"Evolution is based off of deduction and it is a pretty frivilous theory, because it says that something evolved because it exists today."
That's not what it's saying at all, it's saying that from amillion different observations there's pieces of evidence that suggest there's a function like evolution. One of them is the fact that wh ile we're in the womb, for a time, we develop Gills(like a fish) then a tail, then a bunch of other shit that could be said to be our prior evolutions.
There's also more obvious things. Like finding fossils of our 'ancestors' who looked completely different than us. Where did they go? Why is it only us now? Where did we come from?
Another is the fact that evolution has occured within our lifetimes. Ever hear of "Cultivation" of plants? Originally plants were wild, and tiny. The original variety of corn(they are usually called "Heirloom" varieties) was the size of baby corn. Ever seen those? That small. Over the course of time they were developed into the size they are today. Another example is soybeans. Those weren't even edible originally. So what we say is plants changing drastically, not only through cultivation but also mutation. Ever hear of nectarines? Mutation. Hairless peach, right? Domesticated dogs?
WHERE DID THEY COME FROM DID GOD MAGICALLY MAKE THEM 35 YEARS AGO OR WHENEVER THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN CREATED?
Again, those are examples not proof(it's hard to provide proof for things that happened millions of years ago I hope you can see why). The fact that things today can grow and change into other things doesn't necessarily mean that the same thing happened millions of years ago to bring us to where we are today, but it's a good indication of what happened isn't it?
Refute those examples, please. If you really need to I'll post some links with pictures and whatever else.
"So a koala bear or whatever went through a set of changes due to enviromental changes?"
Enviromental, diet, mutation, causation of natural genetic variance. Take your pick, there's tons of possibilities. Naturally, there shouldn't be just one trigger for evolution and change since evolution is probably alot like a survival mechanism, and just a natural law.
"Can it be determined which one of the millions of variables caused the Koala to look like it does today?"
Why would we be able to? That doesn't make any sense. We can make estimations but we weren't there when they magically changed. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it isn't really a good argument. All we know is once there was no koalas, more than likely just something similar, and now there are koalas and not whatever was similar.
"The teachings of the different evolutionary states of man are taught with the same logical standing that the bible is taught."
When was the last time a preacher called the bible a theory or even cited it's inconsitancies? In my evolutionary education they cited examples of how it's inconsistant and what they are doing to remedy the inconsitancies, and more experiments they have going on to try to prove it.
Also what the hell where the fossil proof of jesus' dead body? Where's the observations of truth? Where's anything? They read from the bible, they aren't out to prove things. Granted, there's probably some asshole scientist or philosopher out there trying to prove the existance of God, and we have one or those on this message board, but most of their proofs against evolution come down to whiny nit-picking.
"CARBON DATNG ISNT COMPLETELY ACCURATE" "BUT THE BIBLE SAYS" "WE CANT KNOW THAT FOR SURE!" Great scientific method there, fellas. Now all we need to do is find proof for how we can't know!
I THINK I PROVED IT ALREADY WE CANT KNOW BECAUSE WE CANT KNOW THAT WE CANT KNOW AND OUR WATCHES ARENT COMPLETELY ACCURATE SO WE WOULDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS AND IF WE DONT KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY KNOW WHEN IT'S OUR BIRTHDAYS? I WANT CAKE NOW.
" I think there are logical holes in Darwinism and evolution that too many people don't bother to point out or realize. "
It's a theory, anybody who accepts it blindly isn't very scientific. They are going off of the proof that has been founded ;/
Also the fact that it's a theory and not a law is proof enough that the logical holes are accepted and being worked upon.
"There is a really big difference between the general concept of "evolution" and that of Darwinian evolution, or the idea that all life evolves from a common origin, right? "
Who cares, it's all evolution. You nit-picker. Evolution is a theory that grows and changes, quit living in the past and calling it darwinian evolution(I'M GOING TO ATTACK A SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT'S OLD TO MAKE ME LOOK EXTRA SMART WOOWEE I'M FUTURE MAN I KNOW EVERYTHING). There's been plenty more contributions since his time, alot of them even more credible. Also, the idea that it comes from a common source would probably make sense with the rarity of life, but all in all I'd say they don't really know they are just assuming off of what's more likely- that a thousand lifeforms suddenly came out of nowhere or that one or two developed into what we have today ;(
From what I understand they think the first life came from underwater near volcanic vents. So I guess there's your "Common source".
Linear Mode
