Evolution...

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say one needs every individual that lived to be fossilized. I am referring to the "missing links" that show that one kind changed to another kind. Darwin said they would be found, but they haven't been found.

Again, Ronald Jonah Hinds, you demonstrate your ignorance quite clearly.

What about learning some before you prove yourself as knowing nothing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say one needs every individual that lived to be fossilized. I am referring to the "missing links" that show that one kind changed to another kind. Darwin said they would be found, but they haven't been found.

You really don't understand this, do you?

Go back to the post where I explain that evolution work on the species, not individual level.
Noone expects to find a member of one species to give birth to a member of another
species. The only people I know of that believes in that kind of magic are little children and
their creationist parents.

Originally posted by C Hess
You really don't understand this, do you?

Go back to the post where I explain that evolution work on the species, not individual level.
Noone expects to find a member of one species to give birth to a member of another
species. The only people I know of that believes in that kind of magic are little children and
their creationist parents.

I don't understand it that way either. The way I understand the evolution teaching is that some fish gradually change over long periods of time so they become amphibians or reptiles, then some of those continue to change over more time to become mammals. Some of these mammals then change over time until they become monkeys, baboons, chimpanzees, gorillas, and man. I don't believe that kind of change happens and that it is just an opinion and not science because it can not be observed nor is there any proof that it has ever happened.

My theory is that a fish remains a fish, a reptile remains a reptile, birds remain birds, monkeys remain monkeys, and man remain man no matter how long they have lived on the earth. That is what historical and observable science shows us.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My theory is that a fish remains a fish, a reptile remains a reptile, birds remain birds, monkeys remain monkeys, and man remain man no matter how long they have lived on the earth. That is what historical and observable science shows us.

Yes, it is your theory. And it has nothing to do with science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't understand it that way either. The way I understand the evolution teaching is that some fish gradually change over long periods of time so they become amphibians or reptiles, then some of those continue to change over more time to become mammals. Some of these mammals then change over time until they become monkeys, baboons, chimpanzees, gorillas, ...[text shortened]... how long they have lived on the earth. That is what historical and observable science shows us.

I should apologise then. I'm sorry.

You do understand the gist of how evolution is thought to work. Then, surely, if you're
looking at long since dead, fossilised remains in their chronological order, with features
morphing as we move through the fossil record closer to our own time, you can see how
this constitutes scientific evidence in support of evolution?

I'm glad this discussion is finally over. The scientific community settled this over a hundred
years ago, but better late than never, I always say. Good for you, and welcome to our reality,
where rational thought and empirical evidence is deeply respected. 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, it is your theory. And it has nothing to do with science.

Evolution is a theory that has nothing to do with science. My theory is backed by observational and historical science.

Originally posted by C Hess
I should apologise then. I'm sorry.

You do understand the gist of how evolution is thought to work. Then, surely, if you're
looking at long since dead, fossilised remains in their chronological order, with features
morphing as we move through the fossil record closer to our own time, you can see how
this constitutes scientific evidence in support of ...[text shortened]... welcome to our reality,
where rational thought and empirical evidence is deeply respected. 🙂

I accept your apology.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I accept your apology.

😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is a theory that has nothing to do with science. My theory is backed by observational and historical science.

You really have to spell evilution correctly. Use an "i", not an "o".

Evilution is not a science. It's a theory created by creationists.
Evolution, however, is a science. But how would you know.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is a theory that has nothing to do with science. My theory is backed by observational and historical science.

So you personally let an expedition to determine the falseness of evolution? Evolution goes back a billion years, so how could you have historical evidence?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you personally let an expedition to determine the falseness of evolution? Evolution goes back a billion years, so how could you have historical evidence?

It is all part of a marvelous theory, which is actually nothing more than a grand evolutionary hoax. Experienced scientists denounce it as untrue.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12a.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]It is all part of a marvelous theory, which is actually nothing more than a grand evolutionary hoax. Experienced scientists denounce it as untrue.

http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12a.htm[/b]

Wow, NOW I am convinced. Did you notice maybe the tiny bit of sarcasm there?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, NOW I am convinced. Did you notice maybe the tiny bit of sarcasm there?

You apparently missed out somwhere in your education in science. You should read the whole Evolution Handbook before you make any more ignorant comments.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently missed out somwhere in your education in science. You should read the whole Evolution Handbook before you make any more ignorant comments.

Of course, the theory of evolution doesn't predict the existence of a single fossil (although it happens that the fossil record is in good agreement), but who needs basic knowledge about evolution when discussing it, right?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Of course, the theory of evolution doesn't predict the existence of a single fossil (although it happens that the fossil record is in good agreement), but who needs basic knowledge about evolution when discussing it, right?

That is where a book like the Evolution Handbook is needed for your education. Once you are clear on the basic knowledge of evolution, instead of propaganda about evolution, then we can have an intelligent and civil discussion and debate. You can find the basic knowledge here:

http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12a.htm