Reply With Quote
Absolutely, we should always question things in science.
But we should also always question things regarding religion too if we are so inclined.
One only limits oneself if one doesn't.
Faith of the mind of a child limits understanding IMHO.
the experiment took place in 1980?
Absolutely, we should always question things in science.
But we should also always question things regarding religion too if we are so inclined.
One only limits oneself if one doesn't.
Faith of the mind of a child limits understanding IMHO.
But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.
Evolution is nothing more than historical speculation.
Hey, another logical fallacy. Proving a negative!
guppies in the labWhat is Google telling you now?the experiment took place in 1980?
Which Google search told you that?
Its a fact. You are simply putting pieces of a historical puzzle together and interpreting them as you wish. The problem is that this puzzle doesn't lead to a picture. This puzzle can be whatever you want it to be and the pieces can be put together in whichever way you want.
Like cheap Hookers!
Unfortunately for you, no.
1)Evolution can happen slowly.
2)Evolution can happen quickly(punctuated equilibrium)
3)Evolution as evidenced by the coelacanth,Laotian rock rat, bacteria, pygmy whales doesn't have to happen at all.
Do you know see how stupid the evolutionary "theory" really is? The cover all bases approach isn't really any form of science.
Again, you're just upset the evidence fits the theory.
Found those observations and experiments yet?
What evidence? A couple of fruit flies and guppies?
Can you prove there is a god? And no, Bible verses are not proof....
Are those all Google told you about?
The "facts" change everyday.
It's a real problem for palaeontologists when only fragmentary fossils are found. Many of the human fossils are only known from one or two fragmentary fossils which makes it almost impossible to determine if we have specimens from a single species whose differences reflect the diversity within that population; or that the differences are a result of being distinctly different species.
Yet they go on to create this elaborate story to fit their theory of evolution.
So definitions are refined with newly discovered evidence.
Nice.
Are you saying this is somehow evidence against evolution?
Is so, explain how.
So how does your article disprove evolution, rob?
Step up.
Again, you're upset all the evidence fits the evolutionary theory.
In what other scientific theory does the evidence collected so far fit?
Let me know when you got one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
