5 best proofs of evolution

[arthuriandaily]

I thought i 'd jump in here an just add something intersting to the debate.

Now, I personally dont know how old the earth is, but , if i had to make a decision I would say alot longer then 6,000 years..
but what I find intersting is that, and I havent heard this debated yet, the apparently constant decay rate of isotopes is actaully not constant at all, that was an assumption that has now been seemingly proven wrong..
It seems the rate of decay is affected and changes cyclicly with the suns rotation and with the seasons...

check out these links and tell me what you think, does this put a question mark over all dates we have ascertained?

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the- ... ticle.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093253.htm

Intersting eh?

I personally feel that those who believe in a literal creation are completely missing the allegory, science, and philosophy within our most ancient texts. I think they should do some real resaerch into the origins of there religion.
Not that i am convinced by evolutions mechanisms either...

but what do you guys think of this, cause for concern?

I have a problem with the whole dating schematic. There are experts who claim to know the dates of rocks based on specialized equipment designed to discern the rocks based on how they have aged.

1.) Who designed the machines?
2.) Who tests?
3.) Who verifies the tests?
4.) How are the tests verified?
5.) How is the accuracy of the testing known?
6.) Is it possible to accurately test dates in this - or any - manner?

I'm not saying that the earth is young, or that the dating is inaccurate, but it seems to be a system with a built in predilection towards anomalous findings.

[arthuriandaily]

What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can't both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god.

well, doesnt Darwin make the statement that God does not exist?

No, Darwin said nothing of the like in any of his books. But in my opinion the issue is pointless. It's not even about science anymore, just religious fanaticism, which I think is totally uncool. And I'm not just talking about the creationists; certain atheists are just as guilty of religious fanaticism and intolerance as anyone else.

Religious fanaticism is the fabric of anti-religion.

[arthuriandaily]

Fundamentalist anything is usually a bad thing, but some are worse than others. I think deliberately killing innocents is one of the worst forms of fundamentalism, with all others being lesser evils. To be fair, Christianity does have its share of terrorist groups (northern Ireland, for example), as do atheists and every other religion, but most such organizations identify themselves as Islamic.

There are no Christian Terrorist Groups, only groups terrorizing Christianity.

[gidagau]

Ive been watching a lot of debates recently between Dawkins and Christians or theists. Dawkins is supremely confident and even arrogant as long as he is talking about evolution of the species but as soon as a question comes up about initial origins he starts looking for the exit. The reason is that evolutionary theory assumes the existence of an enormously complicated self-replicating system vastly more complex than a computer. Science has zero to say about how such a system came into existence to begin with. Dawkins usually says something like, "we are working on that one." The problems of such a system emerging on earth are so vast that it has people who are slaves to naturalism, like Dawkins, making such bold statements as it must have been seeded on earth by some alien space creatures. Of course that just begs the question of where they came from. A monkey sitting at a computer could accidentally type out Lincolns Gettysburg Address at random one night, but if you found him holding it the next morning you'd probably look for a more intelligent theory than it was generated by his random pecking.

[JackBean]

What if there were thousands or millions of such monkeys?

[JorgeLobo]

Since we dont know the probability associated with initiation of "life" it makes no difference - Sagan's pompous "billions and billions" not withstanding.

[chikis]

kclo4x made it clear in his opening post that he needs the best five evidence of evolution but no body have stated any, instead everybody is going his own way and beating around the bush.
Let's hit the nail on the head. Somebody should be bold enough to hold the bull by the horn and state the best five proof of evolution numerically without derailing and let's analyze them one after the other.

[JorgeLobo]

Please pay attention - the rrquest for for 5 best "proofs". There are no proofs for evolution - it is a theory. That is why no one has responded to his request.

[chikis]

There are proofs. Is the proofs not the same as the evidences of evolution?

[JorgeLobo]

Wrong -there are no proofs. Evolution is a theory and it remains possible, as with all theories in scence, that data will be generated that compel to a new theory that explains the relevant observaions.

[chikis]

What about proofs like embryology, genetic, comparative anatomy, fossil record and vestigal organs? Are they not worth enough proofs?

[JorgeLobo]

There are vitrtually no proofs in biology. There are theories - and the term theory, vs. hypothesis, carries weight in science. It refers to the acccepted explanation of phenomena. Evolution is a theory accepted by science in context. By contrast, there is no theory for the creation of life - only hypotheses.