Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Are you serious? For one you spelled millennia wrong.
|
The very same sentence that corrects my spelling also contains a comma error. Please forgive me of my sins, and I shall forgive you yours.
let me explain it to you another way. Take gravity. When you throw a ball off of the side of a building, it falls. That's gravity. The fact that the ball fell is just that; a fact. It can't be rationally explained away as not having happened. Now when you do this a hundred times, and you predict based on your observation of the ball falling a hundred times that the ball will once again fall on the 101st attempt, that's a theory (we call it the "theory of gravity"). It can be demonstrably proven or disproven on your 101st attempt whether or not the ball will fall. That doesn't mean your theory becomes a fact - your theory will never be a fact, because it is trying to
predict rather than
observe. Predictions can
never be facts.
The current "theory of evolution" (not quite the same as darwin's theory of evolution, but he wasn't so far off) has been able to accurately predict the results of experimentation for some time. It will surely either be revised or cast aside if new experimentation renders its predictive power useless. this is why it is being taught in schools. What can any alternative interpretation of the facts predict?
Quote:
|
Secondly, are you suggesting that interbreeding various livestock to achieve hardier varieties proves evolution? What a moron. If you want to prove evolution then explain how a fish became an ape, then became a human being. You can't can you. Can you assure me that if you breed two sparrows together 5 trillion times eventually you will get a giraffe? No? I guess your observable phenomenon just aren't there huh? Nice try. I think you are confusing adaption and animal husbandry with evolution. Don't feel bad. Most people who believe in evolution don't know the difference.
|
Creationists posit that there are no transitional fossils of apes into humans - when you show them the evidence though, they can't agree which fossils are ape and which are human.
Looks like transitional fossils to me.
How about this: Would you defend the proposition that bacteria resistant to synthetic penicillins (and indeed, all hypothetical drug-resistant bacteria that may exist in the future to as of yet undiscovered drugs) were already in existence from the beginning of creation?