Darwin’s theory is that the species change to their environment. Other people have taken that to mean man evolved from apes – he wouldn’t go that far. I will.
Transitional forms have been found in abundance, but anti-evolutionists keep demanding to see more. If you find the transition between A and B, they want to see the transition between the new one and B. Like a kid who asks ‘why?’ and when you answer, says ‘why?’ again and again.
Also, men didn’t evolve from apes, as such. Both evolved from a common ancestor.
I’m afraid I don’t really get the joke. Would someone enlighten me?
As for evolution, the only reason that science ‘clings’ to the idea is that there is a vast body of evidence to support it. It is not a hypothesis that failed; if it had, science would be looking for some other rational explanation of the development of life on Earth. For a better explanation of the position of science and the validity of evolution, visit
The intensity of light varying with the inverse square of the distance shows clearly stars more than 6,000 light-years away. To say there is something we don’t understand about how intensity diminishes with distance is simply being silly..To act like there must be some secret system of radioactive decay to explain away ratios of radioactive elements and daughter isotopes, is more silliness..To claim these findings support a 6,000 year old universe is flat out lying, excuse me, being incorrect. They don’t. Just as there is no evidence of an entire earth flooded some four thousand years ago.
Will respond further when I have the time but for now:“Your statement about two things being false is irrelevant to the fact that truth is absolute. There is but one truth, and anything that contradicts it is, by definition, false. These statements are also irrefutable. ".I can accept the statement anything not true is false, but not the idea that anything false proves something else true. not when there are more than two possibilities. not when both could be false.That seems to be your problem, you assume if you prove something someone said is false, then everything anyone said is false other than what you want to be true.Please think on it and I’ll get back to you when work allows.
"there are modern creatures such as beaver and ducks found in so-called “dinosaur rock.”You are wrong. The “beaver” you refer to is called Castorocauda. It was NOT a beaver. It was not even a mammal. It was a Synapsid – a member of a very large order of animals, now mostly extinct. The synapsids are very well attested in the fossil record with a very large family tree going back over 300 million years.You want to avoid mentioning this from now on. It demonstrates the depth of your ignorance of the fossil record, which is the very thing you’re trying to argue against.———————“The there is the already pointed out coelacanth and wollemi pine.”For every coelacanth there are multiple species of sharks, rays, and bony fishes with well-attested and continuous lineages going back hundreds of millions of years. For every wollemi pine there are multiple species of redwoods, cedars, magnolias, and ginkos with well-attested and continuous lineages going back hundreds of millions of years.It like saying that since you have no birth certificates or pictures of any of your 8 great-grandparents, therefore no one has great grandparents.You want to avoid mentioning this from now on. It demonstrates ignorance of the breadth of the fossil record.———————“we DO know that magnetic fields are weakening overall”Lol! So now you and your friend “Dr. Russell Humphries” are going to reject plate tectonics, continental drift, and paleo-magnetism as well?? Magnetic fields strengthen. Then weaken. Then strengthen again. Continuously. In cycles.
The “Genesis Flood”.If such an event happened as literally described in the mythology, the evidence would be everywhere. In the strata. In alluvial deposition worldwide. It would inevitably appear as a layer in every archeological dig, everywhere in the world. With unquestionable proveneance. There would be a genetic ‘bottleneck’ left in the DNA by this event, in every single cell of every single living creature. Every scientist on earth would not only accept the reality of a “Genesis Flood”, but would be able to give an exact date of the event. Museums would be stuffed with artifacts from this event. People would marvel at the the evidence.But. There. Is. None.
Your basic problem:You think that . . . since you already cherry-pick scriptures to reinforce your own personal interpretations . . . you can therefore cherry-pick science to also reinforce your own personal interpretations.But alas for you. That is what the scientific method is specifically designed to avoid. It is specifically designed to let reality speak for itself. Outside of your head. Outside of my head.
jtviper7 over 10 years ago
Bob-in for fish…
pdeason2 over 10 years ago
Darwin said, that if his theory was not proven correct in a 100 years to forget it.
route66paul over 10 years ago
Darwin’s theory is that the species change to their environment. Other people have taken that to mean man evolved from apes – he wouldn’t go that far. I will.
Kip W over 10 years ago
Transitional forms have been found in abundance, but anti-evolutionists keep demanding to see more. If you find the transition between A and B, they want to see the transition between the new one and B. Like a kid who asks ‘why?’ and when you answer, says ‘why?’ again and again.
Also, men didn’t evolve from apes, as such. Both evolved from a common ancestor.
paullp Premium Member over 10 years ago
I’m afraid I don’t really get the joke. Would someone enlighten me?
As for evolution, the only reason that science ‘clings’ to the idea is that there is a vast body of evidence to support it. It is not a hypothesis that failed; if it had, science would be looking for some other rational explanation of the development of life on Earth. For a better explanation of the position of science and the validity of evolution, visit
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html
gnatXXsum over 10 years ago
Peter is the Master Observer!
Reality,really? over 10 years ago
They are not mutually exclusive. One can have evolution and a God who started it. There are however versions of both the are left wanting.
Seiko over 10 years ago
If evolution was true, then by now every human would be using paragraphs while writing lengthy arguments.
AmyGrantfan51774 over 10 years ago
what kind of fish was that????!!!!!!!
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
The intensity of light varying with the inverse square of the distance shows clearly stars more than 6,000 light-years away. To say there is something we don’t understand about how intensity diminishes with distance is simply being silly..To act like there must be some secret system of radioactive decay to explain away ratios of radioactive elements and daughter isotopes, is more silliness..To claim these findings support a 6,000 year old universe is flat out lying, excuse me, being incorrect. They don’t. Just as there is no evidence of an entire earth flooded some four thousand years ago.
byamrcn over 10 years ago
Well he’s never gonna reproduce with a fish on his nose…so Darwin scores!
gnatXXsum over 10 years ago
It’s true, creationism and evolution should never be debated.
It woould be like debating apples and oranges!
David Huie Green LoveJoyAndPeace over 10 years ago
Will respond further when I have the time but for now:“Your statement about two things being false is irrelevant to the fact that truth is absolute. There is but one truth, and anything that contradicts it is, by definition, false. These statements are also irrefutable. ".I can accept the statement anything not true is false, but not the idea that anything false proves something else true. not when there are more than two possibilities. not when both could be false.That seems to be your problem, you assume if you prove something someone said is false, then everything anyone said is false other than what you want to be true.Please think on it and I’ll get back to you when work allows.
corzak over 10 years ago
"there are modern creatures such as beaver and ducks found in so-called “dinosaur rock.”You are wrong. The “beaver” you refer to is called Castorocauda. It was NOT a beaver. It was not even a mammal. It was a Synapsid – a member of a very large order of animals, now mostly extinct. The synapsids are very well attested in the fossil record with a very large family tree going back over 300 million years.You want to avoid mentioning this from now on. It demonstrates the depth of your ignorance of the fossil record, which is the very thing you’re trying to argue against.———————“The there is the already pointed out coelacanth and wollemi pine.”For every coelacanth there are multiple species of sharks, rays, and bony fishes with well-attested and continuous lineages going back hundreds of millions of years. For every wollemi pine there are multiple species of redwoods, cedars, magnolias, and ginkos with well-attested and continuous lineages going back hundreds of millions of years.It like saying that since you have no birth certificates or pictures of any of your 8 great-grandparents, therefore no one has great grandparents.You want to avoid mentioning this from now on. It demonstrates ignorance of the breadth of the fossil record.———————“we DO know that magnetic fields are weakening overall”Lol! So now you and your friend “Dr. Russell Humphries” are going to reject plate tectonics, continental drift, and paleo-magnetism as well?? Magnetic fields strengthen. Then weaken. Then strengthen again. Continuously. In cycles.
corzak over 10 years ago
The “Genesis Flood”.If such an event happened as literally described in the mythology, the evidence would be everywhere. In the strata. In alluvial deposition worldwide. It would inevitably appear as a layer in every archeological dig, everywhere in the world. With unquestionable proveneance. There would be a genetic ‘bottleneck’ left in the DNA by this event, in every single cell of every single living creature. Every scientist on earth would not only accept the reality of a “Genesis Flood”, but would be able to give an exact date of the event. Museums would be stuffed with artifacts from this event. People would marvel at the the evidence.But. There. Is. None.
corzak over 10 years ago
Your basic problem:You think that . . . since you already cherry-pick scriptures to reinforce your own personal interpretations . . . you can therefore cherry-pick science to also reinforce your own personal interpretations.But alas for you. That is what the scientific method is specifically designed to avoid. It is specifically designed to let reality speak for itself. Outside of your head. Outside of my head.