Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albert_dao
Wait, I can debunk all of this...
|
I wish it were that simple. LoL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albert_dao
1. No one said genetic change takes millions of years. It happens generation to generation (the flu is a common example). Hell, it happens within individuals under relatively short time frames.
|
Ah that's what I was taught in Biology 12... over millions of years blah blah blah changed and became blah blah blah. Change happens through genetic change. Notice how the millions of years has now become immediate. If a theory is true it doesn't need to be constantly revised. I've never heard of Einstein revising his theory of relativity.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/po...find-1.1053624
Interesting article. Just more evidence that genetic change happens quickly. Which I happen to agree with. Some people call that micro evolution and I'm fine with that term.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albert_dao
2. Darwin proposed evolution. But if he recanted on this deathbed (which he didn't), it wouldn't change its validity nor the expansion of the science that has occurred since his hypothesis became theory.
|
I think the waters been too muddied to know whether Darwin recanted or not. I find the point irrelevant anyways. As far as crediting the expansion of science to the Theory of Evolution. What about the knowledge explosion in the Renaissance? That was way before Darwin's time. My point is there are many factors that contributed to mankinds explosive growth of knowledge. The biggest being printing presses and the internet. Evolution has nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. To credit evolution with the advances in science is incorrect when it is due to the rapid dissemination of knowledge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albert_dao
|
Interesting article. They found soft tissue inside fossilized bones. She said they even have found chemicals consistent with being DNA. There's a few differences between this article and the one I mentioned. The Hadrosaur bones I mentioned were not fossilized. They hadn't even started to fossilize. They were found laying on the surface of the ground in a pile.
Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555
If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue.
I'll read the rest of your links later.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albert_dao
Being an "evolutionist" is not a belief system no more than being a "gravitationalist" or a "particalist" is though.
|
Lets break this statement down a bit.
Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.
Gravity = observable and repeatable results
Particle Physics = observable and repeatable results
True science is based on Observable and Repeatable results.
Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Darwinian Macro Evolution is a house of cards just before a wind storm. Get out quick Albert. ;^) Even Richard Dawkins is running. Here's an interesting exchange where he endorses intelligent design and then goes on to say the higher intelligence must have come about via Darwinian Evolution.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?opt...test&Itemid=28