Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[lismore]

There were no humans or even large mammals alive during the time of the dinosaurs. This is a confirmed fact and beyond a reasonable doubt by any stretch of the imagination.
.

Keep saying it- you might convince yourself.

http://www.cryptozoology.com/

 

[Gwenyfur]

Keep saying it- you might convince yourself.

http://www.cryptozoology.com/

 

[notto]

Keep saying it- you might convince yourself.

http://www.cryptozoology.com/

It is hilarious that creationists won't accept the work of reputable scientists world wide yet seem to accept things like this.

Did you know Elvis is alive and living with aliens? I read it on the internets.

You are a great creationist.

 

[lismore]

It is hilarious that creationists won't accept the work of reputable scientists world wide yet seem to accept things like this.

Did you know Elvis is alive and living with aliens? I read it on the internets.

You are a great creationist.

let me guess, Elvis evolved into a spaceman?

That makes more sense that some of the stuff you blether about lizards or squirrels learning to fly, and cows becoming whales

 

[notto]

let me guess, Elvis evolved into a spaceman?

That makes more sense that some of the stuff you blether about lizards or squirrels learning to fly, and cows becoming whales

It's an army of strawmen and smilies.

You are a great creationist.

 

[lismore]

It's an army of strawmen and smilies.

You are a great creationist.

Indeed. Strawmen. Thats how I would describe the wierd and wonderful array of apes and pigs remains that you parade as our ancestors.

 

[notto]

Indeed. Strawmen. Thats how I would describe the wierd and wonderful array of apes and pigs remains that you parade as our ancestors.

You mean like Moab man? Or is that Malachite man?

http://members.aol.com/gkuban/moab.htm

 

[Donkeytron]

let me guess, Elvis evolved into a spaceman?

That makes more sense that some of the stuff you blether about lizards or squirrels learning to fly, and cows becoming whales

It's always embarassing to see a post like this come from someone with a little cross icon under their name.

 

[Donkeytron]

Keep saying it- you might convince yourself.

http://www.cryptozoology.com/

http://www.cryptozoology.com/gallery/gallery.php

Prepare to be cracked up.

 

[Dannager]

You're kidding, right? Cryptozoology.com? Give me a break.

 

[Ave Maria]

I accept both the Big Bang Theory and Evolution as valid and credible scientific theories.

 

[gitamerah]

Nope. As an ex-geologist, I do know a bit more about evolution. The methods used to confirm the theories of evolution seemed a bit too unreliable in my point of view.

What I mean is, they look at 2 sets of animal bones. They see that some parts look similar, while others need a bit of a stretch and some re-arranging in order for them to look similar.

For example, they see a prehistoric land mammal with four legs and all. Then they see the bones of recently deceased whales and go "oh, hey, the whale's fins have bones that look sorta like fingers... if you shorten this bone, lengthen that other one, move it here and there... they kinda look like that prehistoric mammal we found."

Hence, they conclude that the whale is the evolved form of the said prehistoric mammal, and further on, that the prehistoric mammal decided to move to sea and evolve into a whale.

The flaw in this theory?

One, it is unproven. The so-called similarities take a bit of a stretch in order for them to even "be" similar.

Two, there is no proof that bones can shorten, change positions, and change functions altogether... and have it stay that way in the next thousand or so generations.

 

[Dannager]

Nope. As an ex-geologist, I do know a bit more about evolution. The methods used to confirm the theories of evolution seemed a bit too unreliable in my point of view.

What I mean is, they look at 2 sets of animal bones. They see that some parts look similar, while others need a bit of a stretch and some re-arranging in order for them to look similar.

For example, they see a prehistoric land mammal with four legs and all. Then they see the bones of recently deceased whales and go "oh, hey, the whale's fins have bones that look sorta like fingers... if you shorten this bone, lengthen that other one, move it here and there... they kinda look like that prehistoric mammal we found."

Hence, they conclude that the whale is the evolved form of the said prehistoric mammal, and further on, that the prehistoric mammal decided to move to sea and evolve into a whale.

The flaw in this theory?

One, it is unproven. The so-called similarities take a bit of a stretch in order for them to even "be" similar.

Two, there is no proof that bones can shorten, change positions, and change functions altogether... and have it stay that way in the next thousand or so generations.

Nothing is ever proven in science. As an ex-geologist you should know that. I've never seen an evidence of the science of paleontology working as you have described it. If visual similarities were the only ones scientists were confirming, the field would be rather shaky indeed. Fortunately for us all, visually similarities are not the only things taken into account.

 

[lismore]

Nothing is ever proven in science..

Half a dozen people on this forum say evolution is a FACT and ridicule anyone who believes otherwise.

How can you have an unproven fact?

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

umm i guess we all are refering to the evolution origins theory not just evolution period . well i dont think its true but that doesnt stop it from being a theory.

 

[notto]

Half a dozen people on this forum say evolution is a FACT and ridicule anyone who believes otherwise.

How can you have an unproven fact?

Facts are not 'proven', they are observed and self evident. Theories are supported with evidence, observations, and facts.

Theories are not proven.

Evolution is a fact. It has happened. Life in the past was much different than life today. Do you disagree? This is the fact of evolution and is readily observed (unless you know where the 90% of the species that have existed that have gone extinct are hiding out)

You need to understand how science uses facts and observations to support (not prove) theories.

 

[Dannager]

Half a dozen people on this forum say evolution is a FACT and ridicule anyone who believes otherwise.

How can you have an unproven fact?

Evolution is a fact. A fact is an observation or an extrapolation of a set of observations. I should have more accurately stated that theories are never proven - only disproven. Evolution also has a theory attached to it, which has not yet been disproven.

 

[Dannager]

umm i guess we all are refering to the evolution origins theory not just evolution period . well i dont think its true but that doesnt stop it from being a theory.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolution origins theory" and "evolution period". I'm not familiar with the existence of two different sorts of theories about evolution.

 

[notto]

For example, they see a prehistoric land mammal with four legs and all. Then they see the bones of recently deceased whales and go "oh, hey, the whale's fins have bones that look sorta like fingers... if you shorten this bone, lengthen that other one, move it here and there... they kinda look like that prehistoric mammal we found."

Please point us the any research article that uses this methodology. I will specifically be looking for uses of the words 'sorta like' and 'kinda look'.

The detailed analysis of fossils and the relationships between them takes on a much different nature in the actual research work including measurments, detailed descriptions, computer modeling, mechanics, etc. You are building a strawman.

 

[lismore]

Evolution is a fact. It has happened. Life in the past was much different than life today. Do you disagree?
.

You are better qualified than me to guess on something you have never seen.

The past is gone and theory is what biased people make of the past when they go to work

This is the fact of evolution and is readily observed (unless you know where the 90% of the species that have existed that have gone extinct are hiding out)
.

I know one thing, a lot of the species you need to be extinct are not extinct, like the Coelacanth.

The coelacanth (pronounced see-la-kanth) is a prehistoric species of fish, once presumed to be extinct, but when rediscovered in the 1930s, unevolved for 300 million years, was almost fished to extinction by man's desperation to study and collect.