Is Evolution true?
When we stop and think about what the evolution worldview is doing, it is really simple.
They are arranging fossils in an order that makes them look like a sequence.
That is no different than if I line up a series of rings from small to large to say that one evolved from the other.
I can come up with all kinds of reasons to support my theory too! I can reason that based on shape, color, size, even chemical makeup, all of which would make sense if I already believe that one evolved from the other.
I would be looking for proof to support my theory instead of looking at facts and drawing conclusions.
In an evolutionist’s mind, evolution is already true—not because the evidence supports it, but because it is what they want to believe.
Advertisement
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Categories: Diskussion, Religion
That would be true if similarity were a major criterion, but evolution is based mostly on a) the dynamics of genetics and b) the fossil record. The latter allows an absolute dating of fossils along with independent methods (C14 and stuff), plus a relative dating (which fossils are found with which other fossils?). The combination of methods allows one to produce a coherent timeline of “evolution events”, which is difficult to achieve with any other theory.
Take for example the KT extinction event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event). How would you explain the fact that below this layer you find a multitude of species, but immediately above it only a very limited number, and that the more you proceed upward from the seperation layer, the number of species increases again — but you find only those which are related (“similar”) to the ones you found immediately *above* the layer, while those below don’t return again? It makes sense if you assume a “vertical timeline” plus evolutionary mechanisms; if haven’t yet heard any other theory which would account for events like this.
Whoa, dude, talk about reversing the argument!
Think about Occam’s razor.