{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/10/2015 5:26:19 PM
3
So when they keep finding skeletons that are step by step an evolution of a single creature that coincides with radio carbon dating....that's just a hypothesis?
What am I saying! Of course it makes more sense to believe a man that lives in the sky with a robe and beard created everything as is!
English
-
They have never found this..
-
Yes.....yes they have.....somebody hasn't been to college yet I see.
-
Example: Prof. Steve Jones of University College London published an updated version of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1999, the fossil record still posed the same problem that Darwin saw in his own work... It said "The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution.” (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
-
Don't forget the fossil record is incomplete, many things are left out of it
-
I'm an electrical engineer.. And I have never seen fossil records showing minute changes over a species time period developing into another species... This is known by the scientific community..
-
I'd like to see this fossil record.. The biggest missing puzzle piece in evolution
-
Just do a google search on human skeletons structures over time or if you really want to freak yourself out look up the evolution of whale skeletons.
-
Those are drawings... Darwin himself said in his book:"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)" And when it was rewritten 140 years later scientists drew the same conclusion...
-
Someone questions evolution, commit a fallacy by bringing up something intrinsically unrelated. Your powers of deductive reasoning are endless.
-
Edited by Hurphy: 3/10/2015 6:16:45 PMIt doesn't have to be intrinsically related when I don't care for the response and by the way this quote reminded me of you: "A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things." -Herman Melville Edit: an argument against evolution is not the same as simply questioning, also my example is hardly a fallacy as it directly pertains to the existence of evolution by observable evidence to which the post before me argued didn't exist. Might want to read the whole thread before going full retard. Lol
