DeletedUser
I followed some of your links, and the more informed seem to agree with the T.of.E in the main, but point to it incompleteness to insert their favoured creationist interpretations (the 'God of the gaps').guess i did read that wrong so ignore that line
as for the rebutal oh look i can do a simple google searcha nd find a buncha articles supporting my side too HURRAY /sarcarm off
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html
http://www.mattox.com/genome/micro-macro.html
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml
the simple fact is the data is the same its only how each side views teh data that is differnt
the simply fact is that there is NO provable record of ANY animal EVER in history having an intermediary
its not jstu about humans and there predisecors its about EVERY animal in history if evolution was all a ton of animals constatly making small changes all over the place to make a ton of new animals the fossil record would be littered with intermediaries on ALL levels and yet its not
It's well accepted in science that the T.of.E. is not yet fully developed. The origin of life itself, the division into kingdoms and phyla are all as yet not understood. Speciation is contentious, but the evidence is mounting that the T.of.E. does account for that. If you are at all familiar with the science I will not have to remind you of Stephen J Gould and the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The fossil record is so incomplete it's like trying to reconstruct a film from the odd fragments of occasional frames, so there are bound to be grey areas. The great thing about science is that it keeps looking for new data to fill in our knowledge. Unlike religion.
No one knows yet if the dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded, but I believe that one day science will tell us, whereas the Bible never would. Even in my own lifetime I have seen the frontiers of knowledge in evolution expand and it's exciting to think that more surprises are just around the corner. I feel genuinely sorry for those who are looking back at 2,000 year old explanations believing that nothing has changed since they were written.
Last edited by a moderator: