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.
Kathleen Hunt seems to be getting a pretty good work-out here. I don't think I'll be googling (I'm not sure I know how to google yet though it sounds rather naughty) that whole list, nor will Dr Raup, Dr Colin Patterson, Dr. Stephen Gould, or Dr. David Pilbeam of the Boston Natural History Museum who changed his position on human origins because he realized that his previous statements, which he had made so adamantly, were really based on very little evidence. He said that many of the statements made in the field of human origins had very little to do with real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions.
Dr Colin Patterson was misquoted, As for Dr. Stephen Gould, even he considers evolution to be a fact. Not to mention I couldn't find anything on Dr. Raup. Maybe if you could provide links to their statements? And Darwin has no real relevance on modern evolution. As for David Pilbeam, even he has found transistory fossils and more evidence for evolution.
Again, please go through here to make sure your claim has not been debunked.
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been established by proof based upon empirical evidence and verified by genetic experimentation on plants and animals, and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Contrast to this are the claims of "Creationists" paraded as science under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" that is based on the assumption that life was created, which, of necessity, assumes the existence of a "Creator." Such argument is mere speculation and inconsistent with scientific method, for it is nothing more than a presumption that is not evidence, much less proof. The same arguments and challenges to evolution advanced by the proponents of "Intelligent Design" were proved to have no support in the scientific community and ruled to be religious doctrine and not science. SeeTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). To posit creationism as a theological explanation is one thing; but to posture it as science is unsupportable if not outright dishonest, and only reflects discredit upon religious belief.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Introduction (1871)
It is interesting how some people have a very low burden of proof for asserting the literal truth of the Bible; and yet have an impossible one for scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It is time that religion cease being the altar of superstition upon which knowledge and reason are sacrificed for the sake of ignorance and stupidity.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Introduction (1871)
It is interesting how some people have a very low burden of proof for asserting the literal truth of the Bible; and yet have an impossible one for scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It is time that religion cease being the altar of superstition upon which knowledge and reason are sacrificed for the sake of ignorance and stupidity.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Introduction (1871)
It is interesting how some people have a very low burden of proof for asserting the literal truth of the Bible; and yet have an impossible one for scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It is time that religion cease being the altar of superstition upon which knowledge and reason are sacrificed for the sake of ignorance and stupidity.
Creationists will never accept empirical evidence that supports evolution. Even if we were to display all the fossils of every organism that has ever lived - from the preCambrian down to the current era - the creationists will simply counter that by saying: "Satan has tricked you. He planted all these fossils to deceive you and make you reject the existence of God. Don't believe the evidence of your senses. The world is an evil place. Have faith in the literal meaning of the Bible".
I've read that humans gained their intelligence by utilizing fish as food sources and this in turn increased their brain sized and capacity for intelligence. I've often wondered if giving your pet a diet of fish or fish based supplements at a young age would increase their intelligence.
Dolphins are pretty smart, so are seals. But cats aren't that smart( I'm a dog person), and they eat fish. And with mercury in tuna shouldn't dolphins and sharks be brain damaged. Maybe that's why the beach themselves. Something to think about, something kind of on topic.
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.
