If our bodies behave like 'animals' bodies do, why aren't we 'animals'?
specific we would heavily resemble apes, yet yet we posses a plenty larger point of thinking. We strengthen hair on our heads, and an exceptionally small volume someplace else. we've become attentive to that we're not clothed and placed linen on, the animals are bare and don't experience any shame with it. the ingredient i can't understand approximately evolution is the fish that ultimately developed into land creatures what became their reason for coming near the land to stay? what became the evoloutinary ought to proceed to exist land? then what later grew to become the ought to fly? In the two the evolutionist and creationist concept there are questions approximately some significant issues, yet with the creationist concept there is basically one significant question how did God become? while with the evolutionist concept there are various many inquiries to be requested such through fact those i've got indexed and extremely some extra. Many scientist who've dug far adequate; and that have chosen to settle for what they have got here across now have self belief that there is a God who has created all issues. lots of them has come to the top that evolution is a much less probable problem in assessment to the creation of all ingredient via a single God. wish this annoying circumstances you all to look into it extra that there is a single God who despatched Jesus Christ through fact the moshiach (messiah)
Can you prove to me, 100 percent without any doubts, that you descended from an ape?
One word: MECHANISM Science is about mechanisms, not history. When faced with an historical event, the scientist's job is not to prove that a particular mechanism made it happen; his job is only to prove that a potential explanatory mechanism works, and produces predictions which are consistent with observation. Let us take the example of ancient asteroid impacts. Can a scientist prove that a huge crater was caused by an asteroid impact? No. Can he "test" for it happening after the fact? Of course not. Can he go back in time and watch it happen? Don't be absurd. So what can he do? Answer: he can test the mechanism of high-velocity impacts and verify that it is capable of producing the crater. "But how does this prove an asteroid made the crater," you ask? It does not. But it shows that it is a viable scientific theory, because we have a tested mechanism. If you want to propose an alternate theory, you'll have to provide your own tested mechanism and show that it achieves equal or better accuracy with as many or fewer terms. Now, let us return to evolution theory: how can a scientist prove that ancient primates evolved into man? Answer: he can't, but he can show that he has a tested mechanism which can explain it. Until creationists provide a tested mechanism of their own, they have nothing even remotely scientific to say against evolution. Remember: science does not test history; it tests mechanisms. Also note that this is why the entire "microevolution has been tested but macroevolution has not" creationist argument is nothing more than deceptive rhetoric, since both macroevolution and microevolution are based on the same mechanism. PS. What this means is that there is nothing that can be 100% verifible, but the EVIDENCE points to it. Or another way, 99% of all evidence points to evolution. 1 % is due to not being able to examine all the evidence because we didn't have the tools at the time. 0% of all evidence comes from your sky pixie