Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you explain how it could be six thousand years old?
I too would like to see how it could be 6k years old, I very highly doubt it is, though it very well could be.
Also, how it could be ten billion years old? What evidence leads you to conclude that either of those datings are possible?
The earth could of been created already aged, but WAIT!!!, ...thats thinking open-minded...
And would you care to explain why your unique, personal take on science trumps the more conventional variety with which the rest of us are
First of all, going with the "masses" ...yup, that's the most "logical" thing to do...
And I know, as does probably the majority of members who read this forum, how M.e. is suppose to work, the thing is, we don't observe it in action.
Sure we could get into the whole irreducible complexity issue, but that just solidifies the non existant proof of M.e.
We have individual species only.
Take for instance the whale and its land based ancestor, we should have millions of transitional forms in between, for that group, however we only
find a select number of individual species, made tailored to their habitat.
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I just tend to think that there is extraordinary evidence for that image. Without everything on the left, we would have nothing on the
According to the theory of evolution...that is...
But again, this is what I study, this is what I am doing with my actual life. I've studied it much more, and are more interested, than the question
"Oh, did we evolve from monkeys or not."
Education is great, I think everyone should be educated, however when you die, you don't take your degree with you.
I tend to only enjoy debating with people who actually understand the topic they are trying to debate. Thank you, though.
Like I said, I think most of us who read this particular forum, understand the topic. But just because you understand the process, doesn't
neccesarily mean, the process is correct.
Flaws are everywhere, they seem to particularly show up more often when one thinks close-minded, than not open to other possibilities that are shunned
by the main stream.
Again, I'm not defending anything, simply pointing out that the process of macro evolution is not observent, nor are their any concrete facts to