100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Now again Thomas for you believe as you wish.....for me There is one God, His only begotten son, and the Holy Spirit....The trinity Father, Son, Holy Spirit....And no one gets to the Father except through the son. Would you be referring Horus or Krishna? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No darling I am not.....I am referring to Jesus Christ of Nazareth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No darling I am not.....I am referring to Jesus Christ of Nazareth right Jesus aka Horus aka Krishna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you two get a room, there must be something that keeps you two on this topic beyond the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bite me TB.....gigglensort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other.  Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature.
But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within a species I totally by it....For one species to completely change into another....example monkey to man not plausible imo and of course would go against creation....which of course all know where I stand there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explain the mule to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within a species I totally by it....For one species to completely change into another....example monkey to man not plausible imo and of course would go against creation....which of course all know where I stand there. Humans and monkeys are primates from a COMMON ancestor. Just like the varieties of canines and varieties of felines. The theory states that lifeforms came from common ancestors that no longer exist (because enviromental conditions have changed).
So you accept that there are "families" of creatures (felines,canines,primates,etc.)?
Doesn't that imply a common ancestor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets not forget: -Jomon culture of Japan from 10000BC -Hoabinhian culture of North Vietnam from 8000 BC -Yangshao culutre of China from 5000-2000 BC -Longshan culture of China from 3000-2000 BC Where are you getting these dates from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other. Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature.
But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?
What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Wed 04/08/09 07:57 AM
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other. Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature.
But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?
What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown.  This is full of inaccuracies So many that I dont even know where to start
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appologize because I have not read averything in this thread before replying. I don't see why the god could not have created evolution. To create a being that does not adapt to it's surroundings is not perfection. btw darwin was a devoute christian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets not forget: -Jomon culture of Japan from 10000BC -Hoabinhian culture of North Vietnam from 8000 BC -Yangshao culutre of China from 5000-2000 BC -Longshan culture of China from 3000-2000 BC Where are you getting these dates from? USC library. Universities are full of information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets not forget: -Jomon culture of Japan from 10000BC -Hoabinhian culture of North Vietnam from 8000 BC -Yangshao culutre of China from 5000-2000 BC -Longshan culture of China from 3000-2000 BC Where are you getting these dates from? I forgot that you can also type them into Goggle and you'll get about 100 hits on each so you can choose who to listen too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Explain the mule to me? A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey.....but again love it was not something they did themselves...it was engineered by man when the mining was around. I hope that explains it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the mule considered a separate species?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other. Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature.
But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?
What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown. This is full of inaccuracies So many that I dont even know where to start
 Now I am wondering how, in a polite way, can I explain to someone that everything they just said was incorrect. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I am wondering how, in a polite way, can I explain to someone that everything they just said was incorrect. lol
Just come out and say it. Those that enter this thread to actually learn will be able to, and it's not like anything you say will actually change the persons mind. Just look at the mounds of irrefutable evidence that has been posted in the countless threads on this subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that the bible offers better, more empirical evidence that world is significantly younger? Are you implying creationism is a more plausible option? My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science. I understand your beliefs a little more now, thanks for sharing. Can I assume that you are familiar with the scientific process then? I don't see how you could suggest that there is not more empirical evidence for evolution than creationism. Evolution even according the scientists who study it on a full-time basis is not a complete science. No one claims that it is fully understood, but that does not take away from the science of it. We don't fully understand gravity, but you don't see any sane person religious or not questioning it. If you believe in neither creationism nor evolution, do you have an alternative hypothesis? Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on. I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status. My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost. I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence. It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation. And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other. Evolution is more plausible because because there is evidence all around us in nature.
But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory. There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say. My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that". Actually it does explain that. Wings are an enviromental adaptation.What observable evidence contradicts this theory? Its kind of obvious that there are many forms of plants and animals of the same species but adapted to different enviroments and they took different forms in the past when enviromental conditions were different. For example, most animals in the past were much bigger (like dinosaurs)when enviromental conditions were more suitable to large forms.Do you deny this?
What is the basis for the conclusion that wings are an environmental adaptation? Adapted from what? If this is the case - why have we as humans not grown wings? Surely our environmental requirements have demonstrated a need to learn how to fly. Else why the multi-trillion dollar aviation industry. As to the idea that most animals of the past were much larger, there's no basis for that statement. There's no evidence to demonstrate the statement the way you have presented it. I would agree that there were in fact - larger animals, such as the Dino's - but I don't think ants were ten feet long in the past, and I believe a minnow has always been a minnow. Thee's no evidence to support animals being larger due to environmental conditions, because those environmental conditions are unknown. This is full of inaccuracies So many that I dont even know where to start
Perhaps you don't know where to start because there's nothing to start with. Are you going to provide something relevant to support your claim. Like, maybe expound on what you are refering to by inaccuracies. |
|
|
|
|
