Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[crossnote]

Further, no one on an internet "debate" forum should ever claim that just saying something "makes it so". Fortunately, the EVIDENCE for the FACT of evolution is in THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, research hospitals, libraries, etc. in every country around the world. There may even be some near where you live. You don't have to take our word for it.

Definitely wouldn't take the word of finite sinful blinded humans we are. I have been to those museums and have seen the reconstructed models of dinosaurs from one small tooth. (not that dinosaurs prove or disprove evolution). I have sat as a kid growing up having my atheistic dad lecture me daily on the wonders of evolution only to see him die a miserable selfish death clinging to his theory.
I was brainwashed in schools about evolution along with my generation only to see it produce one of the most self centered, self loving, egotistical peoples that culture has ever seen. As the Dylan song went 'Dogs Run Free, Why Don't We?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weak sauce.

Would you prefer the National Park Service? Britannica? Oxford Reference?

Perhaps the Weekly World News is more his cup of tea:

STUDY: MEN MORE EVOLVED THAN WOMEN - Weekly World News

"The Y chromosome has advanced so much over the last 6 million years that there’s now a 60 percent difference between the male genetic code and that of chimps, our nearest ancestor. Women do not have this chromosome. And so, for the rest of the human genetic code, there’s only a 2 percent difference. “Do the math,” said Linwall."

 

[crossnote]

Whether there is a living God or not is nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The equivalent response to Astrophile's challenge would be, "What evidence would you need to convince you that the Book of Genesis is historical fact?"

Not if that God has spoken revealing He created the heavens and earth in 6 days.
BTW I'm glad you called it the 'theory of evolution'.

 

[Ophiolite]

And you call that article a conclusive statement on Faunal Succession?...

@essentialsaltes did not call it a conclusive statement on faunal succession. He offered it as an overview and introduction to the concept for you. It was offered to help you better educate yourself on the topic.

The Wikipedia request for citations was not a condemnation of the content of the article, but an implementation of the Wikipedia policy that, as far as possible and where appropriate, citations from reliable and relevant resources should be provided. Such a request does not imply that the statements in the article are wrong.

 

[crossnote]

Instead of grasping at straws it would be much wiser to admit that you do not understand and try to learn.

You can learn if you try. I guarantee it. You do not lack the intelligence. But you might be too afraid to learn. I have seen that far too often in creationists.

Ditto regarding God's Word and you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not if that God has spoken revealing He created the heavens and earth in 6 days.
BTW I'm glad you called it the 'theory of evolution'.

But there is no valid reason to believe that he did so. You only have a book that claims that. A book that when investigated fails scientifically. Worse yet Genesis is very troubling theistically if one reads it literally. It paints God as being incompetent and far from all loving.

And you do not seem to understand what a scientific theory is. A theory is as good as it gets in the sciences. Theories do not become laws, but laws can be superseded by theories. By claiming it is a scientific theory one is saying that not only is it a fact. It also explains the facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ditto regarding God's Word and you.

If you want to claim that the Bible is 'God's Word' a claim that not even the Bible makes, you have quite a burden of proof that you put upon yourself.

 

[pitabread]

It goes against Scripture.

Most Christians disagree.

 

[Speedwell]

Not if that God has spoken revealing He created the heavens and earth in 6 days.
BTW I'm glad you called it the 'theory of evolution'.

And evolution is also a fact, which is why a theory was developed to explain it. But my point was that your position is based on your reading of Genesis. It has nothing to do with the larger question of whether there is a God or not. Trying to make the creation/evolution debate into a theism/atheism debate is dishonest and offensive.

 

[MIDutch]

Definitely wouldn't take the word of finite sinful blinded humans we are. I have been to those museums and have seen the reconstructed models of dinosaurs from one small tooth. (not that dinosaurs prove or disprove evolution). I have sat as a kid growing up having my atheistic dad lecture me daily on the wonders of evolution only to see him die a miserable selfish death clinging to his theory.
I was brainwashed in schools about evolution along with my generation only to see it produce one of the most self centered, self loving, egotistical peoples that culture has ever seen. As the Dylan song went 'Dogs Run Free, Why Don't We?"

And yet you take the "word" of a collection of bronze age myths, fables and parables written, and stolen from surrounding cultures and religions, by sinful, blinded humans sitting around a camp fire.

BTW, that single tooth is hardly the only evidence for evolution. It is supported by millions of other teeth, skulls, completely articulated fossil skeletons, entire fossilized environments, genetics, radiometric dating, chemistry, physics, and VAST amounts of other evidence. Just because YOU don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is invalid.

Sorry about your dad, but his death, and your emotional reaction to it, is irrelevant to whether the The Theory of Evolution is a valid scientific concept or not.

Finally, what does "the most self centered, self loving, egotistical peoples that culture has ever seen" have to do with anything?

 

[Ophiolite]

BTW I'm glad you called it the 'theory of evolution'.

I'm glad that you revealed at this early stage you are ignorant of what a theory is in science. Here are some pointers for you:

• A theory is not an idea you had while sitting on the loo
• A theory is not a wild idea someone came up with in the pub
• A theory is not an explanation you thought up for why you always seem to join the slowest queue
• A theory is not something you toss out there to see if anyone agrees with you

A theory is a complex web of observations, experiments, hypotheses, investigations, analyses, reviews, amendment and validation, leading to a self supporting, thoroughly researched, repeatedly tested explanation for a phenomenon. In science nothing is more established and validated than a theory.

 

[crossnote]

Weak sauce.

Would you prefer the National Park Service? Britannica? Oxford Reference?

So you can 'throw up' yours and I can throw up mine The Geologic Column: Does it exist? - creation.com
and then?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have been to those museums and have seen the reconstructed models of dinosaurs from one small tooth.

I doubt that.

 

[crossnote]

I'm glad that you revealed at this early stage you are ignorant of what a theory is in science. Here are some pointers for you:

• A theory is not an idea you had while sitting on the loo
• A theory is not a wild idea someone came up with in the pub
• A theory is not an explanation you thought up for why you always seem to join the slowest queue
• A theory is not something you toss out there to see if anyone agrees with you

A theory is a complex web of observations, experiments, hypotheses, investigations, analyses, reviews, amendment and validation, leading to a self supporting, thoroughly researched, repeatedly tested explanation for a phenomenon. In science nothing is more established and validated than a theory.

Thanks for your theory on what a theory is.

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks for your theory on what a theory is.

It's not a theory, it's the accepted definition.

 

[Ophiolite]

I doubt that.

He may have misunderstood what he saw. For example, a small museum may have a single dinosaur tooth. It has been identified as belonging to such and such a species. The morphology of this species is known from many other specimens found in other areas. The curators reconstruct its appearance based upon those other data. Perfectly reasonable, but if a visitor to the museum fails to read the fine print, as it were, they may go away with the impression the lone tooth was the sole source of information.

Edit: corrected belong to belonging

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you can 'throw up' yours and I can throw up mine The Geologic Column: Does it exist? - creation.com
and then?

A known lying source is not very convincing. To even work there one must promise not to follow the scientific method. That makes them worthless in a debate.

They simply do not understand the geologic column because it does exist.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So you can 'throw up' yours and I can throw up mine The Geologic Column: Does it exist? - creation.com
and then?

Ah ah ah.... You asked when evolution became a fact. I told you in the early 19th century. And pointed to the law of faunal succession. A fact about biology that was later successfully explained by the biological theory of evolution.

I had no need to refer to 'the geologic column' and made no claim as to whether it 'really exists' as opposed to being a useful idea in the science of geology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for your theory on what a theory is.

Once again, you should try to understand the meaning of the terms that you use.

In the sciences an idea does not become a "theory" until it has been tested and confirmed countless times. There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for gravity. By your standards gravity is not a thing either. And though you may not like it there is little difference between a creationist and a Flat Earther. They both deny almost exactly the same science, though Flat Earthers do go just a little bit further in their literalistic interpretation of the Bible.

 

[crossnote]

And yet you take the "word" of a collection of bronze age myths, fables and parables written, and stolen from surrounding cultures and religions, by sinful, blinded humans sitting around a camp fire.

LOL, my dad use to say it was a bunch of monks conspiring together. All fanciful and unfounded claims.

Just because YOU don't accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is invalid.

Ditto with the Scriptures.

Finally, what does "the most self centered, self loving, egotistical peoples that culture has ever seen" have to do with anything?

Depends. What are we supposed to be 'evolving' towards? 'Evolve' usually carries the concept of betterment.