[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

You're playing semantics.

No I'm not. Read the EvC thread again.

Prove is a very strong word. Look at mathamatics, just because 1+1 = 2 seems logical enough doesn't mean you've proven it. You cannot, ever 'prove' evolutionary theory in relation to the development humans, not in a way that would satisfy the likes of you.

You mean, with proof? No. You can't prove it to satisfy the likes of me. Because it is unprovable. You have no evidence, only conjecture, unsubstatiated claims and incomplete fragments of fossils that in some cases (Lucy) the bones were found miles away from each other.

Is any of that proof? Not to me, and it shouldn't be for you, either.

We have an ever-more-complete fossil tree with ever fewer gaps showing the gradual development of hundreds of species, including humans.

Wrong again. We have known evidence of faked fossils, we have incomplete skeletons with bones found miles from each other, slapped together and called "proof". We have Haegel's drawing, still used in textbooks today, which were proven to be fraudulent, and for which he was censured for.

There have been fakes and frauds on both sides of this argument, no one is above independant verification. The FACT is that evolutionary origins CANNOT be proven, in the way the scientific method states it must be proven to be fact. You can guess, you can try to piece together the way you think it may have happened, but it cannot be proven. There is no silver bullet piece of evidence, jag, there just ISN'T.

At the Scopes trial, it went completely the opposite of the way it was depicted in "Inherit the Wind" Read the court transcripts. I did.

This is part of the emperical evidence that makes evolutionary theory in the descent of humans a theory, not religion. It's based on analysis of the evidence, if a better theory is developed tomorrow so be it, science will accept it.

They say that, but it's not true. It's been proven scientifically that layers of rock like what has been observed all over the world and supposedly taken millions of years can be laid down in 20. It's been proven that mutations occur much faster than originally thought, it doesn't take millions of years. It's also been proven over and over again that species cannot mutate the way they would have had to do it the way evolution says they did, because WHOLE systems would have had to mutate at the same time for the creature to live, and that isn't how geneticists say it works.

There is however, no evidence that will convince people like you to change their minds.

That's right, because there IS no evidence. Show me the money.

That is why evolutionary development of humans and other species is not religion. And creationism is.

If you can't prove it, it's a belief. A set of unprovable beliefs is a relgion.

It's also why one should be taught in schools, along side other theories like the big bang,

also a theory, not provable in the slightest

particle physics, quantum mechanics etc. It is put forward as fact because it is the best theory, if the theory changed, what is put forward would change. It would still be put forward as fact. Why do you find that so hard to accept?

Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

Also: Answers in Genisis is full of shit. It's not linked to by one reputable scientific site, not just because it isn't scientific

oh bullshit it's not scientific.

but because it tends to quote scientists and papers out of context to help makes its points.

obviously you have not seriously looked at the site. in fact it has MANY scientific speakers and debate it quotes in FULL and still manages to prove evolution has gaping holes in it.

It's not run by qualified scientists

they have degrees from major universities from all over the world in astrophysics, geology, astronomy, paleontology, just about every -ology you can think of. What exactly makes them not qualified?

but by a creationists out to prove an agenda by fudging the truth and building straw men.

Yes, they are out to prove evolution is full of crap. And they have the ssame credentials secular scientists do.

Scientists who come out with the fact they are creationist are blacklisted, and in fact, there are reports that they are not allowed to even publish if it does not fall in line with evolutionist theory. Many times, grants are withheld if a scientist comes out as Creationist. No wonder nothing is linked off of other sites, but jag, that doesn't make it less correct.

If I was the most evolutionary thinker in the world, and I'm not linked by another site with different views, does that mean I'm wrong? Of course not. That's a dumb criteria.

You're not thinking.