Evolution? How?

Let's suppose that in another million years a scientist finds a perfectly preserved squirrel fossil, and he announces to the science community that he found a fossil of a creature that he believes was the ancestor of the Ostrich. Now let's suppose people argue over this, until one day ten years later another scientist discovers a fossil of a flying squirrel, and announces to the scientific community that he's found that obvious evolutionary step between the squirrel and the Ostrich.

Now you, meaning anyone, being of sound mind would say that that is preposterous. Those scientists haven't found a missing link; they've found the remains of two completely different, yet related, creatures. Many species have gone extinct over the millenia. My question is, how does this prove evolution? The only thing this emprically proves is that at one time there were two types of alligators. I am sure there have been more than two types of alligators.

Let's put a spin on this. Suppose that in ten million years they find a fossil of an average size human being one hundred feet under the earth's surface, and six months later they find a fossil of a midget 120 ft. under the earth's surface. Do these two finds prove that average size humans evolved from midgets? Or could these two finds mean that these two humans possibly lived at the same time and were just two different size humans and perhaps one fell into a mine shaft 100 feet down and the other fossil was buried under a building after an earthquake.

I am sure you are familiar with the term card stacking. I am not saying that my theory of the origin of these remains proves creation, but I would seriously like to know how this proves evolution. Evolution just doesn't seem to consider the alternatives. It doesn't consider that there may have been two similar but different creatures at one time. It automatically assumes that a creature they've never found before proves an evolutionary step. Evolution bases itself on one assumption after another, until it finally comes to a contrived conclusion.

So what if I have a vestigial bump on my lower back. How does that prove I came from birds or alligators? Heck, maybe at one time humans did have tails, and after hundreds and hundreds of generations of humans docking their tails humans eventually stopped growing them. So perhaps having a vestigial tail bone doesn't prove evolution. Perhaps it only proves that God did first create humans with tail, so they could scratch those hard to reach areas on their backs. If in one thousand years dog breeders no longer have to dock rottweilers' tails, and some scientist says that the fact the rottweilier has a vestigial bone that was once a tail proves that all dogs descended fom horses would you call his theory preposterous?

I am not saying that not proving evolution proves creation, but c'mon evolution is based on assumption, and what do we call something based on assumption? A............... say it with me.................. th............the...................theory.


Speaking of the,


The.....................

Folks are always so smug to dismiss something as "theory," when in fact that's that second "highest" (if you please) designation an idea can be given in science...

We see evolution everyday. We have already proved that through gererations the common cold virus. We see it in bacteria. With enough genarations only successful strains remain alive. Why would we not evolve?

Evolution is a theory yes, but to say that their is a real debate in the scientific commuity is false. Techtonic plates are theory, but it is accepted because of supporting finds. There is quite literally volumes on top of volumes etc with support for evolution. Creation is only supported by man made books and mythology. In the event that a scientist finds one piece of evidence contrary to evolution, their ego swells and they think that their fossil invalidtes the thousands of other fossils supporting evolution.

Why is evolution so threatening to people?

Ah.................

Was that so hard?

Was it so hard to admit that evolution is a theory?

I'm not saying it's wrong, but since it is a theory, then it is not a law. Until some one proves that evolution is a law of nature, through the means of repeating all testable variables, it is just a theory. I am not saying that evolution does not happen. Certainly, on some level it does. I am just saying that until you can prove that my tail bone proves I came from alligators (I would like empirical proof, not the speculation of twenty scientists who all mimic twenty of their college professors) evolution is a theory.



The.............

Diest, it's because Darwin made it possible for the first time to imagine everything having come to be the way it is without any magic.

Those whose first allegiance is to an invisible magician find that threatening.

Nothing hard about it. Now, can you posit an alternative hypothesis, with testable variables? Because that's really what it comes down to. Until there's a better model, this model stays. And this model has been working very, very well in disciplines as diverse as geology and surgery.

First off I need to say that I have nothing against science by no means. I like science and do think certain kinds of evolution are possible. Just not the big bang theory.

This site is from a 900 some page book I'm reading. There's nothing religous in this book, only scientific research.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

And why exactly is the big bang theory not possible?

I stoppped reading when I saw that Chapter 1 was on evolution and Chapter 2 was on the big bang.

It's religion, not science.

So you basically think we came from a rock?

LOL

Yes.

So you are basically saying we came from a rock plus a magic man?

Here's a quote from your "science" book....



Yeah...science.....sure.....

I was relating that post to Chumly eorl.

So...I believe we got here by God.

And you think we got here by dirt.

I like mine better! LOL

Rock, dirt, nothing, a bang, matter when matter cannot be created.

other one, go and learn some real science and then we can have a proper conversation.

So what the heck DO you people believe?

Aren't the big bang and evolution (your form of how we got here) one and the same?

The site does have creationism in it. I said the book has none. Amazing I know, but true.

No. Not even close. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

Then please, enlighten me.

Do you think we got here by the big bang?



How much different is it from the other forms of evolution? I know there's different forms, but how can everyone say there is tangible proof?

I know, I know....there's no proof of a creator either.
But honestly, there's no proof that the big bang happened either.

Our posts came thru at the same time, so forgive me if you've answered that already.

other one, I wouldn't know where to begin. Reading Farmerman's posts in this thread would help but what about some books so you can be fair and give equal time to real science?

Can I recommend "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking and "the blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.