The Evolutionist's Paradigm

[YusufIslam]

I don't tend to open this thread for an evolution vs. creationism debate because we already have plenty of them, most of which go nowhere since i think most of us already decided which side we're on. This thread is to give awareness of how corrupt the theory of evolution is.

This is my appreciation for Darwin Day Celebration

Happy reading

One of the many problems with evolution is the seemingly endless examples of jaw-dropping high complexity in biology. How was evolution supposed to have created sonar in the bat, which is superior to our best military equipment? Since evolution is assumed to be true, questions such as this are taken by evolutionists to be not questions of whether evolution occurred but rather of how evolution occurred. They cannot explain how sonar evolved, but they know that it did evolve. It would be a problem for evolution only if it could be absolutely proven impossible to evolve.

Hail Darwin!

[TranceNRG]

Salam...

At the end, it depends on what the individual wishes to believe in order to fulfill his/her chosen priorities in life.

I know this is an evolution thread, but looking at it from a bigger perspective, it all comes down to who chooses what to be his/her gap-filler.

A typical creationist, would fill all the gaps with God. A typical evolutionist would fill the gaps, with nature/science. In this case, a typical creationist would say, this is so complicated that only God could've done it, and a typical evolutionist would say, we have found out about many many complex mechanisms and the way they evolve, so though we may not know at the moment how bats evolve, surely there must a natural answer for it.

[Ectotastic]

"I don't want to defend my points against the onslaught of rational people that believe strict creationism is retarded. Instead I just want to make a quick jab at evolution theory. The jab really isn't very potent, but that's OK because I've already said that I don't want to debate this. I just want to start a thread, have people read it, and then not respond to how retarded my position is."

[QuicksandATL]

The quote in the OP pretty much sums up why I don't accept evolution; until you workout all the kinks, hundreds of assumptions must be made. It really ends up based on faith that evolution is correct.

*waits to get in an argument over the semantics of "faith"*

[LatissimusDorsi]

The debate is how they evolved, not did they evolve.

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by LatissimusDorsi

The debate is how they evolved, not did they evolve.

I'm pretty sure it's both, otherwise hundreds of thousands of people wouldn't be having this exact same conversation right now.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Salam...

At the end, it depends on what the individual wishes to believe in order to fulfill his/her chosen priorities in life.

I know this is an evolution thread, but looking at it from a bigger perspective, it all comes down to who chooses what to be his/her gap-filler.

A typical creationist, would fill all the gaps with God. A typical evolutionist would fill the gaps, with nature/science. In this case, a typical creationist would say, this is so complicated that only God could've done it, and a typical evolutionist would say, we have found out about many many complex mechanisms and the way they evolve, so though we may not know at the moment how bats evolve, surely there must a natural answer for it.

For me I don't draw conclusions based on being an evolutionist. Then again, I'm a skeptic. Which is the only true scientific way to look at anything.

But my point is that I don't choose to fill gaps with what suits my desires, but rather, with what I feel makes the most logical sense. I don't claim to know how everything happened, but I know what things are absolutely senseless to me.

[QuicksandATL]

This is one of the best articles I've read in along time. It pretty much explains how evolution is such a prominent theory due to the tyranny of authority.

I really like this quote:

"In other words, unlike most scientific theories, evolution is assumed true until proven false."

We know that that a bat's sonar could evolve, but the question is; does it, or is it logical to assume that it would? Kind of like asking, is the chair your sitting in going to spontaneously explode in 5 seconds? It's possible, but the answer you would give is a resounding "no".

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by sheduma

For me I don't draw conclusions based on being an evolutionist. Then again, I'm a skeptic. Which is the only true scientific way to look at anything.

But my point is that I don't choose to fill gaps with what suits my desires, but rather, with what I feel makes the most logical sense. I don't claim to know how everything happened, but I know what things are absolutely senseless to me.

I underlined some keywords.

Some follow up questions...
How would you know what makes the most logical sense?

As we grow up and learn more about our world, our logical sense changes. I'm sure each one of us could look back in our own lives and notice this fact.

How do you know (with certainty) what is absolutely senseless?

What criteria and standards do you use to judge? How did you choose such standards and criteria to begin with?

[eol]

To summarize this thread:
If science can't explain certain small details that are part of extremely broad theory, the theory must not be true.

My rebuttal:
Evolution is accepted by almost all competent scientists because of the overwhelming amount evidence that supports it. There are some details that we can't explain yet, but scientific knowledge is progressing extremely fast. Evolution is by far the most logical explanation for how the creatures of the world got here. No other hypothesis (or religion, lol) can compete in terms of evidence. If you have an explanation with more supporting evidence than evolution, please let me know and I'll gladly change my mind.

Denying evolution because we can't explain exactly how sonar evolved in bats is ludicrous. Let's deny cell theory because nobody knows exactly how the first cell was formed. Let's deny gravity because nobody knows what exactly gravity is made of. Let's deny mathematics because we can't define a number divided by zero. I believe that nearly every aspect of science and mathematics will eventually be uncovered. And it's going to happen because of open minded skeptics who value evidence over religious dogma.

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by quicksand.gfx

This is one of the best articles I've read in along time. It pretty much explains how evolution is such a prominent theory due to the tyranny of authority.

I really like this quote:

"In other words, unlike most scientific theories, evolution is assumed true until proven false."

We know that that a bat's sonar could evolve, but the question is; does it, or is it logical to assume that it would? Kind of like asking, is the chair your sitting in going to spontaneously explode in 5 seconds? It's possible, but the answer you would give is a resounding "no".

This is one of the best posts I've read in along time. It pretty much explains how creationism is such a prominent theory due to the tyranny of authority.

I really like this quote:

"In other words, unlike most scientific theories, creationism is assumed true until proven false."

We know that a bat's sonar could be created by an omnipotent being, but the question is; was it, or is it logical to assume that it was? Kind of like asking, "Is God going to make the chair you're sitting in spontaneously explode in 5 seconds?" It's possible, but the answer you would give is a resounding "no".

The bold part is my favorite. How can a creationist possibly try to use logic as an arguement against evolution? :lol:

You're still confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by FIVE OAKES

You're still confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Many people unfortunately make this specific mistake.

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by FIVE OAKES

This is one of the best posts I've read in along time. It pretty much explains how creationism is such a prominent theory due to the tyranny of authority.

I really like this quote:

"In other words, unlike most scientific theories, creationism is assumed true until proven false."

We know that a bat's sonar could be created by an omnipotent being, but the question is; was it, or is it logical to assume that it was? Kind of like asking, "Is God going to make the chair you're sitting in spontaneously explode in 5 seconds?" It's possible, but the answer you would give is a resounding "no".

The bold part is my favorite. How can a creationist possibly try to use logic as an arguement against evolution? :lol:

You're still confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

Yawn, your argument fails because you're just relying on the appearance of my hypocrisy to turn around and give me a red herring.

Just because what I believe is false, doesn't make your beliefs correct.

I'm not confusing evolution with abiogenesis either, there is no where in my post to even imply it. And I hate to say it but the theory of Darwinistic evolution relies on abiogenesis, because other than that, you have no way of explaining how evolution started.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

I underlined some keywords.

Some follow up questions...
How would you know what makes the most logical sense?

As we grow up and learn more about our world, our logical sense changes. I'm sure each one of us could look back in our own lives and notice this fact.

How do you know (with certainty) what is absolutely senseless?

What criteria and standards do you use to judge? How did you choose such standards and criteria to begin with?

Well, I compare the idea that, since we can see things growing ever more refined for their environments, it makes sense that, going back billions of years, they'd get less and less refined, all the way back to the first cell.

Despite gaps in the fossil record, I know enough about how fossils are created to know that that is exactly what would be expected. Not everything that dies becomes a fossil, so for every trillion creatures that died, one might have fallen in a river and we can now see what it looks like. Creatures in certain areas would never have any trace left behind, so we just have to go based on what we HAVE found, and it all points to the same thing.

On the other hand, we have God. Some all-powerful, all-intelligent being that can conveniently take care of anything that confuses you. Looking at the history of mankind, we see that we are so smart, that we have always used this to make ourselves feel better. The sun rises, and sets, the rain falls. Ancient humans had no clue what caused this, thus it was "god." They prayed for rain. Now we know what causes rain. They prayed for conception. Now we understand the details of fertility. We are deep enough animals to understand death enough to fear it, both for ourselves and our loved ones. A basic human coping mechanism similar to denial is to create a happy and peaceful afterlife. It can be seen in most religions back as far as we can trace.

To me it makes so much sense that we would create these ideas. The fact that most religions all run along the same lines, but all claim they are the only true one, really says a lot. It says we all operate the same in our head. We all have the same desires. This does not point to there being a god, but to us needing to understand. That used to apply to sunrise, now it's the origins of life. I don't see them as being any different. We just don't understand everything yet. People are so full of us as a species that they think that if we can't explain it all yet, it must be something above us that did it. And then there is the ever-present need of ours to seek comfort where there is none without putting our pain off on something bigger.

Since losing my belief in god, I can no longer even consider it as an option. At least not an intelligent, anthropomorphized being. It's like a small child trying to rationalize with a teenager why that teen no longer believes in Santa. I don't say that to be inflammatory or offensive. That is literally how I feel when I think of deities and heaven/hell. It seems so ... out there ... to me that it gets difficult to even explain how I got to that conclusion. To me, it just isn't the truth.

[Insane Clown]

I really like this quote:

"In other words, unlike most scientific theories, evolution is assumed true until proven false."

This is a really, ridiculous, ludicrous statement.

In science, the theory that seems to provide the best explanation and fit the criteria for any set of phenomenon is assumed true until proven false, otherwise scientists would have NO theories to work with. Nothing can ever be 100% proven.

The 'secret agenda' of scientists with regards to evolution does not exist. It's a myth, a lie, or a bad joke depending on where you are hearing it from.
Scientists treat evolution the same they do all the other theories that they use to build rockets and run computers and perform heart procedures. They use it because it fits the data they have better then any other theory and because it allows them to produce further information and science by building upon it.


If there is a scientific theory that explains all the phenomena that evolution does more accurately and efficiently (and I have no doubt that it is possible), it would replace evolution as a theory. At this stage, there is no such theory.

It's that simple. There is no conspiracy.

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by Insane Clown

This is a really, ridiculous, ludicrous statement.

In science, the theory that seems to provide the best explanation and fit the criteria for any set of phenomenon is assumed true until proven false, otherwise scientists would have NO theories to work with. Nothing can ever be 100% proven.

The 'secret agenda' of scientists with regards to evolution does not exist. It's a myth, a lie, or a bad joke depending on where you are hearing it from.
Scientists treat evolution the same they do all the other theories that they use to build rockets and run computers and perform heart procedures. They use it because it fits the data they have better then any other theory and because it allows them to produce further information and science by building upon it.


If there is a scientific theory that explains all the phenomena that evolution does more accurately and efficiently (and I have no doubt that it is possible), it would replace evolution as a theory. At this stage, there is no such theory.

It's that simple. There is no conspiracy.

Well, that's more or less what I'm exactly trying to say. Scientists will not accept creation because it really can only be argued for it's philosophical meanings, but interestingly enough having a creation must borrow from science, but not vice versa for evolution.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by sheduma

Well, I compare the idea that, since we can see things growing ever more refined for their environments, it makes sense that, going back billions of years, they'd get less and less refined, all the way back to the first cell.

Right.

Despite gaps in the fossil record, I know enough about how fossils are created to know that that is exactly what would be expected. Not everything that dies becomes a fossil, so for every trillion creatures that died, one might have fallen in a river and we can now see what it looks like. Creatures in certain areas would never have any trace left behind, so we just have to go based on what we HAVE found, and it all points to the same thing.

Right.

On the other hand, we have God. Some all-powerful, all-intelligent being that can conveniently take care of anything that confuses you. Looking at the history of mankind, we see that we are so smart, that we have always used this to make ourselves feel better. The sun rises, and sets, the rain falls. Ancient humans had no clue what caused this, thus it was "god." They prayed for rain. Now we know what causes rain. They prayed for conception. Now we understand the details of fertility. We are deep enough animals to understand death enough to fear it, both for ourselves and our loved ones. A basic human coping mechanism similar to denial is to create a happy and peaceful afterlife. It can be seen in most religions back as far as we can trace.

See...
What you say does make sense, however, I do not see why you need to take God out of the equation. The presence of God would neither hinder our curiosity nor would it reject our scientific findings.

How does knowing HOW something is done takes away God's presence?
God is not a man with white beard sitting on clouds with tools and using His hands to make things.

Evolution or any other natural phenomena could be means through which God creates, controls and terminates universal existence.

So, why is it necessary to remove God out of the picture, if and when we discover mysteries of of our universe?

To me it makes so much sense that we would create these ideas. The fact that most religions all run along the same lines, but all claim they are the only true one, really says a lot. It says we all operate the same in our head. We all have the same desires. This does not point to there being a god, but to us needing to understand. That used to apply to sunrise, now it's the origins of life. I don't see them as being any different. We just don't understand everything yet. People are so full of us as a species that they think that if we can't explain it all yet, it must be something above us that did it. And then there is the ever-present need of ours to seek comfort where there is none without putting our pain off on something bigger.

What I'm saying is that EVEN IF we understand most things, why do we need to remove God from our minds?
How would removing God from our mindset help us advance?
How can we we define what is advancement and what is not?

Since, it is not necessary to remove God out of our minds, could it be that some people do so via practice and mental "training" in order to remove constraints in their lives and follow their worldly desires?

Since losing my belief in god, I can no longer even consider it as an option. At least not an intelligent, anthropomorphized being. It's like a small child trying to rationalize with a teenager why that teen no longer believes in Santa. I don't say that to be inflammatory or offensive. That is literally how I feel when I think of deities and heaven/hell. It seems so ... out there ... to me that it gets difficult to even explain how I got to that conclusion. To me, it just isn't the truth.

I agree.
To accept an anthropomorphic god does in fact seem irrational.

Perhaps, your disbeliefs in God is due to your initial belief in the "wrong" god? A god with hands and beard sitting on clouds and killing babies?

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

Perhaps, your disbeliefs in God is due to your initial belief in the "wrong" god? A god with hands and beard sitting on clouds and killing babies?

I've been meaning to ask this question.

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by quicksand.gfx

Well, that's more or less what I'm exactly trying to say. Scientists will not accept creation because it really can only be argued for it's philosophical meanings, but interestingly enough having a creation must borrow from science, but not vice versa for evolution.

This is why I don't try to argue specifics or evidence with you. It's aggrevating, time-consuming and pointless. You just don't get it. It's much more fun to point out your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Insane Clown

They use it because it fits the data they have better then any other theory and because it allows them to produce further information and science by building upon it.

@ quicksand.gfx:

You're missing the point that the theory of evolution is based on observation and data. First come the observations, then comes the hypotheses, then comes more obervation and testing, then comes the theory based on data gathered, then comes more observation and testing to support or disprove the theory. It's a continuous process of increasing knowlege of a certain subject.

No one ever just said: "Evolution exists, prove me wrong or accept it." That's not the way science works.

How can you not see the difference between a scientific theory based on real data and religion?

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by FIVE OAKES

This is why I don't try to argue specifics or evidence with you. It's aggrevating, time-consuming and pointless. You just don't get it. It's much more fun to point out your hypocrisy.

Red herring.

You're missing the point that the theory of evolution is based on observation and data. First come the observations, then comes the hypotheses, then comes more obervation and testing, then comes the theory based on data gathered, then comes more observation and testing to support or disprove the theory. It's a continuous process of increasing knowlege of a certain subject.

No one ever just said: "Evolution exists, prove me wrong or accept it." That's not the way science works.

How can you not see the difference between a scientific theory based on real data and religion?

I know that evolution is founded on observations and experiments, I know it's not pulled out of thin air. That having been said, it doesn't mean that it yet competently explains life.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by TranceNRG

See...
What you say does make sense, however, I do not see why you need to take God out of the equation. The presence of God would neither hinder our curiosity nor would it reject our scientific findings.

...

So, why is it necessary to remove God out of the picture, if and when we discover mysteries of of our universe?

When I was still Catholic (until around the time I turned 19... WATCH OUT QUICKSAND!) I still believed fully in evolution (much to the dismay of my self-proclaimed-Jebus-freak-son-of-a-former-preacher BF) and thought that the big bang had been God's doing, after which point things just went.

It was when I decided that he wasn't needed at all that I think I stopped believing (I actually don't remember for sure, I just know one day I knew I no longer believed.)

I can see the point of your reasoning, but at the same time, if we can explain how everything has happened, why WOULD there be a god? There wouldn't NEED to be. Occam's razor (or parsimony, as my psych professor likes to say,) would require us to then determine that there is no god. That seems logical to me.

However, I never deny that there might be some... something. Maybe an ultimate energy source. Maybe some soul-like concept that inhabits all life (much like in Taoism.) But in any event, I don't concern myself too much with needing to find out the truth behind those things, because not only is there no way to tell, it really has no effect. The only sort of "god" that I think could possibly exist would be just something like I said. A non-thinking source of energy. Therefore it doesn't matter if I praise it or find out what it wants me to do, because it's just there. Finding a book it wrote won't get me into the Eternal Disneyland. Saying please to it won't make me live to be 100.

Since, it is not necessary to remove God out of our minds, could it be that some people do so via practice and mental "training" in order to remove constraints in their lives and follow their worldly desires?

My lack of belief has never had anything to do with wanting to get away with fun things. I live a more moral life than many hard-core Christians, because I have a strong sense of ethics. I don't need some book or a cloud guy to lead me there. All I need it critical thinking about how my actions effect others/the world and myself.

Perhaps, your disbeliefs in God is due to your initial belief in the "wrong" god? A god with hands and beard sitting on clouds and killing babies?

When I was little, I actually thought God looked like my priest

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by quicksand.gfx

I know that evolution is founded on observations and experiments, I know it's not pulled out of thin air. That having been said, it doesn't mean that it yet competently explains life.

But is that why you believe in God? If not, why spend so much time debating it? What if we proved abiogenesis? Would you become an atheist?

Look at our track record as a species. Every time we couldn't explain something, it was attributed to a deity until we got it figured out.

It's just that this particular thing is very difficult to ever prove, because of the nature of fossil formation.

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by sheduma

But is that why you believe in God? If not, why spend so much time debating it? What if we proved abiogenesis? Would you become an atheist?

Yes.

[LunicaAshes]

Originally Posted by quicksand.gfx

Yes.

So until then, you're just going to stand by the tried and true (since the beginning of man) "I don't understand it, therefore it must be a higher power"?

Couldn't you for just one second think that maybe we just haven't found all the answers yet, but they are there? Why assume it's God just like the Mayans assumed that ripping people's hearts out was needed to keep the sun rising?

Do you really understand the nature of fossilization, and the resulting frustration and near impossibility of seeing what happened? There's almost no chance of a dead thing becoming a permanent part of its surroundings.

At a crime scene, if no evidence is left behind, that doesn't mean God did it. It just means we can't convict anyone due to lack of evidence.

You sound like you're just going to get the the point of wasting your life with Pascal's wager. I hope not.

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by sheduma

So until then, you're just going to stand by the tried and true (since the beginning of man) "I don't understand it, therefore it must be a higher power"?

Couldn't you for just one second think that maybe we just haven't found all the answers yet, but they are there? Why assume it's God just like the Mayans assumed that ripping people's hearts out was needed to keep the sun rising?

You are stuck using the old school deductive argument. Inference to the best explanation, or abductive reasoning requires that I line up all the possible explanations and asks which ones are able to produce the phenomenon in question. Right now abiogenesis and evolution isn't able to produce.

Do you really understand the nature of fossilization, and the resulting frustration and near impossibility of seeing what happened? There's almost no chance of a dead thing becoming a permanent part of its surroundings.

A hundred million fossils in existence would beg to differ with you.

You sound like you're just going to get the the point of wasting your life with Pascal's wager. I hope not.

Pascal's wager is the greatest philiosophy I can subscribe to, because without a future hope, life is meaningless, so after I'm dead; I'm really not going to give a **** what I did when I was alive.

[TranceNRG]

Originally Posted by sheduma

When I was still Catholic (until around the time I turned 19... WATCH OUT QUICKSAND!) I still believed fully in evolution (much to the dismay of my self-proclaimed-Jebus-freak-son-of-a-former-preacher BF) and thought that the big bang had been God's doing, after which point things just went.

It was when I decided that he wasn't needed at all that I think I stopped believing (I actually don't remember for sure, I just know one day I knew I no longer believed.)

Do you remember, why you thought He wasn't/isn't needed?

I can see the point of your reasoning, but at the same time, if we can explain how everything has happened, why WOULD there be a god? There wouldn't NEED to be. Occam's razor (or parsimony, as my psych professor likes to say,) would require us to then determine that there is no god. That seems logical to me.

According to Aristotle, He's the unmoved mover, the initiator.

Let us say a law maker makes a set of laws.
Initially, he presents and explains the laws via his friends. Once you understood the laws, would you reject and deny the existence of a law maker? Once you understand why the laws came to be, and how they function, would you assume that these laws came to be by themselves?

Most people often focus on the presence and existence of tangible materials, but few contemplate on the origin of the laws that control the movements of such tangible materials. How did such laws come to be?

For example, we know pretty much everything about acids. How they function, how the react, their properties and etc. However, how often do we ask why is that that when hydrogen bonds with a non-acidic organic molecule, suddenly it becomes an acid and gains a whole new set of properties?! How is it that one H atom causes the burning effect on the skin?
We can explain HOW acid reacts, but can we explain WHY does it react this way?
We can explain what is acid, but can we explain how did acid come to be acid? How were such distinct properties put into each element? WHY is it that when we mix acid and base we get salt and water?

At the end, if you break it all down, our composition is similar to a rock. We're made of atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, quirks and etc. Yet The atoms in our body function very differently from the atoms inside a rock.

Science can help us answer most of our "HOW" questions, but often it pushes us to avoid asking WHY. Why is that?

However, I never deny that there might be some... something. Maybe an ultimate energy source. Maybe some soul-like concept that inhabits all life (much like in Taoism.) But in any event, I don't concern myself too much with needing to find out the truth behind those things, because not only is there no way to tell, it really has no effect. The only sort of "god" that I think could possibly exist would be just something like I said. A non-thinking source of energy. Therefore it doesn't matter if I praise it or find out what it wants me to do, because it's just there. Finding a book it wrote won't get me into the Eternal Disneyland. Saying please to it won't make me live to be 100.

It's good that you do not 100% deny the existence of ANY immaterial being.

What if there IS a way to tell and there ARE effects, just not the way you expect them to be?

Why would you permit the existence of a non-thinking energy source in your mind? Why isn't its existence rejected according to an empirical mindset?

How did you conclude that it must be non-thinking?

My lack of belief has never had anything to do with wanting to get away with fun things. I live a more moral life than many hard-core Christians, because I have a strong sense of ethics. I don't need some book or a cloud guy to lead me there. All I need it critical thinking about how my actions effect others/the world and myself.

This could start a whole new debate, but isn't your critical thinking very subjective? doesn't rely on your specific circumstances and your own subjective perception?

Is it possible for another individual in another paradigm to think critically and yet reach a completely opposite conclusion than yours?

Will you consider his/her conclusion as valid as yours?

When I was little, I actually thought God looked like my priest

That's cute

When I was kid, and when I wanted to draw God, I would draw a big circle on my notebook. haha

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by quicksand.gfx

Red herring.

Yes, I obviously said that just to distract everyone from the real debate and avoid being destroyed by your superior logic. Good job.

I know that evolution is founded on observations and experiments, I know it's not pulled out of thin air. That having been said, it doesn't mean that it yet competently explains life.

Scientists will not accept creation because it really can only be argued for it's philosophical meanings, but interestingly enough having a creation must borrow from science, but not vice versa for evolution.

So, tell us again - since you now know that evolution is founded on observations and experiments -why scientist accept the theory of evolution but all do not necessarily accept creationism.
edit: Or did you mean by "vice versa" that evolution should borrow from philosophy?

Oh, nevermind - that's another red herring. We're here to discuss how not being able to prove that the sonar used by bat's has evolved over the last couple thousand years completely disproves the theory of evolution.

Sorry, I don't see much point of debating that.

[QuicksandATL]

Originally Posted by FIVE OAKES

So, tell us again - since you now know that evolution is founded on observations and experiments -why scientist accept the theory of evolution but all do not necessarily accept creationism.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Oh, nevermind - that's another red herring. We're here to discuss how not being able to prove that the sonar used by bat's has evolved over the last couple thousand years completely disproves the theory of evolution.

It doesn't disprove it, it defers it.

[eol]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post128950651

[FIVE OAKES]

Originally Posted by quicksand.gfx

Creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Why not?

It doesn't disprove it, it defers it.

False. Not completely understanding something doesn't make it less plausible.

I could come up with a scenario of why bats might evolve sonar, but it wouldn't be provable, so there's no point in pursuing it.