No. Because there is abundant evidence for the evolution of mammals from reptiles. Would you like to learn about some of it?
Good grief. Barbarian. Won't you ever give up this nonsense. Abundant? Let's see the abundance.
Yep. It was probably a surprise to learn that platypuses are transitional between reptiles and mammals. Just what the theory predicted. Egg-laying, reptilian skeletal features, a cloaca, and more.
More optimism. There are stronger descriptions, of course, but I'd be banned if I used them.
Let's see some of the abundant evidence for the evolution of platypuses. Here's a starter for 3 points:
That suggests that the split between these two groups happened before this creature came into existence, more than 100 million years ago.
Assuming that there was a split, of course. And 100 mya! More la-de-da land fairy stories.
In fish. Some of them still use the swim bladder as a gas exchange organ. And we can find all sorts transitional forms of primitive lungs still in existence in living fish. Would you like to see that?
Yes. Demonstrate tracheae, bronchi and alveoli and how a fish, submerged could possibly survive underwater using these organs, and why it would develop them in the first place.
Barbarian observes:
"Tetrapods evolved from fish"
That's a lion fish and a lion.
See any evolutionary connection? Yes, the name is similar, but, anything else?...Hmmm
In the sense of "because genetic, anatomical, embyrologica, and fossil evidence indicates so, scientists believe that tetrapods evolved from fish."
Scientists can believe what they like, even absolute nonsense. Let's see this abundant evidence.
No cheating now - none of these silly phylogenetic diagrams, all fanciful and totally inaccurate.
And don't even mention Tiktaalik or Latimeria!! (Remember them?) That was a bunch of dufffers, wasn't it?
As surely as gravity. In fact, better than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still don't know for sure why gravity works.
Woohoo, Barbarian! What an amazing assertion! Here are hundreds if not thousands of serious scientists saying evolution is nonsense (there's a bunch of them listed on the front page of this forum), and here are you nodding solemnly and gravely, as if there was no doubt about it.
Knowledge of the law of gravity sent men to the moon, allows calculations and predictions of the tides, and other huge truly scientific and practical predictions.
And there's Skell and Chain saying evolution is useless in the design of experiments, and of no worth whatsoever. Chain was particularly scathing, but as you say, no quotations are allowed!
How can you make such demonstrably false statements?
Science works by inferences from evidence. As you just learned, nothing is more scientific than these conclusions.
Correct science does so. Evolution is a religion, as the OP says. There's such a thing as circumstantial evidence, and it's usually completely wrong. That's all evolution has. It can't even demonstrate any reasonable number of speciations! Far less, the origin of genera, families and higher orders.
No, that's wrong. It's not a religion, because it's based on evidence and inferences from that evidence.
No it's not. Michael Ruse says so:
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
'The creation myth of our time' is an excellent description. It's god is natural selection, its prophet is Dawkins (and Darwin), its angels are mutations, and its disciples are well, its just too sad. More's the pity.
Nope. Philosophy is not about science. Science, as you might know, is about inferences from evidence. I just showed you some examples.
You didn't SHOW any examples. You merely made some flat, unsubstantiated assertions. Not admissible as evidence.
Odd way to paint God's most beloved creation. He chose to use nature to make our physical selves. Why is that so offensive to you?
He didn't choose nature to make our physical selves. He chose to do it with His own two hands. "All these things
have my hands made, saith the Lord." (Isa 66.1) I don't see any hands in the earth.
I find it very troubling that someone might think pedophilia would be OK if evolution is a fact.
Of course it would be - just like social Darwinism and the products of that. Evolution is amoral, and removes the inconvenience of God and His Laws of behaviour.
Given that you've been reminded that what is true about nature is not a guide to human conduct, I'm puzzled as to what you're saying here. From the beginning, Darwin pointed out that nature is not what we are compelled to follow.
If we are the products of nothing but blind forces, then why shouldn't nature, 'red in tooth and claw' be our guides? We're merely repeating behaviour we inherited from our ancestors. And who can blame us for doing so? After all, its in our genes, unalterable, and irrevocable.
No, evolution IS a religion. It has never been observed, it cannot be repeated and its continued existence depends largely on its power of blackmail over the scientists who wish to remain employed.
How many Americans still believe in God despite donkey's years of evolutionary brainwashing? 50%? Or is it 60%?
Says something, doesn't it?
