Church of England apologises to Charles Darwin
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
That claim is just plain stupid. Humans aren't descended from chimps, humans and chimps share a common ancestor, there's no reason why chimps shouldn't still be around.
Personally I don't care whether Darwin recanted his theory or not. As well I don't care whether you discuss it further or not. All I know is that the theory of evolution is not logical and cannot be proven.
but you can't prove it conclusivley...you have admitted that there aRE GAPS IN THE TIME LINE...UNEXPLAINED....
Yeah, that is interesting isn't it, and just underlines how little you understand. You're making the cognitive dissonance error I described in the thread about Vanni going to Hell.
NOT LOGICAL??? Hoo boy...
Gerryh- by pretty well fleshed out, I mean sort of like a script for a movie- you don't storyboard every single atom of the concrete, you just need a rough sketch. Just because you don't specify what the molecular structures of the sets, props and actors are doesn't mean you have "nothing". You're basically attacking evolution from the same angle one would take if they were to tell a director a shot couldn't be filmed cos there wasn't a perfectly accurate count of the bricks in building #58 in the background of a certain shot. You can still shoot the film, after all
OH and Gerryh, I added this edit just for you- explain to me exactly how your computer works, all the way from manufacture, right down to all the electrical interactions, if not, that PC you're using very likely does not exist
Gerryh- by pretty well fleshed out, I mean sort of like a script for a movie- you don't storyboard every single atom of the concrete, you just need a rough sketch. Just because you don't specify what the molecular structures of the sets, props and actors are doesn't mean you have "nothing". You're basically attacking evolution from the same angle one would take if they were to tell a director a shot couldn't be filmed cos there wasn't a perfectly accurate count of the bricks in building #58 in the background of a certain shot. You can still shoot the film, after all
OH and Gerryh, I added this edit just for you- explain to me exactly how your computer works, all the way from manufacture, right down to all the electrical interactions, if not, that PC you're using very likely does not exist
and how is that... you are deciding what is and was is not "evidence". Why is it that I can not have the same expectations? WHy is it YOUR evidence can be considered "better" than my "evidence"? You still haven't fully answered ANY of my questions. We could always stop the round and round and you admit, like said1, that science can NOT prove conclusively evolution.
There's your post.... you used the word gaps.... if that's not what you meant then how about you elaborate on what you mean by "speciation gaps" in mankinds evolutionary timeline.
I gave you one explaination with respect to one speciation category that applies to certain birds. What more do you want, I ain't writting a novel.
:roll::roll::roll:
Ya know...... for smart people.... most of ya`s are pretty damn stupid.
When looking at the universe as a whole, science can prove very little conclusively. Most is speculation based on observation and logical next steps. Evolution is one thing that can NOT be proven conclusively. There ARE gaps in sciences understanding AND in the timeline. Missing connective species. The beginings and evolution of our existing universe is another. Science, at this time, can NOT explain everything. Somethings are postulated based on what we DO know. THIS is a fact.
Certain things are taken in "faith", as much as some of you don't like that word, that is also a fact. Believing in God does NOT exclude science OR evolution. Believing in science and evolution does NOT exclude the belief in God. Arguing either is narrow minded in the least. None of you can "prove" conclusively the validity of most scientific theory's nor the validity of God.
Those of us that DO believe in God have had his existence "proven" to us one way or another enough to put our FAITH in his existence.
My point has been that there is VERY little that can be proven conclusively to EVERYONES satisfaction. Arguing the existence of God or the infallibility of science is like a dog chasing his tale....doesn't get anyone anywhere fast. We, as a species, just aren't smart enough to know everything. Doesn't mean we stop trying, just that we ALL need to keep an open mind to ALL posibilities, because that is all we have, a multitude of posibilities.
Ya know...... for smart people.... most of ya`s are pretty damn stupid.
When looking at the universe as a whole, science can prove very little conclusively. Most is speculation based on observation and logical next steps. Evolution is one thing that can NOT be proven conclusively. There ARE gaps in sciences understanding AND in the timeline. Missing connective species. The beginings and evolution of our existing universe is another. Science, at this time, can NOT explain everything. Somethings are postulated based on what we DO know. THIS is a fact.
Certain things are taken in "faith", as much as some of you don't like that word, that is also a fact. Believing in God does NOT exclude science OR evolution. Believing in science and evolution does NOT exclude the belief in God. Arguing either is narrow minded in the least. None of you can "prove" conclusively the validity of most scientific theory's nor the validity of God.
Those of us that DO believe in God have had his existence "proven" to us one way or another enough to put our FAITH in his existence.
My point has been that there is VERY little that can be proven conclusively to EVERYONES satisfaction. Arguing the existence of God or the infallibility of science is like a dog chasing his tale....doesn't get anyone anywhere fast. We, as a species, just aren't smart enough to know everything. Doesn't mean we stop trying, just that we ALL need to keep an open mind to ALL posibilities, because that is all we have, a multitude of posibilities.
