Is Darwin dead...

[tolbiny]

I have come to believe that science is the quest for truth, most of the people here are so sure that they've found it that they no longer need to ask any questions. I seem like the only person who admits not to know everything and is wanting to.

Darwin said that the fossil record would support his 'theories', this is not the case. Though some people have glued some fossils together to try and fool people into thinking it was the case.


Hahaha.

Go away.

Nope, I don't get it.
It's fact that the fossil record has not supported Darwins claims, history shows that, I'm not just saying it with no evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, I don't get it.
It's fact that the fossil record has not supported Darwins claims, history shows that, I'm not just saying it with no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
godBoy, you are being a bad boy here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
For the last 150 years, evry evidence has bee supportive of Drawin theory. Furthermore, completely independent disciplines have ope the way to further test in ways unepected evn by Darwin. DNA technology for instance. The research is accelerating constantly to the point where there are more and more confirmations, a real avalanche of them, in fact.

Only the least educated person, or the most brainwashed, could still hang on to anything that purport to discredit the theory.

Again Darwin does notnegte the possibility of a god, just that evolution can be explained in scientific terms. ID, on the other hand, to cover the insecurity of theits, tries to pass itself of as science to support the weakening creationist notion. ID, is a subterfge, a cheat, by ignorant, one-sided mind, or luddites type, people. It has no prerogative, no usefulness, and is just a danger if it could ever gain a foot hold in the scientific community which it has no chance of doing, imo, since that would be so retrograde as to stretch the concept of human stupidity beyond the possible.

I can tell you are getting serious now, with all the spelling mistakes you must be typing very quickly.

That aside, in the last 150 years, what evidences from fossil records have supported Darwins claims? Well if there is an avalanche of them this should be an easy task...

[tolbiny]

nuh uhh, someone just glued them together like that

The spelling mistakes are due to a certain lassitude I experience with your posts.

This due to the fact that they monotonously re-iterate what your beliefs are. We know them by now, please enter a debate or desist fromm repetitive posts that offer nothing new.

2+2 is a generally more interesting forum than most others available on the net. One reason is the intolerance displayed by the moderators and readers to those who post without having done a search on previous posts. Rarely, have you made a post that had new quality or information in it. Given the existence of previous posts about the subject of your posts. Your posts are much more superficial and have already very adequately been answered. As you would know if you could bother to read what have been said on the subject rather than re-iterating the same very undevelopped platitudes. I don't know how much longer you will be able to do so, even, where OOT is probably the most tolerant of the 2+2 forums when it comes to repeating the same questions. Don't forget, it is rude not to read up on previous debates on a subject, it is rude to say the same thing over and aver again with no new angles, as it diminishes the signal/noise ratio of the forum. It is a form of childish self-centeredness. Seeing one self as the center of the universe (quite in line with you faith position btw).

I will attempt for the last time to explain what you are doing.

Due to your own insecurity in your faith, and the fact that insecurity and faith go hand in hand since faith is not rational and is well recognised as such by those intelligent people of faith, you have a need to get confirmation from others of your own discoveries/insight/irrational (I am being very kind) acceptances .

Evolution does not deny the existence of god or not. It just say that biological development is possible within proven, proveable and remarkably testable and contantly tested discoveries. It takes no position re pre big bang or... regarding a prime cause etc...

ID on the other hand is properly a fraud which try to accapare the mantle of science without giving any deference to the mechanisms that make science what it is.

I suggest you take your insecurity to another forum, but, in any case, read a bit more of 2+2 before you continue posting in the way you are. You certainly are not doing your cause any justice, but beyond that, you are degrading the content of this forum.

[tolbiny]

Umm yeah you are-
there is plenty of evidence of intemediary steps within the fossil record. Darwin didn't say that you had to find everyone to be true, he said that if NONE wer found then he was likely wrong.
Additionally evolutions as a thoery has been refined by new evidence- firstly the concept of punctuated equilibrium which allows for large scale changes to happen over relatively short periods of time. Secondly computer simulations (amuong other evidence) have shown that complexorgans do not have to go through all intermediary steps to finish at such an advangted stage.