RAF
Racisme (ok that's a good example) there was a time when scientists where giving "facts" about the "fact" that "some people" were less evoluate than other - even women versus men (I don't care who said what - but you know it).
Good, now you're cooking with gas, as your example allows me to introduce the "hidden" truth about scientists. They get it wrong. Evidence can be interpretted wrongly, incomplete evidence can give a misleading idea, and conjecture can be utterly wrong. However, scientific 'belief' is not revalatory.
Darwin did not get off the Beagle glowing with the radiance of the god of evolution carrying Origins in stone tablet form. There were numerous editions as he responded to criticism of his theory and as new evidence was discovered.
The theory has been tweaked and changed, twiddled and poked quite endlessly, as people have fab insights, new evidence gets discovered, or old evidence is re-examined with new techniques. A sharp contrast to religious books; no new edition of Genesis when the creative account and the Flood were shown to be false.
There are several things we learn from this.
- First of all evolutionary theory is largely evidence lead.
- Secondly it is revisable and improvable.
- Thirdly, although it has been twiddled and improved, the basic theory has never been disproved.
- Fourth, the original understanding of what descended from what (based on the bones) have been confirmed by a totally different strand of evidence, that of genetics.
If to you this theory from the start is good enough ... Well again what can I say? ... why not? but is it a proof. Is it?
Ok, evolution is not proved in any way that would satisfy you at this point. I'd actually like you to come back to me with what WOULD prove evolution to you.
Evolution is a theory, an explanation for a set of facts or evidence.
Now what other ideas do we have about the development of life? Creative myths from various cultures; Islam, Christianity and Hinduism all have creation myths, and all have groups of creationists who insist that the creation myths are literally accurate... which is lovely, as none of the creative myths are compatable with the others. As a Christian, what is your opinion of Islamic and Hindu Creationism? All creative myths can be described in a nice way as 'hypotheses'; a hypothesis is a theory without evidence.
And sorry, the Bible is no more evidence of the Genesis creative myths accuracy than the Qu'ran is of the Islamic myths' accuracy or the Bhag-gad-va-vita of the Hindu myths truth. We have no proof of Adam and Eve. We do have rather a lot of proof for dinosaurs.
And your beliefs are just as sincere as a Suffi's belief in Allah, a Hindu's in Brahman. Are they wrong? Are you? As none of you have evidence, and you all have belief, how do we determine who is right? Or is no one right?
Evolutionary theory is the only theory (which is better than a hypothesis) in town.
It is a theory, never disproved and much improved from its birth, which is confirmed by multiple strands of evidence and which can be used to make predictions about things.
Is my opinion more worthy? I don't know I'm still wondering (I'm not even sur if it is interesting to know and even if we can know it all ... So I won't say that my opinion is the right one (it's a theory - from the same observation : one will say the natural process is creating with a survival process and an other one can say then we might have way more things to deal with at our stage if it was juste that) ... it is my view on the matter NOW.
You are talking to me as if I don't know about evolutioniste statements (part of proof and part of theory) Why? I wonder?
Again is it the "fact" that I'm saying that I'm a believer that make you all think that I do avoid any other proof on any matter? It's weird because I don't. Cause that would be stupid (there's no way to talk against a PROOF).
Maybe it's the language. I do understand your beliefs in god and Jesus, but don't understand why these make you want to deny evolutionary theory being generally accurate. There is proof the Genesis account, if taken literally, is just wrong.
If you accept this, and view it as an allegory, then why cannot god be clever enough to make a Universe that works like what we have proof for?
Why do you limit god's abilities?
I'm just fed up with the "We have supportive materiel as theory to be able to state that we are the product of an hasardous developpement" from one cell (some things just do not happen by hasard even with the natural process that we human can make it happen ... wherever it leads - so it's all about the intelligence of the material from the start (God = Essence at matury / not God = a cell at matury) Again it is not fare one from the other (it actually almost means the same to me)
I suggest you read 'The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. You seem to think that there is something random or chaotic about evolution. There is nothing random about the biggest stag siring the most fawns, or the peacock with the grandest tail the most chicks. There is nothing random about how under certain circumstances the legs of a lizard will change length over a few generations.
Those organisms in a population that because of their individual characteristics pass their genes on with greater frequency than average will see those features spread across a population over time. That is not random. It is as un random as one can get.
If you wonder why there is not a perfect record of impercetably different skeletons going back from modern species, you need to learn about how rare fossilisation is.
You will also need to lean how gradual yet significant change can be.
Go to the seaside. Note there are two similar gulls, the lesser black-backed and the herring gull. Note they are different species, they don't interbreed. Take two baskets and catch two lesser black-backed gulls. Travel 500 miles north or east along the coast, let one go, and catch one of the local ones. Repeat this process every 500 km, keeping the remaining original gull each time.
What will happen by the time you have gone round the world on the coasts boardering the Arctic, is that the gulls you released at each point quite happily bred with the gulls at that point.
The gulls will also get greyer, and a little bigger.
When you get back home, you have two (one by now very hungry) gulls. One is the original black-backed gull. The other is a herring gull.
One species blending into another over thousands of kilometers so you can't see where one ends and the other begins. Change kilometers for years and you have a good model of much evolution.
Apostate Kate
RAF evolutionists believe that evolution is a theory AND a fact. They will apply adaptation and claim that there is proof that this sytem will create a higher functioning, more complex life form. Though there is no proof of this happening.
There is proof. The oldest organisms are simpler, there are no ancient complex organisms, and although there are always simple organsims over time more complex organisms arise.
If you have an alternative THEORY to evolution, please do tell. If evolution has been disproved, please say how. In your own words at preference over cut and paste. If you have scientifically acceptable proof for your beliefs then you have a theory. If you don't you have a hypothesis.
Michael Behe, big dude in the ID lobby, admitted in an Australian court that ID was a hypothesis, and that if ID was taught in schools, you would logically have to allow astrology to be taught, as that's a hypothesis too.
They will point to the fossil record yet the facts are that there are periods of teeming life, and periods of die offs.
And? That doesn't disprove evolution. How on Earth can you credibly criticise evolution when you know so little about it you make a massive mistake like that?
You can't evolve a suitable reaction to a meteor landing on your head, or to a volcano exploding, the time scale is too short! What it does prove is that whenever loads of species die off, their places in the available biological niches are taken by what looks like, over time, some of the surviving species of the event CHANGING. You actually gave a good proof FOR evolution, LOL.
The Cambrian explosian is but one.
I suggest if you extended your research to something other than strip-mining anti-evolution websites for supporting arguments or fallacious arguments from authority, and actually look at some facts, you could do no better than start by typing 'Ediacaran' into a web browser. You will then probably learn how before we discovered Ediacaran fossils it LOOKED like there was a 'Cambrian explosion'. Ediacaran fossils are pre-Cambrian. They were complex multi-cellular life forms, but were soft-bodied and rarely fossilised, even by fossilisation's standards.
It's pretty easy to see how many soft-bodies species could give rise to many hard-bodies species over time, yet leave a fossil record that makes it look like many hrd-bodied species appeared without any origin.
The lack of transitional fossils is another problem they will overlook.
I suggest the above example of a 'ring species' (the gulls), some research about fossilisation, and some research on talkorigins under 'transitional fossils' might help you understand your point is a little wide of the mark.
Do you realise how old and out of date your arguments are? It's like an anti-evolutionist tract from the 1970's. If you're gonna be so all-out confident evolution is wrong, you could at least have the courtesy to field arguments that have been credible in the last twenty years.
Why not start on irreducble complexity? I mean, that hypothesis has been disproved too, but at least it is more up to date.
