Starman wrote:Galapagos Islands????
Galapagos Islands????
Tell me someone did not just say, Galapagos Islands!!
I'm new to this site, so let's clear this up real quick - just because evolutionists found the need to redefine 'evolution' several times the last 100 years, let's not get confused here. Even Darwin knew the slow gradual processes he refered to were the mechanism by which TRUE evolution comes about. So let's get rid of the conveniently created "micro-evolution" from the start. We all know what Darwin and al the rest of us are talking about - species turning into another species.
And please don't give me some garbage about the fossil record. Evolution scientists have already admitted this imaginary ancestoral tree, where every plant and creature alive today is at the outter branches and can be traced back inwardly to other branches and so on all the way to the trunk, the first life form, they've admitted this is not what we find in the fossil record. Rather, its more like a bunch of parallel straight lines. Every species is the same from its earliest finding until its extinction. Even though Darwin was convinced the fossil record would be full of transitional forms. Its not. So don't mention the lie, sorry, hypothesis of the fossil record.
So now that that's all cleared up, someone tell me what's this proof of evolution I've been told? Please give me the facts.
The ramble quoted above would be better if a) it made sense, b) you learned how to write. Are you implying that it scientific theories are discredited when they are refined to better reflect the data? Are you implying Darwin should have completed the evolutionary narrative by himself on the first try? Or what?
Quote:Addressing the title of this thread is easy, its like when I don't know the answer to the multi choice question - I use deductive reasoning and eliminate what I know it is not. I can't prove creation, but the more evoltuionary theory trips over itself, redefines itself, and becomes more laughable- then 20 years from now we won't even have to discuss this.
Even if we assume evolution is full of holes - which it is not - it is absolutely farcical to make the retarded leap of logic you just made.
Clearly, the only logical explanation is that a magical homophobic egotist created us as receptacles for his greatness, flooded the entire world when we upset him, made his son into a human sacrfice to save us all from his own self-decreed law, instigated the creation of the Bible, and then forgot to tell us what parts of the good book should be taken literally and what parts are glorified childrens stories.
Please.
Even if we assume evolution is false, that in no way supports the Christian fairy tale of creation. In fact, as has been stated several times, evolution does not have anything to do with the creation of the first life form - that field is called abiogenises and it has yielded no firm results.
I would like to talk further, but please, come back with something better than 'the evolutionary narrative has not yet been completed, ergo, an omnipotent magician created us.' As it stands now, you're not worth wasting my time.
