ok..........first, did you read what I wrote in the very next line that you DIDN'T quote? and second, did you read what you linked to?
I will admit that I shouldn't have used the word 'support,' as that conclustion could come from such a simplistic veiw of the fossil record *really old lizard + not quite so old lizard that walks + T-Rex MUST = evolution* I'll admit, vewing it from that standpoint would 'support' evolution. The word I should have used is there is no SOLID evedence, let alone proof, of a link between two seperate species. They admit this in nearly every line while maintianing solid confidence in their tone
"Our modern wealth of knowledge about anatomy, embryology, biochemistry and biogeography provides ample evidence for evolution on its own. they brag... but when you look for the key words in their following statements, you see they have nothing solid.
here is your "good part"
"The history of life, as represented by the fossil record, generally supports the theory of evolution without considering other evidence."
*note that they offer none of the inconvinient records that DON'T generally support the Theory they are pushing in this piece*
"If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that is suggestive of incremental development. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time."
*Not sure who in the Christain community argues with that **I'm aware that some do, but those are generally literal readers of the Bible, of whom I'm not** or what part of the Bible conflicts with that.*
"The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms. Thus, this succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is suggestive of evolution. There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurances, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall impression[i] one gets from the fossil record is one of incremental development.
So.........they have nothing. They can look at the progression, and YES, if you take the most simplistic rout that excludes a Maker, then yeah, Evolution is probably the answer. You think Faith is an easy choice?? That it's the "in Thing"?? If you do you've been living in a hole for the last few hundred years. I don't believe because Evolution is just too complicated and because I'd like to just asume some greater being came and did all this with a wave of his hand. I Believe because I don't want this to be all there is to life, and when taught with clearity and understanding, I felt Christianity was not the 'mystic, no science all faith' BS that many claim it to be
Valthonin wrote: Ralin Drakus wrote:
The dating system they use is flawed.....Period.
See Sev's post about the live clam that was tested as being over 500 years old......
Valthonin wrote: Ralin Drakus wrote:
Plus since 97% of scientists all are just as convicned of Evolution *or at the very least that there is no God,* much of their work is spent looking at things through that narrow field.
So you're telling me the religious fanatics and believers aren't all just convinced that God created man *or atleast that there is no Evolution* and that doesn't narrow their field of thinking?
um.........................am i? not sure how or why you read that into what i said. My comment was about the scientific community. If you want to make the argument about the Christian community, feel free. But don't ignore what I said but quote it like you really have me on something
"You set a code to live by. I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted...I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other men, and I require the same from them."