If evidence was presented to disprove or prove a commonly held scientific theory do you not think there would be great opposition that uses well
reasoned research and presents "evidence" that fits the bill? You will readily believe that a group of people is actively conspiring to suppress or
disprove information via outright lies and fabrication but when the mirror is shown on ones own respective group...all of a sudden "peer review" comes
in to save the day.
I am not saying that there are not lies being presented by "creationists" and "intelligent design" theorists. But is it reasonable to assume that
because people make up lies to support their beliefs that anything and everything related to it is the result of an outright lie. Isn't it safe to say
that the subject is still open for debate?
Remember, it was "peer review" that created opposition to einsteins theory of relativity and Le'maitres work that lead to the discovery of hubbles
constant and laid the framework for the big bang theory,
Some questions for those who are sure of our scientific findings...
We discover valleys and rock embankments that are littered with thousands of bones of dinosaurs including their complete skeletons. Shouldn't we be
seeing the same from "transitional" fossils? Instead of one Lucy shouldn't we be discovering entire families of them? Isn't that how evolution works?
Common ancestors give rise to generations of mutated offspring that usher in a gradual change into another species, correct so for example there
should be numerous transitional fossils between australopithecus and modern day man correct? Or am i to believe that just one species happened to have
just one mutation that just oh so conveniently leads to even more mutations that result in one giant mutation later on down the road? And that it did
this without being destroyed by predators and its own environment and any deadly mutations that result from inbreeding and outside any natural
radiation sources? We have. Absence of Evidence is not an absence of evidence however it is reasonable to assume that if a species were evolving
then there should be multiple examples of not only that transitional species but others as well. There are incalculable shades between red and blue,
but the shades do exist do they not? And in order for a system to survive it must create multiple replications of itself, yes?
Now as far as measurements and sanded skulls and whatnot...Why are we going off of measurements alone? In the absence of DNA evidence shouldn't we
leave our conclusions open for debate? I'm not saying that there isn't any truth to be found in these methods, but isn't it a little unreasonable to
assume that just because something looks like something else that it MUST be related? The platypus comes to mind. You can look at it two ways, a
stunning example of evolution in progress (or maybe lack thereof) or a stunning example of otherworldly engineering. Without being there at its
inception (SPECIES WITHIN A SPECIES, WHOA!) can we honestly claim it either way?
Why can't both sides of this argument be honest and earnest? Why is it that one side has to be lying and the other isn't ? Who are YOU, ME or ANYONE
to say " that is the way it absolutely happened" when none of us were even around to witness these things? Thats just as crazy as a christian saying
" god hates fags."
It's based only in partial truth that requires the blatant eschewment of all the other teachings.
STOP IT, YOU ARE HINDERING OUR PROGRESS. , make use of our discoveries and continue on in the pursuit of truth. Chalking it all up to one cause and
example is absolutely insane no matter what side of the fence you are on. Even god in the bible views things as indefinite and uncertain, that the
only thing god is really certain of is himself. And please don't de-rail this into some atheist vs theist debate because i used one highly
specialized example of god to illustrate my point.
Geez, do any of you realize how much faith you have to have to believe one way or the other?
I don't have access to these fossils let alone the data, knowledge and equipment that is needed to interpret the findings. Yet you expect us to
believe these claims because other scientists who do have the proper tools and knowledge say so?
It's one thing when you are talking about simple things like the force of gravity and newtons laws of motion. It's another when you speak of a science
that is contingent upon multiple sciences and multiple discoveries which themselves are still being debated.
But i guess questioning the official line from either side makes me some unreasonable satanic Fundie who hates science or god right?
Also, i want a pet dinosaur. Why can't science do this!? Seriously, i demand a dinosaur. i dont care how unreasonable it is. the coolness alone should
be reason enough. STOP DEBATING ABOUT SKY ALCHEMISTS AND GIVE ME MY DINOSAUR!
edit on 9-7-2012 by DeathShield because: (no reason
edit on 9-7-2012 by DeathShield because: Keystroke misfire, Also changed some harsh sounding words. I do not want to foster
emotional debate, but it may be unavoidable with this subject