How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[CHYUII]

highwaystar101 said:

CHYUII said:

highwaystar101 said:

 

 

Todays findings is the monkey, right, I haven't looked it up yet but I want to ask you are the fossils actually confirmed by the scientific community as a whole? OR did the press pick up the story because of the exciting hypothesis and then by faith people took it as fact shortly after? There have been tons of blunders through out the centuries.

LOL, Macro- evolution may have been invented by Creationist BUT it is just a word that says, "I reject a part of what you propose and accept part of it too." Think of it as a Line Item veto. It just says, "That the data shows this but it does not show that." If I accept GOOD science and reject BAD science (Being "harder to prove") does that mean that I hate science? I think it is unreasonable to say that they are one in the same especially when scientist do use it and athiest scientist who challenge Creationist and ID's also use the term.

as I was just informed above the Theory of Evolution has many parts so how absurd would it be to say that you have to take all of it or none of it at all?

The idea that you can't separate Micro from Macro is just absurd and irrational. It is just language trick. Whether you want them seperated or not it is not up to you language is bigger than you.

 

Let us stop the madness- what is this proof that you state. Give me 7 examples of your PROOF of MACRO.

Huh, science makes blunders ey? It seems to me that science looks for the truth and when it finds something worng they come clean and carry on the search. Not blunders, the search for the truth. Whan was the last time religious people admitted the mistakes they have made and carried on the search for truth? I know Christians who still think the earth is 6000 years old despite all that pesky evidence showing it is FAR older and that a flood wiped out everything except 8 people, which would have killed every plant on earth so the herbivore animals could not survive.

Here is you seven examples of what you would call macro-evolution... read this, 26 examples including... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Evidence of reptiles evolving into mammals

Evidence of human evolution from primates

Evidence that whales are evolved from land mammals

Vestigial tails, a left over gene from an older species

Snakes showing reptilian legs during early development... another leftover from an earlier species

The full evolution of paramecium (ehich co-incidently destroys slimebeasts bacteria arguements)

A whole heap of fossil records showing full evolution

 

Only fool would not accept it after read that site and these examples are just a few. Heck I can think of dozens of examples not on that site.

 

Now, Can you proove to me that god exists with seven examples.. Not just any god I mean YOUR GOD SPECIFICALLY...

 

 

WAIT

 

Before we continue STOP marginizing me by calling me religious and yourself a scientist. YOU have me labeled and are not talking to me but to every person that you think I am. IF you are going to be prejudice I have no need to continue.

When I said science makes blunders all I meant was exactly what you said- is it wrong for me to say I want more evidence before accepting a new hypothesis? Or theory?

As to religious people correcting there blunders they have and do. Just like with the scientist do evolution, religious people have debates over creation all of the time.

Also there is a difference between Creationist and Intelligent Designers; just like their is a difference between Christians and Jews; and Macro and Micro Evolution. Stop lumping things together because if we cannot agree on the "terms" or speak the same language their is no point in continuing.

You may not like Creationist and you may not know what an Intelligent Designer believes but maybe you should know the difference before you lump them together?

 

 

Also can you be more specific?

I could say, "Evidence that King Kong is the Supreme Ruler of my Left Nostril and that would mean anything."

Or a lawyer could go to court and say, "Jury! I have Evidence that this woman killed Justin Timberlake!" The jury would not take his word for it he/she would need to be more specifc. They would ask, "What evidence."

A creationist could say, "Evidence that God created the Universe." And it wouldn't mean anything until they showed you what they believed.

Just give me one of your examples and we will take it from there. Be more specific, please.