Friday, October 01, 2004
Where are you Gravity?
Earlier today, I was in my humanities class, enjoying a discussion entailing the thoughts of Edward O. Wilson. When arriving at Wilson's discovery of the theory of evolution, naturally controversy came knocking. I expect there to be people who argue against evolution, especially religious fanatics. What baffled me was the interjection by one student. He honestly claimed that man could not have orginated from apes becuase the earth has only sustained life for 20,000 years. He argued that 20,000 years ago, gravity did not exist on earth; therefore, no form of life was able to survive. I'm not even sure how to respond to a claim such as that. Following this, he decided that the idea of microevolution was acceptable, but macroevolution was absurd. This is a timeless view on evolution that is easily discredited, and was. Before I was able to state the obvious, atleat to me, another student in the class brought to his attention that the combination of many microevolutions is nothing more than macroevolution. After this information was brought to his attention, he had nothing more to say. In the end, I got a good laugh from it. I'm all for a listening to someone elses ideas, but atleast back yourself up when entering such a heated debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You need to ask that dude why he believes gravity didn't exist 20,000 years ago. I've heard some weird shit in my time, but nothing like that.
In other news, the Army is reputedly working on antimatter weapons. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL
An intersting read. Hoorah for science.
All I know is, that gravity still exists in the future.
It's amazing that someone would believe the science that states gravity didn't exist 20,000 years ago, but discount the science that dates Lucy at 3.3 million years old.
I posted on my class forum to get some more information regarding this person's ideas and got the following response.
I am the student who was arguing in favor of creation. As I was pretty
nervous while debating the teacher, and the entire class, I misquoted my
evidence. I hope you will all forgive me. I meant to bring up the decay of
the earth's magnetic field as evidence of a young earth. If any of you are
interested in viewing an article on this subject, then go to
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp
Sorry about the confusion
and
I would like to point out that when I was debating in favor of creation,
professor Argyos proposed that evolution was "science," and creationism is
not. He said that all we would have to do to prove evolution would be to
find a fossil that was dated to be a billion years old. Then, the class was
over and he gave me no time to provide a counterpoint. The point I was
going to make is that dating of the fossils and rocks is actually very
inaccurate. I do not wish to merely tell you this though. If you are
interested in this subject, I will provide some web sites for you to look
through that I believe prove that evolution cannot be proven by dating
fossils.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/carbondating.pdf
If any of your are really interested, and wish to know more about the
creation-evolution controversy from a different side than the bias taught in
school, you can read several books on it at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/online_resources.asp
I hope that if you respond to this, you have at least looked into some of
the information I have provided, and are not just bashing me for expressing
my right to free speech.
http://www.buyswag.com/mchawking/product.aspx?id=566
Post a Comment