Uncle Pug:
It's easy to have belief in evolution as long as it goes along with what you already know.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
It's easy to have belief in evolution as long as it goes along with what you already know.
H2Andy
Contributor
Uncle Pug:
wow... you have no respect whatsoever for the millions of scientists around the world who work with evolution on a dialy basis
what staggering hubris
do you realize how utterly condensending your statement is?
certainly you must see the disrespect implied in that statement?
I don't think that I could scientifically disprove that the Sarcopterygian ancestors of the amhipia transformed swim balder tissue to lungs and the gill arches went on to form other structures so that they could breath.H2Andy:
How would one disprove that? Or prove that?
I think it can only be stated as an element of belief based upon a total faith in the original premise. It must have happened that way because... well... because evolution is true... and we know that evolution is the true glorious belief because of all the other evidence... such as:
the Sarcopterygian ancestors of the amhipia transformed swim balder tissue to lunks and the gill arches went on to form other structures so they could breath.
Yes... it is circular reasoning... and that is OK if that is what you want to believe. It is a very elaborate system that fully explains everything once the original premise is accepted. What cannot be explained today will be explained (or revised) tomorrow.
But it is not for me to disprove or disprove your belief system.
H2Andy
Contributor
Uncle Pug:
of course you can, silly
you just don't understand what's at stake
for example:
find a lunged creature prior to the amoebas
and you've done it!
(by the way, you can never prove a theory 100%, though you can come close. i would say evolution is about 95-98% proven, and that's darned good). however, evolution can still be disproven. that's the beauty of science. it adapts to conform to new knowledge, rather than trying to alter new knowledge to comform it to what it believes)
Prove it.
H2Andy:
We have amoebas today living inside lunged creatures. Why does the order matter?
If amoebas really were some early attempt nature made to strive for something more fit, shouldn't they have phased out when version 2 or 3 came out? Maybe they were fit enough as it was. They are fit enough for today.
H2Andy
Contributor
DiverBry:
no doubt ... :huh:
we also have viruses living inside us, but you won't find humans prior to viruses coming on the scene
there's a fundamental disconect in your answer that tells me you don't understand evolution or what the issues are ...
i could be wrong, of course
H2Andy
Contributor
Uncle Pug:
prove what, Pug?
H2Andy:
What was your point, then?
H2Andy
Contributor
DiverBry:
we know when amoebas hung around for the first time
if they eventually "turned into" creatures with lungs, then you will not find creatures with lungs PRIOR to the amoebas.
so, if you find a creature with lungs BEFORE the amoebas came on the scence, you've disproven evolution
(since evolution says that all creatures with lungs evolved from the amoebas, so finding a creature with lungs PRIOR to the amoebas will debunk it)
the same logic applies to every evolutionary "advance" life has made:
locomotion, eyes, gills, lungs, backbones, complex nervous systems, etc.
- Status
Similar threads
