Tennessee passes bill allowing bullying to other LGBT students

[Mega-Bear]

-> I reject the the main theories of evolution (single-celled eukaryotes becoming fish, fish becoming amphibians, amphibians becoming reptiles, reptiles becoming birds, birds becoming mammals, etc) -- Reason: There are hardly any links that would possibly be a bridge between them.  Arguments include Archaeopteryx and other feathered dinosaurs "becoming birds", other species of prehistoric apes that "might" be a "early human".

Paleontologists have uncovered many, many transitional forms in the fossil record.

Eukaryotes to fish is an enormous step, so it didn't exactly happen that way. You can read about the evolution of fish here if you want to though.

For amphibians, a detailed explanation is here. Although I have a decent grasp on amphibian evolution so I would be happy to answer any questions you have about it.

Reptile evolution. Again, any questions about this I can try answer.

Reptiles never became birds though. Reptiles evolved into these things called "archosaurs," the precursors to dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and modern day birds and crocodilians.

Wikipedia also has a list of human transitional fossils here, as well as one that begins at the dawn of life on Earth. That is here.

-> I reject that earth (or anything celestial in the universe) is billions, even millions, of years old. -- Reason: I am not sure how scientists can assume that argon and radiocarbon dating is completely true if they can only see statistics on recent experiments from the past however many years that it has been accepted.

What do you mean? The amount of time we have had access to carbon dating isn't relevant. It is a precise dating method. Is there something about it that confuses you? I can try to clear it up.

Then they teach everyone that it is scientific law and say that it has nothing to do with faith.

That's because it doesn't. What part of it seems faithful to you?

[Ad Bot]

[Char]

-> I believe that the Earth was at one time swamped at least a couple of miles deep by a massive Flood.

a couple miles isn't that deep...

-> I believe in microevolution among species due to breeding "disorders" and adaptation

This would necessarily lead to "macroevolution".
And then you start becoming less scientific...

-> I reject the the main theories of evolution (single-celled eukaryotes becoming fish, fish becoming amphibians, amphibians becoming reptiles, reptiles becoming birds, birds becoming mammals, etc) -- Reason: There are hardly any links that would possibly be a bridge between them.  Arguments include Archaeopteryx and other feathered dinosaurs "becoming birds", other species of prehistoric apes that "might" be a "early human".

Every species is a "bridge". It is very unlikely you'll find any species that are half of one and half of the other.
Not to mention tracing DNA can get you pretty far back...

-> I reject that earth (or anything celestial in the universe) is billions, even millions, of years old. -- Reason: I am not sure how scientists can assume that argon and radiocarbon dating is completely true if they can only see statistics on recent experiments from the past however many years that it has been accepted.  Then they teach everyone that it is scientific law and say that it has nothing to do with faith.

But it doesn't have anything to do with faith.
You don't even need to radiometric dating to show that something in the universe is older than thousands of years. We know what the speed of light (approximately) is, hence the measure of distance light-year. There are things in the universe that are more than thousands of light-years away from us. Unless you mean to say the speed of light was once different, which would have interesting consequences.

article on radiometric dating
article on age of the earth

If the fossil record held MORE bridges than animals that are already existing today, then I wouldn't have any problem with accepting it.  There just simply aren't enough to be considered the missing links behind Darwin's ideas.

every loving fossil is a "bridge"

[Acerblock]

True, but I can't see the effects of the big bang. And if someone did show me an effect of the big bang, how do i know its an effect of the big bang when its possible the big bang didn't exist? Take Sevenths radiation argument for an example.All the links were being put forth to advocate and assumption. Assumption isn't evidence.

The link I posted had elements of the Big Bang we have been able to observe scientifically, how is that assumption?

[Lockebox]

You don't have to see something to prove it. Oh, you can't see oxygen in the air, it must not be there! But, then how are we breathing and living- oh wait! Oops!

But I can feel it. And the fact that i'm breathing on it means it exists. Its still in some way OBSERVABLE.

You're not very clever at all.

Radiation could have come from anything, and we're making assumptions as to where it came from. That doesn't make it fact only theory, so before you start going after everyone else about how their beliefs are wrong, think first about how fallible yours can be too.

The link I posted had elements of the Big Bang we have been able to observe scientifically, how is that assumption?

Assumed elements

[Mega-Bear]

Radiation could have come from anything, and we're making assumptions as to where it came from.

We're not making assumptions. The evidence points to a likely explanation, so we roll with that until a better one appears. It's very simple.

That doesn't make it fact only theory

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

[Acerblock]

But I can feel it. And the fact that i'm breathing on it means it exists. Its still in some way OBSERVABLE.

You're not very clever at all.

Radiation could have come from anything, and we're making assumptions as to where it came from. That doesn't make it fact only theory, so before you start going after everyone else about how their beliefs are wrong, think first about how fallible yours can be too.Assumed elements

Can you feel germs in the air? No? Are they there? Yes, it's been proven without seeing them. You can't really feel oxygen, but you know its effects.

Again, going back to my point, you're lacking evidence. Gimme a link showing other possible sources of radiation, and then I'll consider it. You haven't posted one credible source, you yourself have been assuming it could be coming from somewhere else.

[Crispy_]

If the fossil record held MORE bridges than animals that are already existing today, then I wouldn't have any problem with accepting it.  There just simply aren't enough to be considered the missing links behind Darwin's ideas.

first let me tell ya. you know what dogs are? there were actually wolves or some stuff us humans forced to breed together to evolve into a 'dog' species we like.

now think whales. they big huh? ye. now check out their skeleleletoneton

DAFUK
dey have pelvis and femur wtf they dont have legs!1!1!
now think of this, what if whales DID have legs. now imagine that a mutation happened. wtf no leg. somehow it survives and breeds with female. most of the offspring have no legs too wtf???? now imagine they had offspring too. eventually these weird as hell LEGLESS WHALES are becoming dominant because the environment is perfect for them. leged whales die out. bummer :(

here's some wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

it also lists some specific examples

don't trust wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#References
list o' references that wikipedia is using. choose your poison

[Mega-Bear]

I like Crispy's method of explanation, very charming :^)

[Lockebox]

We're not making assumptions. The evidence points to a likely explanation, so we roll with that until a better one appears. It's very simple.

Thats assuming its correct

Can you feel germs in the air? No? Are they there? Yes, it's been proven without seeing them. You can't really feel oxygen, but you know its effects.

Again, going back to my point, you're lacking evidence. Gimme a link showing other possible sources of radiation, and then I'll consider it. You haven't posted one credible source, you yourself have been assuming it could be coming from somewhere else.

Its been proven even more right by the fact you have access to a loving microscope. Whats that? Thats seeing.

secondly, you have no idea what my stance is do you?

[Georges]

Heh, just wanna point out that the most simple protein (which is necessary for life) has a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000 chance of being formed.

[Acerblock]

Thats assuming its correctIts been proven even more right by the fact you have access to a loving microscope. Whats that? Thats seeing.

secondly, you have no idea what my stance is do you?

I know what your stance is, you are saying that the radiation could be coming from another source other than the Big Bang. But, do you have any proof that could give your point some credibility? It doesn't have to be proven completely true, but you haven't posted evidence supporting your point.

And my point was you can't see germs or oxygen with the naked eye. Yeah, sure with a microscope, but without it, you can't observe it.

[Dodger]

you have to keep in mind that the universe is also theorized to have a huge age which would allow for that very small probability to be very probable

[XR-7]

Heh, just wanna point out that the most simple protein (which is necessary for life) has a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000 chance of being formed.

And many people say that if a planet became warm enough to support life and got an atmosphere, life has a high chance of forming.

More likely to get thousands of royal flushes in a row, with a probably of 1/2,598,960 for just one.

[IkeTheGeneric]

a couple miles isn't that deep...

The marianas trench is 6 miles deep.

A couple miles IS that deep.

Not trying to prove or disprove anything

[Mega-Bear]

Thats assuming its correct

No it's not. No one ever said our most plausible model is correct. It's the one that makes the most sense, so we use it in our understanding of the universe.

What the forget should we do instead? Not use any model of the universe since it's probably wrong?

Heh, just wanna point out that the most simple protein (which is necessary for life) has a 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000 chance of being formed.

Yes, but life didn't appear on Earth at all for the first billion years. That's enough time for rare proteins to form naturally.