You find nothing validated in the fossil record... One can date a year dead chicken back two million years and then have some sketch artist sell it to scientific American only to be believed by you gents who would then in turn defend it till death...Genome research has presents more questions than answers every day yet somehow you claim a victory in this area and complexity of life AND symbiotic systems of life don't weaken evolution but rather strengthen ID...<quoted text>Evolution is not weakened by complexity.
On the contrary, evolution both predicts and explains complexity, and does so according to some tight constraints that we find are validated in the fossil record and the genome research.
#22 Mar 16, 2014
Since: Mar 12
#23 Mar 17, 2014
One thing the genome supports unequivocally is the nested hierarchy, the same one as we see in the fossil record.
And as the rest of your post is merely a hollow effort at discrediting the genuine work of thousands of scientists with some cheap pastiche fantasy, I will leave you to your delusions.
#24 Mar 17, 2014
That's because he's done zip.
And now he's touring the church circuit instead of doing "ID research".
Yup. Because you rubes don't understand the concept.(shrug)
You want dog giving birth to a cat. Bacteria giving birth to a giraffe. It doesn't work like that. But what we DO observe is DNA changes in each generation which accumulate. So it's a fairly simple matter to count them up and determine how closely related we are to other organisms. I've provided you the linky to debunk again and again and again.
Neither can any other fundie.
#25 Mar 17, 2014
Of course we do.
That's why evolution is the only thing that makes successful predictions BASED on the fossil record. It's WHY Darwin is famous. He predicted transitionals. We found them. Lots.
It's not because he made a prediction, got it wrong, then all the scientific conspiracy decided to pretend otherwise.
That's because, while new questions can and do arise, the info we get STILL supports common ancestry.
Find us a cactus with the DNA of a cat then evolution is in trouble. Until then we still expect DNA configurations to match nested hierarchies which is indicative of common ancestry.
How so? Who or what is the designer? What did it do? Where did it do it? When did it do it? What mechanisms did it use to do whatever it is you think it did? How can we tell these things?
Once you can answer these questions then you'll have something. But as you pointed out, even Behe can't because he hasn't bothered to come up with a testable "theory" in the first place. This is why the science community doesn't take ID seriously.
Add your comments below
|An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view...||31 min||Dogen||581|
|How would creationists explain...||37 min||Dogen||367|
|Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11)||1 hr||deutscher Nationa...||133,081|
|Science News (Sep '13)||9 hr||positronium||2,938|
|god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06)||12 hr||Chimney1||13,624|
|Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with...||Dec 20||nobody||7|
|24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13)||Dec 19||Zach||4|
Find what you want!
Search Evolution Debate Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC