Sorry but just because it is compliant with physical laws of the
universe does not mean it is totally correct. And with the physical
laws of the universe, I presume you are saying the actual age of
the universe.And for your info, evolution does not come with
evidence but also imagination like how you stated creationism is.
Those evolutionists only find a small bone in the sand resembling
that of a human's and claim it is human's ancestor bones, while in
the musuem, they make up the whole body of the animal with their
imagination.
And please read this before you even start calling others
stupid, which is quite ironic since you yourself is stupid.
In the early 1800s, some observers in Western Europe noticed
that certain fossils are usually preserved in sedimentary rock
layers that, when traced laterally, typically lie above somewhat
similar fossils. Decades later, after the theory of evolution was
proposed, many concluded that the lower organism must have evolved
before the upper organism. These early geologists did not realize
that a hydrodynamic mechanism, liquefaction, helped
sort organisms in that order during the flood. [For an
explanation, see pages 172–183.]
Geologic ages were then associated with each of these “index
fossils.” Those ages were extended to other animals and plants
buried in the same layer as the index fossil. For example, a
coelacanth fossil, an index fossil, dates its layer at 70,000,000
to 400,000,000 years old. [See Figure 29.] Today, geologic formations are
almost always dated by their fossil contenta—which, as stated above, assumes
evolution. Yet, evolution is supposedly shown by the sequence of
fossils. Because this reasoning is circular,b many discoveries, such as living
coelacanths,c–g were unexpected. [See
“Out-of-Place Fossils” on
page 13.]
Figure 29: 70,000,000-Year-Old Fish? Thought to have been
extinct for 70,000,000 years, the coelacanth (SEE-la-kanth) was
first caught in 1938, deep in the Indian Ocean, northwest of
Madagascar. Rewards were then offered for coelacanths, so hundreds
were caught and sold. In 1998, they were also found off the coast
of Indonesia.c How could two groups of
coelacanths, separated by 6,000 miles, survive for 70,000,000 years
but leave no fossils?
Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly
believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four
bottom fins about to evolve into legs.d Evolutionists reasoned that the
coelacanth, or a similar fish, crawled out of a shallow sea and
filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land
animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this
fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs,
birds, and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a
fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South
Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths, nicknamed the
coelacanth “Old Fourlegs” and wrote a book by that title in 1956.
When dissected, did they have lungs and a large brain? Not at
all.e Furthermore, in 1987, a German team
filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were
not crawling on all fours.f
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists
dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least
70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists
frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much
like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of
evolution.g If that age is correct, billions of
coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been
fossilized in younger rock and should be displayed in museums.
Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for
70,000,000 years.
And I guess AndrewPKYap is too stupid to even google arguments
against the theory of evolution. As I said, go lick a monkey's arse
if you like them so much as to think they are your ancestors.
I think you have a mistaken idea about evolution.
For one, evolution by itself is no longer a theory it is a
scientific fact.It has been an observable phenomenon based on
experiments conducted on fruit flies and bacteria (since they're
pretty much the only ones with a short enough lifespan for us to
actually observe)
You may say that bacteria and fruitflies can hardly be used to
explain the complexity of the human body. But cancer is also an
example of a cell mutating beyond its original intent, that is why
as one grows older the chances of getting cancer increases because
as a cell divides the percentage chance of a cancer cell forming
increases.
In case you're wondering, there are also several types of cancer
on one organ. There are for example, several types of blood cancer
based on different behaviours.
The human body also, is not as complex as most would like to
think. The wheat for example has 50,000 genes compared to the
human's 26,000 (quotes from pg 239, The End of Food)
because unlike animals, the wheat cannot think about how
to adapt to its environment, it must evolve to have a hardwired
response for every possible eventuality", a specific programmed
response to cope with the thousand of conditions that determines a
plant's sucess.
Now, there are different theories on the exact progression on
the steps on how an organism evolve (there is a view that our
ancestors may be a little like whales and hippos than chimps
because of our relative hairlessness and another that the older the
genome, the less hair we have accounting for the body hair
difference between the Caucasian, Mongolian and African )
But there are no major disagreements on that evolution works in
all living organisms. Creationism on the other hands only point out
the holes in evolution and do not present any contrary evidence to
support their view. There may be imagination involved with
re-constructing our ancestors but on the whole it is based off
observations of current existing apes.
Most important of all, these re constructions have to be peer
reviewed by experts in related fields in order to be established as
fact.
Your coelacancths example for one simply means that they made a
conclusion based on one piece of evidence but they are more than
willing to adjust or completely overturn the idea if a new piece of
evidence shows itself later. That is why no one now insist that
coelacanths are extinct(that i know of!), though they may be with
climate change.
The idea of Evolution also presents in religion i would say that
is why Judeo based religions such as Islam/Christian/Jewish are
different from Hindu and pagan based religions like those in China
and the Native Americans.
If there can only be one Creator, then all the different
cultures would have shared the similarities of worshipping only one
god with almost similar teachings and customs but that is not the
case.
If i draw an analogy, Evolution is like a book which contents
are constantly being updated and adjusted as new evidence shows
itself. It seems to me healthier than following a book written
slightly more than a thousand years old with completely no room for
updating and adjusting as new facts present itself.
I do not see why there must be shame and indignity on being
associated with apes, our direct ancestors were pretty ignorant too
considering the exaggerations they put in their holy books, why do
we seemed so proud to be attached to something written so long
ago?
