rlQuote:Darwin assumed evolution and lined up circumstantial evidence to try to make his case.
Finches beaks?
Total Untruth, Took im almost 30 years to "line up all this stuff and test each aspect . He spent over 3 years just soaking seeds in seawater to even initially speculate on whether biogeographic spreading of plants could occur by "rafting". He also spent 5 years on barnacles and then used about 5 pages in his bookt
Quote:Now I will agree that the proof offered for evolution is unconvincing, largely circumstantial and based on assuming evolution in order to prove evolution.
. You will agree with who? yourself? Shows a mind not used to rigorous thought there RL. processes.
Quote:Even Darwin was raised in a family of evolutionists.
the importance of Darwins Grandfather, Erasmus, certainly gives RL some "smokin guns". Why not say that Darwin came from a family of potters, physicians and poor poetry writers. Thats more to thetruth
Quote:Finches beaks? C'mon.
Darwin never realized what he even had when he collected his birds . He never knew that all those birds were even finches until his "subcontractor" John Gould told him. His theory is not so much an AHA, EVOLUTION OCCURS. It was more"IF evolution occurs, I wonder how?"
Quote:Have human beings who have large mouths evolved from those with smaller mouths?
Have humans with great hand eye coordination evolved from those without, thus improving the ability to hunt and gather food?
These are examples of variance within a species, a certain amount of these variations may(or may not) be selected for or against if theres a particular advantage or not. That selection, continued over many generations ,can yield some particular evolutionary modification. Maybe a bigger mouth individual who can be heard in the back row of the church when preaching the Creation of life.
Hunting skills were usually a cooperative community affair that , as language developed the species could hunt as a tribe. The evolution of tools was not a result of a Lamarkian leap, but tools were actually a "work around" for the clever little humans to overcome their own lack of "fangs and claws".
I always like a theory that is constantly going under review and sub assembly (and repeated discarding of what doesnt appear logical) , rather than a totally illogical "great knowitall in the sky" whose methods and evidence are not under study or scrutiny EVER.
When are the Creationists going to test their own theories with some evidence? Are you forgetting to do your own work and hope that people dont notice that your entire worldview is based only upon taking potshots at real science? Dje ever wonder why nobody's ever come up with Creationist evidence(except for that which has been clearly faked)?. Lets try to make arguments only on our evidence . Youd be SOL if that were a requirement. Even your arguments against evolution are naive and built on non-scientific assumptions. Eg, a Creationist idea of evidence is
" assuming the world is 6000 years old , lets try to make the parishioners believe in a new physics and chemistry that speeds up atomic decay" Thats not science, thats tales around a campfire by superstitious people who fear truth.
RL would, if left alone to run the world, would like to have all evolutionary science cease and we all just accept the Mooga Booga theory of Creationism or its bastid child ID.
