Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sen
I think this thread has somewhat been hijacked a number of times, but this needs to be addressed. I think it's very condecending to assume that everyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution lacks the understanding to make a rational decision based on available data. I, for one, believe that microevolution happens and that is all that the available scientific evidence has been able to support. Not once can anyone point to a seemless fossil record of one major shift from one group of animals evolving into a completely different group, i.e. fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds, or even one group of mammals into another; like marsupials to primates or whatever. There is always an elusive "missing link." The sheer diversity of life on the planet defies logic that they all decended from one single celled organism no matter how much time has elapsed. Furthermore, why would some primates evolve into humans, while other primates are stuck at the same level of evolution for thousands or millions of years: or perhaps a clearer illustration would be to look at all of the "lesser" life forms and why haven't they progressed. Why do we still have insects that we can see in the fossil records right next to the dinosaurs. Why haven't they evolved into something else by now.
|
Why did some mammals evolve into dolphins and not whales? The theory of Evolution is certainly more credible, simply because it HAS evidence. It's not a scientific law yet anyway, but there is more evidence supporting it then any other thoery present. Not all life decended from one single celled organisms. The original batch of organisms were likely identical, but exposed to different environmental effects, resulting in different mutations, resulting in different forms of life. Using Occham's Razor allows us to see that this is the more probable explanation for life on Earth, especially considering the evidence involved. There is no actual evidence to support conflicting viewpoints. "Intelligent Design" is simply re-worked creationism, which is dependent on the Bible for its support, which is not exactly the most reliable text for factual presentations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sen
That being said, I've started another thread that discusses the idea of majority rule and morality as it relates to the theory of evolution. This seems pretty far from President Bush and whether or not the rhetoric of him trashing the country in the next four years is called for.
|
How can it not be called for? By way of the First Amendment, we have the right to complain about him endlessly, even after he is out of office. We disagree with his goals and agenda, and are using our rights to voice those disagreements. Just because he is the President does not mean he is immune.
Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt