Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview

[Hollie]

The fossil record is exactly that, a record of what lived on the planet. The scientific method has removed speculations and assumptions about what fossils mean over the centuries.

so when did they prove that???

I never heard a time machine was invented,,,

If you were to dig up a fossil of a clam, is there any doubt in your mind that a clam lived and died before becoming a fossil? Fossils are frozen snapshots of past time.

I never said different,,,but that clam never evolved into anything but a clam which is what evo claims did happen

‘Evo” doesn’t claim that. As usual, you simply are utterly ignorant as to the science involved.

 

[alang1216]

The fossil record is exactly that, a record of what lived on the planet. The scientific method has removed speculations and assumptions about what fossils mean over the centuries.

so when did they prove that???

I never heard a time machine was invented,,,

If you were to dig up a fossil of a clam, is there any doubt in your mind that a clam lived and died before becoming a fossil? Fossils are frozen snapshots of past time.

I never said different,,,but that clam never evolved into anything but a clam which is what evo claims did happen

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

 

[progressive hunter]

The fossil record is exactly that, a record of what lived on the planet. The scientific method has removed speculations and assumptions about what fossils mean over the centuries.

so when did they prove that???

I never heard a time machine was invented,,,

If you were to dig up a fossil of a clam, is there any doubt in your mind that a clam lived and died before becoming a fossil? Fossils are frozen snapshots of past time.

I never said different,,,but that clam never evolved into anything but a clam which is what evo claims did happen

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

thats pure speculation,,,

 

[Hollie]

The fossil record is exactly that, a record of what lived on the planet. The scientific method has removed speculations and assumptions about what fossils mean over the centuries.

so when did they prove that???

I never heard a time machine was invented,,,

If you were to dig up a fossil of a clam, is there any doubt in your mind that a clam lived and died before becoming a fossil? Fossils are frozen snapshots of past time.

I never said different,,,but that clam never evolved into anything but a clam which is what evo claims did happen

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

thats pure speculation,,,

Sidestepping and evading.

That was expected.

 

[ding]

God loves science. He created it.

 

[alang1216]

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

thats pure speculation,,,

What is speculation? The fossils are certainly real as is the pattern where they are unique, e.g., not found in either older or younger rock. The evo theory fits that pattern, that is not speculation, it is a recognition that no other theory fits the evidence.

 

[progressive hunter]

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

thats pure speculation,,,

What is speculation? The fossils are certainly real as is the pattern where they are unique, e.g., not found in either older or younger rock. The evo theory fits that pattern, that is not speculation, it is a recognition that no other theory fits the evidence.

how do they know how old the rock is???
how do they know how the rock got laid out ???

fact is they dont know and are assuming it happened over millions of yrs when a lot of the evidence points to a rapid forming and not millions of yrs


and since no time machine has been invented its all speculation based on those assumptions,,,

 

[alang1216]

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

thats pure speculation,,,

What is speculation? The fossils are certainly real as is the pattern where they are unique, e.g., not found in either older or younger rock. The evo theory fits that pattern, that is not speculation, it is a recognition that no other theory fits the evidence.

how do they know how old the rock is???
how do they know how the rock got laid out ???

fact is they dont know and are assuming it happened over millions of yrs when a lot of the evidence points to a rapid forming and not millions of yrs


and since no time machine has been invented its all speculation based on those assumptions,,,

how do they know how old the rock is??? Doesn't matter since if a layer is deposited on top of another layer, that first layer must already exist and be older.

how do they know how the rock got laid out ??? Not sure I understand the question but all rocks have certain characteristics that reveal their history.

fact is they dont know and are assuming it happened over millions of yrs when a lot of the evidence points to a rapid forming and not millions of yrs Some rock layers do form rapidly but they always leave clues that any geologist would see.

and since no time machine has been invented its all speculation based on those assumptions It is you who are making the assumptions not the geologists, they are looking at the available evidence and forming theories that fit the evidence.

 

[progressive hunter]

A common situation is to find a species of clam in a marine rock layer. That particular species is not found in marine layers either above or below or anywhere else on the planet. 'Evo' has an explanation, creationism and species immutability theories do not. You have a non-evo theory?

thats pure speculation,,,

What is speculation? The fossils are certainly real as is the pattern where they are unique, e.g., not found in either older or younger rock. The evo theory fits that pattern, that is not speculation, it is a recognition that no other theory fits the evidence.

how do they know how old the rock is???
how do they know how the rock got laid out ???

fact is they dont know and are assuming it happened over millions of yrs when a lot of the evidence points to a rapid forming and not millions of yrs


and since no time machine has been invented its all speculation based on those assumptions,,,

how do they know how old the rock is??? Doesn't matter since if a layer is deposited on top of another layer, that first layer must already exist and be older.

how do they know how the rock got laid out ??? Not sure I understand the question but all rocks have certain characteristics that reveal their history.

fact is they dont know and are assuming it happened over millions of yrs when a lot of the evidence points to a rapid forming and not millions of yrs Some rock layers do form rapidly but they always leave clues that any geologist would see.

and since no time machine has been invented its all speculation based on those assumptions It is you who are making the assumptions not the geologists, they are looking at the available evidence and forming theories that fit the evidence.

the problem is evo says millions of yrs and there is no way to know that,,it only says the ones on the bottom got covered first,,it could be an hr or millions of yrs,,,and it would only make sense that during a rapid cover that clams and fish would be on the bottom and birds on the top

those characteristics reveal nothing about their history other than they have been there a long time,,,how long cant be known only speculated,,


and its the evidence that is in question

 

[alang1216]

the problem is evo says millions of yrs and there is no way to know that,,it only says the ones on the bottom got covered first,,it could be an hr or millions of yrs,,,and it would only make sense that during a rapid cover that clams and fish would be on the bottom and birds on the top

those characteristics reveal nothing about their history other than they have been there a long time,,,how long cant be known only speculated,,


and its the evidence that is in question

The theory says nothing about how long it takes for a new species to evolve, it is you who are are creating this straw man.

A 'rapid cover' may put clams and fish on the bottom and birds on the top but geologists can tell when this is the case, even if you can't. A very common case in geology is a set of clam and fish fossils on the bottom, bird fossils above them, and then another layer of clam and fish fossils above the birds. This pattern can be repeated hundreds of times. It is not really relevant to evolution except it does show the immense amount of time these things have been going on. And how little you understand of the science of geology.

Evidence is never in question, only the interpretation of that evidence.

 

[progressive hunter]

the problem is evo says millions of yrs and there is no way to know that,,it only says the ones on the bottom got covered first,,it could be an hr or millions of yrs,,,and it would only make sense that during a rapid cover that clams and fish would be on the bottom and birds on the top

those characteristics reveal nothing about their history other than they have been there a long time,,,how long cant be known only speculated,,


and its the evidence that is in question

The theory says nothing about how long it takes for a new species to evolve, it is you who are are creating this straw man.

A 'rapid cover' may put clams and fish on the bottom and birds on the top but geologists can tell when this is the case, even if you can't. A very common case in geology is a set of clam and fish fossils on the bottom, bird fossils above them, and then another layer of clam and fish fossils above the birds. This pattern can be repeated hundreds of times. It is not really relevant to evolution except it does show the immense amount of time these things have been going on. And how little you understand of the science of geology.

Evidence is never in question, only the interpretation of that evidence.

when did they prove anything evolved????

geoligist only know what theyre taught and if they even consider anything else but an evolutionary process they are fired and discredited,,,that goes with all the scientific areas of research,,,

 

[alang1216]

when did they prove anything evolved????

geoligist only know what theyre taught and if they even consider anything else but an evolutionary process they are fired and discredited,,,that goes with all the scientific areas of research,,,

What has been proven is that you can find fossils that are never found in older rock and are never found in younger rock. Those are facts. Is there ANY theory besides evolution that can explain these FACTS?

 

[progressive hunter]

when did they prove anything evolved????

geoligist only know what theyre taught and if they even consider anything else but an evolutionary process they are fired and discredited,,,that goes with all the scientific areas of research,,,

What has been proven is that you can find fossils that are never found in older rock and are never found in younger rock. Those are facts. Is there ANY theory besides evolution that can explain these FACTS?

and there in lies the problem,,,THE ROCKS and their age,,,
it is assumed by evo that the rocks took millions of yr, and there is no proof of that, but there is proof that rock/layers can and have formed quickly through hydro events,,,

when you combine this with all the other evidence the millions of yrs thing falls apart

 

[alang1216]

when did they prove anything evolved????

geoligist only know what theyre taught and if they even consider anything else but an evolutionary process they are fired and discredited,,,that goes with all the scientific areas of research,,,

What has been proven is that you can find fossils that are never found in older rock and are never found in younger rock. Those are facts. Is there ANY theory besides evolution that can explain these FACTS?

and there in lies the problem,,,THE ROCKS and their age,,,
it is assumed by evo that the rocks took millions of yr, and there is no proof of that, but there is proof that rock/layers can and have formed quickly through hydro events,,,

when you combine this with all the other evidence the millions of yrs thing falls apart

You are being dishonest. Again, millions of years are NOT required for the theory to be true. Also, rock layers can and have formed quickly through various processes but these processes leave behind very obvious evidence that would not fool a trained geologist.

 

[progressive hunter]

when did they prove anything evolved????

geoligist only know what theyre taught and if they even consider anything else but an evolutionary process they are fired and discredited,,,that goes with all the scientific areas of research,,,

What has been proven is that you can find fossils that are never found in older rock and are never found in younger rock. Those are facts. Is there ANY theory besides evolution that can explain these FACTS?

and there in lies the problem,,,THE ROCKS and their age,,,
it is assumed by evo that the rocks took millions of yr, and there is no proof of that, but there is proof that rock/layers can and have formed quickly through hydro events,,,

when you combine this with all the other evidence the millions of yrs thing falls apart

You are being dishonest. Again, millions of years are NOT required for the theory to be true. Also, rock layers can and have formed quickly through various processes but these processes leave behind very obvious evidence that would not fool a trained geologist.

but the theory is based on millions of yrs,,,

you say trained I say indoctrinated,,,

and if were so obvious why is it so hard to back up???
all you and others have done is tell me what to think and not shown anything

 

[alang1216]

but the theory is based on millions of yrs,,,

you say trained I say indoctrinated,,,

and if were so obvious why is it so hard to back up???
all you and others have done is tell me what to think and not shown anything

When the theory was developed the age of the earth was unknown.

Indoctrinated requires faith in who is doing the indoctrination. Training requires you to learn what evidence exists. If I found evidence that contradicted the ToE I'd be rich and famous, quite an incentive.

The theory is NOT hard to back up, it is only that there are people that refuse to see or hear and resort to lies, distortions, and willful ignorance. You are a fine example of such.

 

[progressive hunter]

but the theory is based on millions of yrs,,,

you say trained I say indoctrinated,,,

and if were so obvious why is it so hard to back up???
all you and others have done is tell me what to think and not shown anything

When the theory was developed the age of the earth was unknown.

Indoctrinated requires faith in who is doing the indoctrination. Training requires you to learn what evidence exists. If I found evidence that contradicted the ToE I'd be rich and famous, quite an incentive.

The theory is NOT hard to back up, it is only that there are people that refuse to see or hear and resort to lies, distortions, and willful ignorance. You are a fine example of such.

the age is still unknown,,,


I see what is put in front of me,,its just that other information and evidence makes it suspect ,,,

like the idea that humans never saw dinos but we have physical evidence that that is not correct

or that we find human artifacts encased in rock thats supposed to be millions of yrs old,,

or that not a single time has it been observed one species giving birth to another or morphing into another,,,

or non living matter turning into living matter

the list of alternative evidence is greater than that for evolution,,,

maybe its you ignoring them and believing what youre told too,,,

 

[alang1216]

like the idea that humans never saw dinos but we have physical evidence that that is not correct

or that we find human artifacts encased in rock thats supposed to be millions of yrs old,,

 

[ding]

Much of what we know about the early quadrupeds is based upon extrapolations from mammals.

Just as in anything else the lens of time makes it more difficult to see clearly the further one goes back in time.

 

[Indeependent]

The sad fact is that I actually know university fund raisers and the professors have to conclude what they’re paid to conclude.