Put into said group based on whether or not they're extinct. With all morphology in mind, if crocodiles were extinct and thought to live 65 million years ago, they would certainly be catagorized as a dinosaur. [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
No they would not. Crocks do not have legs underneath their body like dinosaurs do, nor do they have other skeletal features that dinosaurs do.
Would you please do me the favor of kindly removing your head from where it doesn't belong? It's not condusive to a semi-productive conversation. Evolution has been refuted a thousand times, Carbon dating has not only been refuted, but I can site at least half a dozen GROSS errors, as recently as 1999.
I haven't seen anyone here refute evolution, least of all yourself. Neither have you refuted carbon 14 dating.
And why is it still given as 'very strong evidence for evolution' in textbooks today? over 100 years later? That's what Hovind was getting at... why is a PRATT from 100 years ago still being used to indoctrinate kids taking highschool biology. While their minds are potentially open, we make sure to shut it to any other possibilities by saying "We know for a fact this is how things work, and if you disagree you fail the class and get held back and get kicked off the soccer team... so if you want to keep your friends, you must submit to our interpretation." Isn't that why we don't want religion in schools?
Show us the textbooks still using this.
here's a challange. Give a highschool student in a biology class learning about evolution a camera. In class, ask him to disagree with the theory of evolution... see what happens. The fact that "scientists don't really believe it" doesn't change the fact that our children's minds are being closed off from any other possibility... over something that was proven wrong a century ago.
Like Creationism?
I recomment you not use fundamentalist religious web sites. "exploring the controversy of evolution vs. creationism."
Click on the Evolution link... all "why you should believe evolution."
Click on the Creationism link... "Arguements against creationism." There is no two sides. That's the problem. Creationists don't want evolution to never be mentioned again... parts of the theory are valuable even assuming it's not right. They just want it listed as a -theory- that some subscribe to with evidence and counter-evidence... i.e. not a dogmatic law.
It is listed as a theory.. a scientific theory though, not a guess or hunch. There are no two sides to the origin of species in science. Therefore, it makes little sense to teach otherwise.
Evolutionists want to keep their theology in schools taught as irrefutable fact, and have contrary arguments banned from schools.
There are no legitimate contrary scientific arguments. And evolution is not "theology" just cause you want it to be for the sake of parity.
Do you see any problem with that at all? Stalin doesn't go through your head for even a second? Anything to be taught as fact... should actually be a fact. Anything known to be a theory that many disagree with, with known holes (such as "we evolved from a common ancestor but have no explanation as to how it got there") should be taught as exactly that.
What are you describing? It is certainly not evolution. Common ancestry is strongly infered from the physical evidence. How is it a "known hole?"
Now we're going back to fossils being the best evidence for evolution? Fossils demonstrate gradual change over billions of years? Yet "intermediary fossils" is still a curse word? We still have no missing links that haven't been
Fossils are not the best evidence, just one line of evidence. I have yet to hear any hypothesis from creationists that adequately explains the fossil record.
If anything's a PRATT, it's fossils being used to illustrate the gradual change in species. Example: We think birds come from dinosaurs, specifically raptors... Talk about a missing link! The best we have is the archeopterix... which is dated about 65 million years back... the mix between all birds and reptiles.... yet fully formed birds have been found which date 50 million years BEFORE the archeopterix (what it evolved from).
Completely
False. There are no known "fully formed" birds from before Archeopterix.
If you're trying to support evolution... you may not want to mention "fossil records" and "gradual mutation over billions of years" on the same... thread.
Why not?
If you're going to say "Man evolved from apes" and I ask "Why are there still apes?" And you say "man didn't evolve from apes, we have evidence, they both evolved from an ape-like species." and I ask "If you know that said ape-like species evolved into two seperate species (something we cannot simulate in any laboratory)... you know that it did something we've never seen before, where are the fossils to prove it even existed, let alone intermediary fossils to prove that it gradually changed into not one but two seperate species at the same time... also how can something gradually evolve over a long period of time into two seperate species in the same geographic location? While they were similar enough to mate, would they not interbreed and become one species again? Which again raises the question: If humans and apes evolved from the same ape-like being... why are there still both humans... and apes?
... I just made that paragraph up... but BOY, I like it. Saving that one for later.
Oh yeah! That is one great paragraph you came up with! Too bad it makes no sense.
The confusion with the statement "humans evolved from apes," is in what you mean by "apes." We did not evolve from any living species of apes, which answers your question as to why they are still around today. Our ape ancestors are not... they are extinct. However, they were still "apes," just not modern apes. The apes around today evolved from extinct apecies just like we did. They evolved via a different path and for different ecological niches. They are still "apes" just as we are still "apes," and will always be "apes." Just as we are still primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals, etc.
Still, if we know they both evolved from particular species, where is our evidence of that species? We know they evolved from it because they exist, which we know existed because they exist? Therefore our evidence for their having evolved from something else is that something that isn't what we're looking for exists? Fat men exist. Old fat men... with beards. Some of them dress up like santa. We can observe people who appear very similar to santa... did they evolve from santa, indicating that not only did he exist... but is the ancestor of all old fat men? My grandfather kind of looked like santa... Is that conclusive evidence that not only did/does santa exist, but did I evolve from him because my family members tend to look like him? Or are they just old and fat?
Do you understand how genealogy works? If it works for our immediate ancestors, then it should work for our long past ancestors. Our genetic similarity to modern chimps tells us of our common ancestry. It has nothing to do with santa having a beard.
