Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're fixing to run into the "Science proves nothing" claim.
A debate always good for a laugh, as well as an obvious cop out to make it appear evolution cannot be proven but only because they can't.
We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.
Here's an article from the New York Times..
In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.
Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable. In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record.
Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.
source: Theory of Evolution Has Never Been Proved
Mutations —> evolution.
The toe explsins the mechanics of what will spread and how.
How ignorant.
Could you please pull all that together for us so I can see if the explanation works for me? In all honesty, I would not expect you to educate me, but for the life of me, no one else has been able to do that, and I've never been able to find such a thing...anywhere.
You've been pointed to lots of resources including full-fledged (and free!) university courses on the subject of evolution. You always thumb your nose at such material though. In fact, I believe you described such course material as a "waste of time".
To complain that people can't educate you or that you can't find material... that's just being disingenuous.
A half truth, remember, I wanted material that would prove evolution, but you just happened to leave that part out, making it a lie and me not being disingenuous after all.
Yet you fail to mention why I told you it was a waste of time. Half truths, the way of the evolutionists. Why, because that's one trick they use to make the unaware believe evolution, because they have nothing else.
Understanding how and why the theory of evolution is supported is part of an education on the subject. We've all shown you where to get this information. You refuse to do your part of making the effort to consume it.
Nobody can force you to get an education. You have to decide that for yourself.
You're judging material that you've never even looked at.
So no answer to my question? Oh well.
We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.
Here's an article from the New York Times..
In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.
Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable. In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record.
Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.
source: Theory of Evolution Has Never Been Proved
I love that you didn't answer my question but instead repeat a claim that has been shown to be in error by several posters in this very thread. Tiktaalik is a prime example of a prediction being made. And before you go repeating your wrong claim, the rock layer Tiktaalik was found in was not one where "fishapods" had been found before. That's the whole point of the prediction - Shubin basically said we should be able to find a transitional fossil at a certain age. They went looking in rocks of that age and guess what? Shubin's prediction was right.Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution? If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate how Evolution theory would inform you of the expected fossil succession, without prior knowledge of it.
(e.g. we'll expect to find the higher mammals in only the upper rock layers because _______, and we'll expect to find hominids in only the highest rock layers because _______)
Evolutionists can't provide these reasons, because their theory does not inform them of where to expect such fossil groups without already knowing which rock layers contain those fossils. They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.
Yet at the same time evolutioists will deceptively claim the specific fossil order "confirmed" their theory.
We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.
Here's an article from the New York Times..
Sure there is.
Since evolution has not been proven since Darwin's
Evolution of the Species from about 150 years ago,,,,I'd say the scientific community is starting to accept that it may not be a sustainable theory.
Of course it could be true....
This thread is going to turn into creationist propoganda and whatever the alternative is.
In that case I'll leave immediately, if not sooner.
What I'm saying is that all the early theories of science were proven within this amount of time because they were TRUE....WHY isn't evolution being proven?
I believe in micro evolution...changes within a species due to need. I do not believe an animal can change into a different animal. I do not believe single cell life in a pount could turn into a fish, and a fish into a human....no matter how many years it would take.
Insofar as convincing you that evolution is a real phenomenon,
it is a proven fact that the earth rotates around the sun and the sun stays still.
In the strict sense, no scientific theory can ever be proved; it is always possible that a new observational or experimental fact will overturn even a well-established theory.
The classic example is the anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury, which could not be explained by Newton's theory of gravitation and therefore showed that the theory was wrong.
Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution? If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate how Evolution theory would inform you of the expected fossil succession, without prior knowledge of it.
(e.g. we'll expect to find the higher mammals in only the upper rock layers because _______, and we'll expect to find hominids in only the highest rock layers because _______)
Evolutionists can't provide these reasons, because their theory does not inform them of where to expect such fossil groups without already knowing which rock layers contain those fossils. They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.
Yet at the same time evolutionists will deceptively claim the specific fossil order "confirmed" their theory.
That's a complete cop out and one that's been tried several times here. I think some people just came up with that junk because they couldn't prove it. If your backing for that is things change, just prove it for the moment, like the old days when science proved pretty much everything, that's what it was for. Prove it for the moment and if things change we'll make a note of that, so simple. But instead of doing that very sensible thing, they use what you are saying in order to not to try to prove it at all...because they cannot.
So you see, that obvious excuse simply doesn't hold up, and it's pretty much an insult to those of even average intelligence to try it on us.
There are exceptions to every rule, and again, if something changes, it changes, but that's far from a reason not to prove it..
It was easy to see from the start, nothing was going to come out of the challenge...it rarely does. No one will accept it because you all know what will happen.
Hilarious...just the kind of "detailed" info with no backing that you've been throwing at us throughout the thread. IOW, ya' got nothing.
I guess this means we won't be getting that proof, right?lol
You have to explain to me how all this came from nothing and what was JUST BEFORE the big bang.
Then you have to explain how this much energy didn't just collapse on itself like it was supposed to but started to expand instead.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?