It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Equinox99
So if you take a native American and put him in Alaska, he puts on a fur coat and makes warm clothes...is that evolution?
Originally posted by Shere Khaan
Actully they have plenty of fossil evidence to show the process of speciation which leads to the differences you are talking about. Whether you accept that evidence leads to proof is up to you; however, it is exceedingly close-minded and ignorant of you to say there is no evidence at all.
[edit on 22-4-2008 by Shere Khaan]
Originally posted by camain
While this study or observation did should that the lizard is evolving, it in fact did not show that it had evolved.
Religion is ALL theory, no facts.... so theory DOES exists outside of science.
Biological evolution isn't any kind of theory (sorry, dave420 -- and by the way, your jigsaw puzzle analogy is absolutely spot-on). Evolution is a fact, as well established from empirical evidence as any fact can be. Indeed, thanks to all this opposition from the godly, the amount of evidence presented for it far outweighs that put forward to support many other less 'controversial' scientific theories. We have seen evolution operating in time-frames from several billion years to (in the case of cellular automata) a few hours. Repeat, ad nauseum: evolution is a fact.
I would assume that theory is true, as I cannot fathom another plausible explanation, but no one witnessed the event from beginning to end. That means it is still theory.
If evidence for evolution outweighs evidence against it, as you just stated, then it would follow that there would be some evidence against it. That in itself would prevent evolution from being a fact.
Please give me the names of the observers of evolution who have been at this for 'several billion years'.
To be offended at the idea of questioning a scientific idea is to be as unscientific as the hermit who still thinks God is some old man sitting on a cloud with a white beard.
I said it in a previous post, and I repeat it here: Science is a search for knowledge. Religion is a search for wisdom.
And to base a debate on the meaning of an incorrectly used word is... stupid.
I can't witness my own digestive processes from beginning to end -- does that mean they only exist in theory?
But I did not state it. Read my post again.
There is no evidence -- I repeat, no evidence -- against evolution.
Do you really imagine that empirical observation of a process is somehow more trustworthy than inference from post hoc evidence?
Do you imagine I am among the Legions of the Offended?
Jay Gould's famous 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Well, I don't agree about the 'non-overlapping'. And religion is a very unreliable guide to wisdom.
So, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son? An empire broke asunder over this question.