5 ms·
The appearance of things does not make it so. Automobiles appear to be evolved from earlier forms. And they have in sense: in the minds of their creators. So to
by boneheadmed 13y ago
The appearance of things does not make it so. Automobiles appear to be evolved from earlier forms. And they have in sense: in the minds of their creators. So too, animal and plant species appear to be directly related to other prior species populations. But the connection is only in the mind of the Creator.
- justinpombrio 13y agoWhy then did the Creator seem to largely "start over" after large extinction events? Surely he didn't forget what he knew simply because an asteroid hit the Earth. Now that you have put forward a theory, the proper thing to do is evaluate its usefulness. The most useful theories are easily falsifiable: it is easy to imagine scenarios in which they fail. For instance, if any of the planets followed a square orbit, Kepler's laws of planetary motion would be pretty much kaput. Under what situation would you consider it clear that our planet's species' evolution did not follow the mind of the Creator?
- sandman223 13y agoAt this point, the molecular/genetic evidence for common descent is pretty unassailable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
- boneheadmed 13y agoExamining the Earth, stars including the sun, living organisms and all that there is in front of us, makes it plainly known that there is a Creator.
- justinpombrio 13y agoA large portion of the population would kindly disagree :-)
- ghsalazar 13y agoAgain, bring your reproducible facts. You're speaking out of faith. The test of knowledge is the experiment (Feynman), and yes you can prove evolution through experiments.