what i said about scientists is that they have not created 1 living organism. not one, not even a nano thing that has 1 leg, nothing, no plant, no blade of grass, nothing.
when i talk about evolutoin, you say you wouldnt be able to see any changes in the fossil. sure you would, if you have a species growing wings and turning into a bloody elephant sure you would see it change! you would find a fossil with half a trunk at least no? a feather perhaps?
Cast of the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica, from the collections of UCMP.
Original at Humboldt University, Berlin.
Well lookie what we have here. A dinosaur with feathers! Isn't that exactly what you were asking for? Does this not count as a "change in the fossil"?
Fascinating discusion , and I would thank Alan , Rem and others for clearly presenting evolutionary ideas .
I believe that it comes to one's perception. I have read the reasoning of Darwin ,Dawkins and others and I too have to say that it does not make sense to me. It is a pity that Vanilia seemed to get angry, as you say, there is no point discussing unless you include subjects on which we disagree.
The biological similarity between man and apes does not change the intellectual gulf that seperates us , or explain man's human qualities of love, or creativity to make music or the arts
When I see the beauty of this world around us , I see the handiwork of a creator. Mind you , I want to read the links you have given because one should always read as much as possible.
This thread surely took off!
Great links and material folks! It is a shame though that certain people (not pointing any fingers) try to reason from ignorance. As a former JW I know how science and evolution were mocked and wrongly represented. When I was JW I found it ridiculous for people to believe such drivel. Can you imaging what is was like for me to study biology at university and see what evolution was really about? To taste science? The overwhelming evidence? Anybody here on this board knows the results from listening only to one side of the story (think the society). one should never revert back to dogmatism to defend views. Especially US should be openminded, always being prepared to investigate new views and evidence.
If you want to discuss scientific issues it would be very advisable to first read up to all sides of the matter before venting any opinions or even conclusions. A good starting point would be basic logic, the very cornerstone of science. This will make you critical and it would be less easy to fall in really very common falacies. And it will be easier to defend your position too. What your conclusion will be afterwards doesn't really matter to me. As long as your opinion and conclusions are informed ones.