to have co-existed alongside humans for a part of time, so clearly there were several different "mutations" leading to different characteristics, and 1 of those "mutations" was not as suited to life (seeing as neanderthals became extinct).

Answer 13

You may think this, but you are wrong.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye



Evolution is right because all the facts support it. Not some, not many, but all the facts.



If you do not understand how a fuel injector works do you declare that internal combustion engines are not real? If you want to understand how an engine works do you go ask a bank manager? No. You go ask a mechanic.



If you want to find out about evolution go ask a biologist. They will tell you that evolution is a fact and the cornerstone to the modern understanding of biology.

Answer 14

the human eye example isn't used that often by ID advocates any more, because even they admit it's weak. it's easy to model ways the eye (human or otherwise) could have evolved, we can see many intermediary stages... technically humans are one, our eyes aren't exactly great compared to many other animals.



the eye is just a lens which focuses light onto the retina, where different wavelengths are detected. what we see is the picture put together by our brain, it doesn't actually exist, it's just how the brain processes sensory input. the eye evolved from 'eye spots' (ocelli) which had no lens but could detect light, we can see these in many invertebrates.



did you know our eye is actually backwards? for light ot reach your retina it has to pass through the nerves which will take the information detected by the retina to the brain. those nerves then have to bend back around and pass through the retina, leading the the 'blind spot'.... where we can't see anything and our brain has to fill in the gaps!



we would have far better eye sight if our eyes had just been 'designed' the right way round. if someone was designing them, they certainly weren't that intelligent... really i just doesn't make sense.



what does make sense is the eye evolving as an outgrowth of the brain. it explains perfectly how it could have evolved backward, and because organisms with an early eye (ocelli etc), even backward ones, were selected for over organisms without one, it explains why the more efficient eye didn't evolve in many vertebrates.



(although the eye is the right way round in cephalopods. maybe other vertebrates were just failed attempts and god made octopus in his image)



just because something is complicated, doesn't mean it doesn't have an explanation, you just don't know it, often other people do, sometimes they don't. we don't have an innate right to have all the answers. "i don't understand how this came to be" doesn't equal "therefor someone must have created it"... it just means you don't understand.



as for your idea on the brain... our brain isn't lager, it's just the size it is... so what's the issue? it's limited by natural selection for efficacy (and squeezing through birth canals... ask your mother why our brains aren't bigger!).



and your last point... honey go read a book. an ant in england is nothing like an ant in australia... in any patch of soil in australia you can find many very different types of ants! i'm australian, and trust me, england has nothing on us as far as ants go, we do variety, right up to huge biting ones and tinny whiney stinging ones (and the one's that eat your house, though technically... not ants)



humans evolved once in africa and got lucky with proliferation.

Answer 15

years ago people believed that the earth was flat, but no matter how hard they believed in this theory...the earth was and still is round. evolution isn't a matter of belief, it's been scientifically proven, which means it's a fact and not a subject of faith.



there are fish that are native to north america (can't remember which breed) in an isolated lake inside of a cave in mexico that have developed the ability to see in the dark...but their cousins in the US haven't developed this ability because they don't have the need to. evolution right there. proven...

the best arguement i've heard about evolution came from my brother who is studying to be a youth minister. i, being the skeptic in the family, asked him what he thought about evolution. his reply, "i think it's stupid, of course evolution is real. why can't christians concede that God could have created life with the ability to evolve?"

Answer 16

An ant in England is *not* the same as an ant in Australia.



I'm not going to bother with a long involved argument with you but I will say this...



If we *were* "designed" then why do we have the appendix? It is essentially a redundant organ that in other mammals (specifically herbivores) processes Chlorophyll from plants.



Our appendix is small, underdeveloped and non functional. One day, human beings will probably be born without them, why? because we are evolving beyond the need for it.

Answer 17

Regarding the human eye, there is a whopping blind spot which no sane engineer would put there, and additionally, why do people need glasses?



Regarding the brain, your argument is completely nonsensical.



"It may though be true that evolution does not happen over a long period of time, but in just one generation"



No, it is extremely long periods of time. Large-scale mutations in single generations are usually fatal.



"an ant in England is the same as an ant in Australia."



No, it isn't. There are many different types of ants in both places, and other animals unique to both places.

Answer 18

The eye argument is bogus. There are species living today that show every evolutionary step in the development of the mammalian eye. There are functioning eyes with no lens, with no retina, with no optic nerve, etc. And none of them is incomplete. They each serve the organism that has them, just perfectly, just as their Designer intended them to do. The evidence proves conclusively that biological evolution is a natural process that occurs. therefore the question to ask is - How can my biblical interpretations be right if they contradict objective reality? Especially considering that they also contradict the biblical interpretaions of most Christians??

Answer 19

"because most of the body is designed in such a way that it would be impossible for it to slowly develop"



Oh really? You know this? No, you don't. You don't have a background in evolutionary biology, so you're speaking beyond your knowledge.



You're using Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity argument, which has been shown to be wrong countless times, and is purely an argument from ignorance fallacy.



Please Google "Argument From Ignorance Fallacy."

Answer 20

There are many different species of different animals around the globe that are the results of evolutionary development. Different species of ants are different because they need to meet different requirements to survive within their own environments, but they all evolved from a common ancestor. There ARE different types of humans, but not the way you're thinking. And before you mention it, chimps live at the same time as humans because they evolved from a common ancestor but happened to evolve differently than we did.

Answer 21

Your example of the human eye is fallacious. Type "evolution of eye" and read about it. I would bet this is so for your argument on the brain as well. Chimpanzees have smaller brains that allow them to do certain tasks better than humans can. It's a trade off. I believe your rejection of evolution is mostly because you don't want to see yourself as an animal.

Answer 22

lol, common sense? you're very good at contradiction aren't you?

"Although even if this was true, surely there would be many different types of humans?" there are different type of humans its called race.



I just can't beleive that in modern society that people still doubt evolution. But you're willing to believe that man was made from dirt and dust and a woman was made from a mans rib? ... come on... who's really clutching at straws?...

Answer 23

The reason that complexities like the human eye and brain develop is because there are intermediate stages of evolution in between our "current model". The animals who's eyes don't work die and fail to reproduce. It don't know what part of that seems sensational.

Answer 24

The brilliant "design" is explained by "form follows function." Nature prefers more efficient structures that do jobs well. Things that happen to work well are kept, and pointless or harmful traits are eliminated. Having billions of years of tests allows for complex structures to steadily form. Don't look at the big picture, look at all the tiny steps and details that went into it.



EDIT: What's your proof, Heyman87?

Answer 25

Lets see, you are arguing the Fallacy of Irreducable Complexity, a concept blown out of the water at the Kitzmiller trial, so you're, well, WRONG.



Next, your issue with the brain is insane: Nerve impulses travel at LIGHT SPEED, which is 300,000,000 METERS per SECOND. A few

extra centimeters in a larger brain would take effectively no time at all.



Humans find patterns in many places where there aren't any.



In short, you're totally, completely, and utterly factually wrong. Oh, and scientists in the relevent field know a LOT more than you do.



In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.



Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.



Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.



- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981



Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Answer 26

Claim CB200:

Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.



Response:



1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:



* deletion of parts

* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)

* change of function

* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)

* gradual modification of parts



All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).



Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.



2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.



3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.



4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:

* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.

* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.

* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).

* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

Answer 27

That's your choice... good luck...



Most of us will differ with you due to the evidence...



When you show eveidence to support your position, maybe you will change our minds. But just because you 'think' it can't be so won't wash...



Before you try to debunk something? Make sure you understand it first. Remember the church thought the Earth was the center of the Solar System too, until it was proved not to be by science, or do you still believe that too... they even killed to keep that belief, isn't it sad?

Answer 28

Jsut because you chose not to educate yourself in the field enough to understand it doesn't make it false. It just makes you uneducated.

Answer 29

It takes faith to believe in God or evolution.....humans, animals, and everything in nature is so comlex, that common sense would tell you that it had to be created....



as far as carbon dating goes (age of earth, rock, and snails :D), I heard of an experiment where a tree branch was left on the side of the highway, after a few weeks or months, it was covered in carbon from the tires of cars----they had the branch tested in the lab and the scientists said it was millions of years old! What I'm getting at is the 'absolutely correct' science is far from perfect, and the Bible is a much more credible/more believeable source.

Answer 30

Ah, the famous "human eye argument".



Try again with proof.



KTHXBAI

Answer 31

Irreducible compexity has been refuted every time someone's tried to bring it up.

Answer 32

Wow... That's just terrible.

Answer 33

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it less true.

Answer 34

um, if you passed elementary school, you should know...didn't read all that, by the way! ;)

Answer 35

Doesn't make very much sense, does it. Not for me either. And then there is the ultimate question which they cannot answer, How did we get from inorganic to organic. Every attempt to do it in the lab has failed. Yet evolutionists insist that it happened by chance.

Answer 36

If there is a design, there is a designer- God.



He formed everything by the power of his word through Jesus Christ.



Believe in the Son Jesus and you will be saved

Answer 37

Im with the fish ^... sorry...

Answer 38

please do yourself a big favour and read a science book.



you'll never regret it.

Answer 39

Its only based on lies and used to indoctrinate the young and the people of the world. But if someone wants to believe that they came from a rock 4.5 billion years ago, let them enjoy themselves, but there is no evidence to support it only lies.

Answer 40

It's not child but God is right.