Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Isn't believing in evolution kind of like "Final Destination"?

In the movie "Final Destination", you have a sequence of random "accidents" that produce a specific death in a specific individual in a specific place, and this doesn't happen to just one person, but several. Each accident, by itself, seems plausible and possible. But when they are placed in a "chain-reaction" sequence, they no longer seem plausible. Even an athiest watching the movie would admit, "OK, that just wouldn't happen in real life". After some point, you begin to deduce that these are no longer accidents, but planned. You begin to assign an "intelligence" TO Death, even a supernatural aspect to it.

So if evolutionists/atheists admit that a long, convoluted series of random accidents cannot produce death, why would they think that the same could produce life?


Obviously most of you did not read the question. Some of you think I'm actually talking about the movie itself! Do you know what ANALOGY is?

@Paranoid - Creation uses the same PROOF that evolution uses. To quote you right back, "It's in your DNA"! DNA is one of the BEST proofs of creation, and it's a kick in the groin to evolution.

Update 2:

@ndmagic - but those "stimuli", according to evolution, need something to act upon, which would be ACCIDENTAL mutations. So you cannot remove the "accidental" factor from evolution, which leads back to my analogy.

Update 3:

@ Grim Reaper - I think you're missing my point, that at some point, the long, convoluted random string of "accidents" cease to become "accidents" and become "planned by an intelligence". Evolution would require millions more "accidents" in the chain to produce even a single amino acid than were required in the movie to kill one person, yet you admit that the situation in the movie was "planned by an intelligence", but you believe evolution was not? How is that either logical or scientific?

24 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I agree. Very astute observation. By the number of responses, you seem to have hit a nerve. Good work. If you don't mind, I'd like to address some of your detractors.

    One of your respondents insists that evolutionary theory does not describe how the first species arose. Not only does he ignore the fact that your argument still applies to the development of life, he is completely in error and is the one that needs to learn something (or keep looking like an idiot). Consider this excerpt from the World Book Encyclopedia: "The word evolution may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through evolution. Many astronomers think that the stars and planets evolved from a huge cloud of hot gases. Anthropologists study the evolution of human culture from hunting and gathering societies to complex, industrialized societies. Most commonly, however, evolution refers to the FORMATION and development of life on earth." The evolutionary theory that describes how life popped into existence all by itself is called ABIOGENESIS, which of course, breaks major laws of science, but that's another issue.

    Another respondent insists that evolutionary change is anything but accidental or random. However he is falsely equivocating natural selection with evolution. The scientific FACT of natural selection which was first proposed by a creation scientist and which all scientists agree occurs can only select from already existing features. All scientists agree that it is impossible for natural selection alone to create evolutionary change. There must be a another mechanism which creates new traits and functions for natural selection to act upon. While creation scientists have demonstrated that there is no such mechanism, evolutionists believe that "ACCIDENTAL" and "RANDOM" mutations are the source of new traits and abilities. Therefore, biological change is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on ACCIDENTAL and RANDOM mutations. Here is another evolutionist that is ignorant of the very theory he professes to believe.

    Btw, an "evolutionist" is someone who believes in the theory of evolution. If it is somehow politically incorrect to use that term, I suggest evolutionists stop using the term "creationist".

    Apparently your evolutionary respondents, don't even get your analogy. Evolutionists are easily able to determine that random events in life that produce a purpose or intelligent result are always suspect, but fail to recognize that same flaw in their own theory. Bottom line, great observation.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I do not know where you get this "accident" idea from. Evolution is not an accident, but a natural and logical progression of a species adapting to it's environment and it's needs, As to your comments on Amino acids. of the many thousands of possible amino acids, humans require only 20 different kinds. Two others appear in the bodies of some animal species, and approximately 100 others can be found in plants. Considering the vast numbers of amino acids and possible combinations that exist in nature, the number of amino acids essential to life is extremely small. this being so, life could evolve in many different ways, the only other point i'd like to make is, the imposition of an alien object into an environment and how it impacts that environment, a good example is looking at the differences between Europe and Africa, what i mean by this is it shows we came from Africa but did not just appear there but evolved there, unlike Europe where we can see that we appeared there already evolved, i could go on, but i will not partly because i can see no matter what others say you will not change your view on Evolution.

  • Corey
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    How long was Final Destination? A couple of hours? Even the events it portray wouldn't have covered more than a year or so.

    Evolution has been going on for billions of years. And it hasn't been directed. In real life, accidents do happen to cause people's deaths. They aren't directed either (otherwise it wouldn't be an accident).

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well of course. As a great philosopher once said "Every coincidence and seemingly accident event usually will have a deeper meaning behind it."

    I believe in evolution, I just don't think that a supposed process in a supposedly "random and un-fine tuned universe" would actually work for biology, which, of course, the universe was never meant to harbor.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oooh, you fail.

    No, evolution is nothing at all like that. There is no end goal in evolution, there is no plan. Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.

    In the movie, Death was purposely setting in motion events that would lead to claiming the people's lives. In the movie, Death was anthropomorphized as an unseen by very deadly character that was directing the events for a specific purpose.

  • 5 years ago

    From the point of view of epistemology, i think it. that's a theory in step with information and backed up by potential of rational argument. it extremely is no longer a piece of writing of religion What we call awareness is on no account provable to be authentic or fake. there is merely a physique of information and a chain of hypotheses that we use to attempt to make experience of that information. the article of technology is to disprove those hypotheses, to no longer teach them. Evolution hasn't been disproved yet. authentic and fake are words reserved for boolean operations. The final characteristic of a controversy is in spite of if it conforms to Occam's razor. the place you have 2 competing arguments, the simplest has constantly been shown to be suited. the simplest argument is the only that comes with each and every of the information at face fee devoid of having to invent something to toughen its declare. in this occasion the assumption of evolution, even in spite of the undeniable fact that that's complicated, takes into consideration all the information and is the simplest clarification. It does not require the sophistic addition of a deity with untestable supernatural powers. stable question: celebrity for you.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No, it's not. In Final Destination, events were tweaked to produce specific results. Evolution has a guiding mechanism but there is no specific goal as it's not that sort of process.

  • 1 decade ago

    As it turns out, it's almost ridiculously easy to get the basic building blocks of life to form spontaneously in the lab under a variety of conditions. Given that we're talking about all the oceans of the world and a few million years, there's no series of improbable accidents involved. Some scientists are starting to think that life on earth was inevitable.

  • 1 decade ago

    um what?

    But the accidents in final destination are not random there is a mystery force "death" Making them happen.

    I agree with you that this could not happen because there is no mystery force controlling what happens to us like in the film final destination.

    I think you should approach evolution in a different way.

    Its not like the same odds as YOU winning the lottery

    Its the same odds as ANYBODY winning the lottery at any time.

  • 1 decade ago

    I know, the idea that accidents produced life is impossible. And evolution is a flawed theory, because there are no actual evidence. True, animals are all alike, have the same skeleton, however, couldn't creationism have worked? And anyway, the beginning of life of evolution does not make sense at all.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.