Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Umm, sorry to burst your biological bubble friend but, if the model worked it wouldn't keep changing over the years.
Psssssst!
Biological models would never have to change if everything else in the universe stayed constant, which isn't the case. For example, (as postulated) if meteor stayed exactly were god placed them instead of occasionally being pulled by gravity into some planetary object, like the earth for example, there would have been no need for a mass jurassic extinction which allow mammals to claim the position of dominate species.
I had some hope for this discussion, but I can see now that we are getting nowhere. I am confident that AREQUIPA, Ceist, myself or any number of other individuals could go through and argue your sources point-by-point, but there are some problems with this approach.
1. Your sources are so replete with fallacies and misrepresentations that this would take a long, long time and a lot of effort.
2. I suspect that (at this point in time) you would simply ignore evidence that contradicts your world-view in any case.
You have admitted that you have no scientific background and are trusting the work of others. These "others" are a select group of individuals who support a philosophy (and ID is that at best) consistent with your religion. What you believe personally about god and salvation is entirely your private concern, but our shared, objective reality is not.
These men you have placed your trust in are deceiving you. They are telling lies and half-truths, and because you have placed your trust in them you are also telling lies and half-truths. I don't think that's what you want; but honestly that's what is happening.
I very much hope that you review some of the information you've been offered (particularly by Ceist) and actually weigh out the evidence rather than trusting these dishonest men.
That said, I don't think there is any more I can do for you.
I do apologize if I was ignorant of your being a real scientist. It was a foolish remark of mine. Of course there are many scientists here but I knew Don (Rifleman) as a trained biologist but I haven't a mental list of all the others.
While I'm here, that stuff I copied, pasted and presented on human fossils and particularly the transitional ones was interesting with the increasing numbers of hominid fossils and the increasing spreading out from Kenya and Ethiopia through Africa,then to Europe and asia, then to Australia and finally showing up in America.
Just more evidence of a small group of hominids growing in numbers and spreading out geographically.
I do apologize if I was ignorant of your being a real scientist. It was a foolish remark of mine. Of course there are many scientists here but I knew Don (Rifleman) as a trained biologist but I haven't a mental list of all the others.
Hello again AREQUIPA.
No need to apologize, I meant it humorously. I've had my fair share of biology classes, but I must confess I am not a biologist; I am an analytical chemist.
According to the scientists I referenced, your scientists are incorrect and your "scientiest" keep moving the goal posts when they find out their current model is wrong after all.
Ah. the 'science is always getting it wrong' argument. The rebuttal is the same. The goal and posts remains the same. Evolution is the 'goal' and more and more goals are being scored.
The analogy rather breaks down in trying to fit in how new discoveries add to the information and perhaps the recent idea that the Erectus skulls in Georgia might indicate that the various sub species from A.Africanus to Habilis might all be the one species is clarifying a rather over- populated sub- species list.
That is nothing to do with shifting goalposts. No more than finding an Ark a different shape and size from the Bible description would be 'shifting the goalposts' of Ark enthusiasts.
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, by the standards of science itself, we're not there yet. Evolution is still a theory. It's a well supported theory, but archaeology and paleontology are not very exact sciences and incorrect assumptions/guesses happen all the time. It's also extremely difficult for science to conclusively prove that the fossil record is saying everything that we currently think it says. Evolution is always in flux and as such will probably never become a scientific law.
I'll repeat: evolution is not theory; it has actually been observed. What's maybe less provable is whether humans evolved in the past to where we are now, but it would take a pretty closed mind to reject the theory of evolution. If you don't want to believe in evolution, then you don't have to. I don't care. But I do care when people want to teach an entire generation of school children than an ancient legend has the same scientific weight as scientific theory that's based on generations of research.
No need to apologize, I meant it humorously. I've had my fair share of biology classes, but I must confess I am not a biologist; I am an analytical chemist.
Yes, my exact field rarely comes up in conversation. Not too many people question the validity of Fourier Transform or Gravimetric Analysis on the basis of their religious convictions. That would be cooler for me, though.
Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
