Zzzzzzzzzzz Date Registered: 06-14-04 Total Posts: 9610 (17.01 posts per day) An addiction driven by fear. Classic "I have to be noticed" symptoms. Narcissism at work. Easy diagnosis. JB
Pop goes the Turok. But, please keep up your stalking and flaming......it is nice to have lots of evidence before making a TOU violation case.
thank you for the answer KJ. I was hoping you would answer. Your confidence level seemed high but that is not bothersome to me. But it will make me ask more questions. I just have others things to do right now. Happy new year to all.
There's no way you're ever going to come back and answer the easy question I posed about holding the Earth steady in a model of the solar system, is there? Cut up all you like, but you're still evading.
I think your question sucked, so why should I answer it? Please don't turn Spanish inquisition on me..... If your aunt had gonads, would she really be your uncle? LOL....
That is your opinion. I don't see it as evasion at all. Not answering a stupid question is not evasion in my "book."
It's "stupid" in your book because you know damn well what the answer is, and it undermines your "facts are facts" argument you started earlier. So you ARE evading. Call it names, change the subject, whatever. You're still evading.
It was believed to be a few centuries back, you know when lighting seemed to complex to possibly have a natural cause. So ironic that you are typing that on a computer.. Skepiticism is allowed, what isn't regarded very highly are so-called skeptics who aren't at all skeptical of their own claims. Theories that aren't falsifiable aren't theories. Polls show that about 50% of people in the US accept evolution, and that number if far higher in other places in the world. Clearly the proportion of atheists is nowhere near 50% so the obvious conclusion is that the majority of people who accept evolution are not atheists. And even if a certain scientific principle tended to make more people atheists, would that be a reason not to teach it if it were true? Of course those biological processes are a consensus view.. The periodic table is a scientific consensus. Most of science courses involve teaching scientific consensus. For example it is the scientific consensus that the earth orbits the sun. Should that not be taught? Which is odd because evolution theory and big bang theory are falsifiable theories. If they weren't they wouldn't be theories at all. Evolution has quite a bit of math behind it too, and there is a consistency in the use of language too. Big bang is a theory in physics by the way, so I guess you don't actually mean what you wrote here. Many ape-human transitional fossils have been found. Just one example: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html And image you post is a cartoon, an artists impression. It's a bit like a cartoon drawing of a nuclear explosion. It doesn't represent the accuracy of the science. For example evolution is not a gradual morphing process which is what that image suggests. Things like shared genetic errors are not common design. For example the broken vitimin C gene present in all primates, including humans. They calculate the age based on radiodating, but if you think that would convince young earth creationists that an old earth isn't a dogmatic guess then you haven't encountered young earth creationists before. Young earth creationists would disagree. They are clear there is definite error. According to them the facts of geology are better explained by a 6,000 year old earth. Should we only teach the facts in schools? You seem to be arguing against natural selection. You are saying "why shouldn't we see organisms that have no ability to survive if evolution is true?". Well that's obvious - organisms that lose the ability to survive will have died out. We will only see organisms with an ability to survive by default, so it is hardly suprising that is what we do see. If it isn't then it's meaningless. You might as well say "the kind of evolution I agree with has been observed, but the kind I disagree with has not been observed". Yes we have. Seeing as many species differ only in behavior or color this should not be suprising. A new species can arise simply by a bit of adaptation. A fish is not a species. A lizard is not a species. And neither would evolution predict that we would. Do you seriously think evolution says that one day a monkey gave birth to a human? (considering also that we didn't evolve from moneys, we share a common ancestor) The fossil record shows a progression of hominid fossil species from more ape-like ones to more human-like ones. Genetic similarities such as ERVs and pseudogenes are distributed across species in a nested heirarchy - something expected by common descent, so it's terribly coincidental that would be found if common descent were not true. Geographical distribution of species - with island species similar to mainland species also indicates new species arise from old ones. The uniqueness of remote island species supports genetic divergance due to geographical isolation. Vestigal organs such as the pelvis of the whale (combined with fossil whales with legs), legs of the snake (combined with fossils of legged snakes). And this is just skimming a few examples from some of the lines of evidence. Evolution could also have been refuted (falsified) countless times by new observations (finding a modern mammal in the cambrian for just one example), but time and time again they support it. That would be truely bizzare if evolution wasn't actually true. See now you shift the goal posts and not only demand observations of new species, but now you want them to be more "advanced" too. Well what on earth does that mean? How do you measure the level of advancement in different types of creature? Is a bird more or less advanced than a horse? It is known. It is known for example that anti-biotic resistance can be gained by mutation and natural selection. Okay well if you are going to use arbitary definitions then perhaps modern humans are just a form of ape and speciation isn't even necessary to explain that transition. Perhaps we didn't evolve from apes, we just adapted from them. It is still the same change involved no matter what you want to call it.
Are a dog and a rat members of the same "species?" This is a serious question and it is extremely important to my understanding of your position of micro vs. macro evolution.