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.
Well, they could have, but the dinosaur
would have to be tamed first, and that would be counterproductive as the
dinosaurs needed to be wild so as the multiply and prosper as a
species..
We do know that all the dinosaurs were presented to Adam
and he named them(Genesis 2:19-20).
Well, that's just crazy talk! We know no such thing.
So basically yall have absolutely nothing to refute the theory of evolution.
The scientific Theory of Evolution has been rigorously debated and tested for 150 years and nothing has disproved it in all that time.
Many scientific advances in fields like molecular biology, genetics, physics, geology and chemistry have supported, refined, and expanded the Theory of Evolution far beyond anything Darwin could have dreamed.
Just to clarify: A Scientific Theory is a "well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions."
The scientific Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for all the observable evidence from the fossil records, from comparative anatomy, and from DNA analysis. The Theory is also consistent with other fields of science. The Theory fits all the observations of genetic changes in populations and diversity of life on earth. It ties together all the facts, and it's predictions remain true.
All the deniers and whiners can deny and whine all they like. But unless they can come up with anything that refutes the ToE - it stands.
Intelligent Design is not even a good scientific hypothesis let alone a Theory. It's just "God did it" creationism rebadged with a thin veneer of a couple of unsupported "sciency sounding" ideas like irreducible complexity (which has been disproven).
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
...
When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the Articulata class.
Are you seriously denying that by quote-mining out of context only the words in red, that Creationists and IDers are deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what Darwin wrote about the evolution of the eye? They try to claim that Darwin thought that it was 'absurd' to think that the eye could have evolved, yet clearly when you read further, Darwin believed the opposite of that.
Are you seriously DENYING that this is a deliberately dishonest deceitful practice by those people who quote mine Darwin's words?
Darwin never said that he didn't consider the idea to be absurd.
It is absurd for you to pretend that he did.
Consider the fact that he used his own theory to support his claim.
Darwin never said that he didn't consider the idea to be absurd.
No, he was saying that it might "seem" absurd, but then followed up saying why it wasn't absurd.
But you clearly don't want to acknowledge that the Creationists were being deliberately dishonest by misrepresenting Darwin's views by quote-mining him out of context.
If that's the way you want to play, you should have no problem with me quote-mining you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier;
there is observable evidence for evolution
and claiming that Harrier thinks there is observable evidence for evolution.
That is intellectual dishonesty - not to mention typing a fragment.
The person who previously quoted Darwin used the full sentence used by Darwin.
Stop playing your childish games.
Are you saying that the Creationists quote mining a sentence by Darwin out of context of the whole paragraph to make it look as if he meant the opposite of what he believed, was NOT dishonest?
Are you saying what the Creationists did was NOT dishonest?
Yes or No?
Do deny you wrote these words?
Yes or No?
You omitted words within a sentence.
That is intellectual dishonesty - not to mention typing a fragment.
The person who previously quoted Darwin used the full sentence used by Darwin.
Stop playing your childish games.
Better yet - answer the questions which you have been avoiding for nearly a full week:
Why do you believe that there is observable evidence for evolution?
What is your definition of evolution?
Please answer in your own words.
Thank you.
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.
These are fun:
