sample self description for dating - Corey sevier dating
Making viable conclusions based on inferences from the available evidence is not at all unscientific, and it is this reasoning that has compelled us toward the theory of evolution.Interestingly, evolution observable and repeatable in the sense that scientists can make and test predictions of the theory, and this is exactly what they have been doing for more than a century.These attempts are so nonsensical that I hope I don’t really need to address them here. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.
Because, if is not observable or repeatable, it’s creationism. This claim is demonstrably false, and its use by those who claim to serve the Lord through whom came grace and truth is reprehensible.
Therefore, their beliefs, too, are invalidated by their own argument. Strong language, I know, but Christians are explicitly commanded not to lie to each other, so this is inexcusable.
And, as such, scientists’ current confusion over how life started has no impact whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution.
In the same way, Newtonian physics the existence of the universe; Newton did not have to explain how the universe came to be in order to understand how it operates now. I’ve even seen people use things like stars and planets, or the supposed implausibility of the Big Bang theory (the cosmological model, not the show), to try and cast aspersions on the prevailing theory of how biological organisms on earth have come to look the way they do.
On the other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s house across town is fundamentally impossible. The truth is that mutations in nature are usually neutral — i.e., they have no effect on the gene or resulting protein.
Of course, whether a mutation has a positive or negative effect — or no effect at all — is often dependent on environmental factors (for example, sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease, but it also protects against malaria — making it either a defect or a survival mechanism depending on one’s environment).
If the idea (that “scientific evidence must be both observable and repeatable”) were carried to its logical conclusion, it would cripple not only the study of evolution, but every line of historical inquiry.
We would, in fact, be prohibited from exploring most matters that cannot be brought inside or recreated within a laboratory, whether they be large (the composition and origin of stars, for example) or small (like the forensic recreation of a crime scene).
According to the most recent Gallup poll of Americans’ views on evolution, almost half of all respondents rejected the mainstream view of human origins.
The number — 46 percent — has not changed meaningfully in more than two decades. But to understand my theory, I offer an analogy, which actually involves individuals from the opposite side of the fence.
But that doesn’t seem to make people any less nervous around heights. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating