"The incomplete nature of the fossil record" is just another way of saying there is no fossil record. And while I agree this absence of a fossil record "does indeed exist" and "is very real", I cannot agree is makes "beautiful sense."
It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. We are some complex cats...so to speak. We have the ability to change the outcome, to determine two different paths. We don't cross the river where the crocs reside, we don't migrate in V formations year after year. We are aware....we ask how we got here and why. We engage abstract thought. Now, I'm sorry......any theory of evolution must contain some fossil record, some adaptation and behavioral record of change. It stands to figure it would be quite obvious, any other animal on this planet evolving these traits would leave traces of their existence.
But as we agree, this missing link, this absence of a fossil record is very real indeed.
As it is pretty clear most of what I have posted here that has tried to further knowledge of this topic for you has not been absorbed, I believe further attempt to be futile...and will simply bow out.
It isn't "magic soup"- you thinking it is shows your lack of knowledge on the matter. But even then, the primordial soup has nothing to do with the OP which you keep pointing to and it doesn't necessarily have to do with evolution either. That aside, the primordial soup in and of itself relies on the definition of life and considering the definition of life is man-made and arguable (not all biologists agree on it to this day), then it is hardly far-fetched that you can draw a line between something that is not life and something that is, even if some of those molecules go from being not life to life. It becomes even less far-fetched when you consider that all living material right now was at one point not living- when you eat food and your body repurposes the atoms for something else, something goes from being not living to living.
Last edited:
What is your methodology for determining fact vs. opinion? And how does gravity or germ theory pass that methodology to be fact and evolution does not? Since science clearly shows and supports evolution as fact, your methodology is clearly more selective than science. In that case, what other scientific facts do you deny?
Also do you view fact and opinion as black and white fact or as a gradient?
Last edited:
Evolution doesn't pass because there us no proof.
The methodology is simple, you want so desperately to believe in evolution therefore you see the data through your prism.
Gravity is visable in real time, you learn about gravity before you learn to speak. Evolution has to be told to you, and the academic field shares your desperation to believe in evolution so they jump to the same conclusions you do.
Look at the data from an objective point of view you will see.
Basically put if I drop a ball it will fall, can't perform such an experiment on evolution. I am not really familiar with germ theory, I don't think you are qualified to explain it.
They have their God and you have your God soup, not much difference if you ask me.
It definitely is magic soup, one day it wasn't and then one day it was, sounds like Genesis to me.
The only difference between you and creationists is that creationists worship a God, you worship yourself.
I have an idea, recreate the primordial soup and make life, until you can prove life just happens that way, its never going to be completely accepted as fact.
Most folks have trouble buying that soup forced itself to be one day.
Earlier you asked what is enough to make people accept your belief, here is the answer, nothing, you will never have enough to prove thus definitively to a believer, their belief is proof enough for them, nations have died to prove this, not even making a scratch.
Give up you will loose, the moment someone accepts their God all hope of your beliefs trumping theirs is gone. Your pathetic little theory will not encumber a believer, and you are surrounded. Best if you just focus on coexisting verses this belligerent futility you engage in.
Rant and rave all you wish about science, and how great it is to be knowledgeable, most people aren't scientists and reject the sterility of that nothingness. Hence we make laws to keep you in your place.
please allow me to clear up my last post, I don't reject evolutionary theory, actually kind of like it. but it's just a theory if it was fact they would not call it theory.
the difference is 1 + 1 equals 2 definitely not a theory.
it basically comes down to this, everybody will die science is powerless againstthat ultimate truth. believe is not. to some people science and fact don't matter.
evolution doesn't matter to me.
really what value is the study of evolution but a beginning point?
I don't see this as a value to academia.
it seems as though it is only used as an attempt to stamp out religion. Only to indoctrinate our children with secularism.
I don't see this as a value to academia.
it seems as though it is only used as an attempt to stamp out religion. Only to indoctrinate our children with secularism.
The Nazis (that wasn't what they were called by the way, it was a failed attempt at an English acronym) were a group of fascist German nationalists, also irrelevant to the topic.
it's perfectly relevant, forcing people to believe whatever you want them to is fascism. mousseline and Hitler both did that
Since you know nothing whatever about me, your opinion is not exactly hugely important, is it? Why not discuss the question at issue?
This is where I noticed it:
And though I understand it was in reply to something that began the derailment, and thus not a primary concern, it allowed escalation.
My request was directed at the primary...but involves you both.
Polydectes, there is just too much you are unaware of about evolution and the scientific method in general that I can't begin to explain it all here. For one, you still don't know what theory means. I suggest reading a textbook for that as you are tremendously misinformed. The methodology of science is a lot more rigorous than that of religion or pretty much anything else. And history has already strongly suggest that to us if you need to "see" it. If you need to see something to call it a fact though, then that is quite sad as you can't see atoms or electrons or protons either, yet they clearly exist (of course once you see the data then you can see that- just like with evolution).
p.s. This is not a put down. You are just really very misinformed about how science operates as well as what evolution is and what the word theory means. Kind of unfortunate that you take such a strong (and in my opinion radical) position without learning the facts...
p.s. This is not a put down. You are just really very misinformed about how science operates as well as what evolution is and what the word theory means. Kind of unfortunate that you take such a strong (and in my opinion radical) position without learning the facts...
Last edited:
You saying this means nothing unless you are actually okay with schools also allowing 1+1=3 on a test. It is the SAME issue. YOU think evolution is a belief on the same level as religion. MOST of the academic world and no one who is an expert in these matters agrees. To deny evolution has more proof than whatever the Bible says about the origin of species is just lying. Because evolution actually has hard data behind it. You are just being sensationalist to try to make it seem like we are the crazy ones... Leave out the crazy argument- it hurts your own ethos in my opinion.
Similar threads
