Myrrh said:
But how does one explain the fact that dinos have been proven to be millions of years old? does he just not believe it and thinks that the government is making up lies to people so we don't believe in god?
Well, he did have an answer to that, in that the fossils are dated by the rocks, and the rocks are dated by the fossils, meaning they're not dated on anything.
Well, he's free to believe whatever he wants, but they're both just theories. The evolution theory has more proof to it, and also makes more sense.
The problem with these guys is that they assume the bible is right. They go back to the bible and says "But the bible says that...". We can do the same and say "But the science say that...". They assume the bible is right, and not just a fictional book, which is what they assume the science books to be.
Their theories are impossible to prove, while evolution might be hard to prove aswell, its not impossible.
Can you dig up the skeleton of God, and have anyone ever found the skeleton of Jesus? Or do they just assume they exist because of what the bible tells them? Basically, the very same thing he accuses the evolution theory of doing, he's doing himself. He ignores the proven parts, and concentrate on the not proven parts.
He also talks about us assuming the same thing will happen that have always happened. He states that this is bad, because the same things won't happen. Later on, he also mentions that we assume things will change, and mentions that this, too, is bad. Right there he's contradicting himself.
Evolution, and the scientific theory, depends that things will happen to change stuff. Like an earthquake changing the way the earth looks, etc. He assumes there's no unpredictable things happening that will change the world.
Additionally, its been proven that genetic changes can happen within the animal while the animal is still alive. Cancer is an example of this, in that a cell goes "bad". Cells can be said to be living creatures, aswell, and they constantly clone eachother inside stuff all the time. The clones aren't always identical though, which can cause diseases. But it can also create beneficial "mutations" that might not be directly visible. The older an animal get, the worse the cells get at cloning eachother, thus increasing the chance of a bad clone becoming cancer, by producing the wrong proteins.
By giving a group of animals too little water and food, some can eventually adapt, while they're still alive, to cope with it. Mutations doesn't ONLY have to happen to the offspring, but can also happen at any time.
While cancer and cells might be a bad example of this, its a rather newly discovered "phenomenon", so its the closest resemblance I can give. I just find it rather amusing that he ignores to bring it up, probably because it goes against his theory.
