[QUOTE]
Quote:
I feel bad, because you are only showing your ignorance of the evolutionary process. We didn't evolve from apes! We simply shared a common ancestor with them. Apes evolved from this same common ancestor just as we have
.
Aww don't feel bad, you don't need to because I probaby know more than you. If an ape and a human share a common ancestor that means the ancestor must have had ape like charactoristics, hence we evolved from an ape like ancestor. So I suppose the apes just forgot to evolve with the rest of us.
Quote:
We shouldn't expect to see a half-ape/half-man like animal. Please try and learn a little about evolution before making a fool of yourself with questions like this.
I think you have just desplayed more foolishness with this statement. We should definitely expect a transitional form of an ape becoming a man if evolution holds true.
Quote:
Not a single one of them does!
What are you talking about? I just quoted 4 eminent scientists admitting the lack of fosil evidence.
Quote:
What they DO admit is the truth. There are distinct gaps in the fossil record most notably the 'Cambrian explosion'. During this time complicated organisms appeared to have arrived on the scene in an unexplained burst of evolution. More than one would expect. There are several 'guesses' for how this might be accounted for. One is called 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which leads us to Gould
And yet you claim evolution is fact.
Quote:
You do yourself no favors by quoting Stephen Gould who was himself (if I'm not mistaken), an atheist. If I'm wrong about that, whatever else he was, he most certainly was NOT a theist who believed in a Creator! Gould very much accepted the Theory of Evolution! There are disagreements over something called, 'punctuated equilibrium' that continue to this day.
.. lol well duh! That is what I was trying to prove. That even Evolutionists themselves (Gould) have admitted to the lacking fossil evidence.
Quote:
There's a reason that just about every respectable biologist (indeed, just about every respected scientist), alive today FULLY accepts evolution
Yes evolution is generally accepted but that does not make it fact. It was generally accepted at one point that the earth was flat. So..
There are so many biologists (soon I will be one of them) who don't buy into evolution, at least not the ones who don't have an agenda to further propagate the non scienitific claims of Darwin. Darwin was not even a scientist.. lol He was a trained minister who decided to find an alternative to God and thus many athiestic scientists have held fast to the theory to aviod the alternative.
Quote:
The evidence is positively overwhelming and undeniable Sassy. You just need to put away all that creationist propaganda for a sec, and start reading from credible sources.
You need to stop relying on evolution propaganda yourself and just use your brain and you will see what a joke it is. Undeniable.. Gravity is undenaible, evolution is every deniable.
According to evolution I share a common ancestor with a fruit fly.. lol it takes way more faith to believe that. Even my five year old niece would laugh at that.
Quote:
I doubt this person is an accredited scientist. No scientist would be so ignorant of how science works. You don't ever prove things in science! You can only make predictions. So far, not a single prediction that The Theory of Evolution makes has been falsified. If anything, its predictions right down to molecular biology have been shown to be more accurate than Darwin himself could have imagined!
Gravity is proven fact. You can prove gravity beyond a shadow of a doubt so it is a FACT. The fact that I am sitting on my chair right now is proof of gravity, I can not deny it.
Evolution is not a proven fact. I just wish you would be reasonable and rational enough to admitt and accept this.
Quote:
Seriously... I'm not sure why, but I kind of like you from your posts. You seem like a nice person who is very sincere. But you should stop talking about this stuff, because you are making an incredible fool of yourself. We don't just use carbon dating, but many, many, different methods. All these methods use different clocks, each independently calibrated to an entirely different set of principles. And ALL OF THEM point to the earth being around 4 BILLION years old! Again, you are reading from creationist propaganda. Stick with things you know about before making asinine assertions like this.
Quote form encyclopedia Age of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years).[1] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.
Le
Of course convieniently the same people who want to sell the 4billions year old planet create other models of dating that suit their argument. At one point scientists claimed the earth was 70 million years old until they realised that evolution needed far more years to make it even nearly plausible. How convenient.
It would be nice for you to just admitt that you possess an incredible amount of faith in the premises and asssuptions used in science. The assuptions used are unverifiable so why should I believe them? Why should I believe the earth is 4 billion years old? It is not a fact.
Quote:
You'll have a long wait, because once again, nothing is ever 'proven' in science. You simply don't understand science and I can only suggest again that you read up a little about these subjects from credible sources. Good luck to you!
I don't know what kind of science you've studied then.:cool:
