Evolution: An adult fairytale?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nah, i think he's being dwarf-righteous. dwarf-righteousness is perfectly acceptable here.

And there is one ring to rule us all 🙂

Originally posted by Phil Hill
I often have heard this claim but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this. Often I am given biblical reasons or reasons of evolution's improbability. Can anyone give me any valid scientific reasons that evolution is a fairytale?

George Coyne of the vatican observatory claims that creation is by evolution. He said it takes several generations of stars and their dusts to form new solar systems to get the chemistry for life to exist. He also states that we may not be the end product of creation but a step along the way. Some claim the lack of missing links are evidence against evolution, but I am not sure we have a big enough sample of fossil evidence yet for that conclusion.

Originally posted by joe beyser
George Coyne of the vatican observatory claims that creation is by evolution. He said it takes several generations of stars and their dusts to form new solar systems to get the chemistry for life to exist. He also states that we may not be the end product of creation but a step along the way. Some claim the lack of missing links are evidence against evolution, but I am not sure we have a big enough sample of fossil evidence yet for that conclusion.

Where are the scientific reasons that some people say evolution is an adult fairytale?

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Where are the scientific reasons that some people say evolution is an adult fairytale?

The lack of fossil evidence.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The lack of fossil evidence.

A lack of evidence isn't evidence, I asked for evidence. Read the OP a bit more carefully. There is no lack of fossil evidence unless one wants there to be a lack. There is a wealth of fossils considering the mechanics of fossil formation. Besides, evolution does not need fossil evidence to be shown.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The lack of fossil evidence.

what is it that you believe? a one-time creation event by a deity or deities, or several creation events by a deity or deities?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what is it that you believe? a one-time creation event by a deity or deities, or several creation events by a deity or deities?

I don't believe any of that. Just saying that the lack of fossil evidence is what I have heard to be any kind of scientific evidence against creation. George Coyne though would advocate the idea that we are in the continual process of creation by evolution by a deity. Interesting Ideas but cant say I know enough to draw conclusions. I do believe he is right about having enough generations of stars exploding and recombining into new stars for the chemistry to be right for life.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
A lack of evidence isn't evidence, I asked for evidence. Read the OP a bit more carefully. There is no lack of fossil evidence unless one wants there to be a lack. There is a wealth of fossils considering the mechanics of fossil formation. Besides, evolution does not need fossil evidence to be shown.

If there is a wealth of fossils then where are the missing links? You made my point better than I did. Cant say as a lack of fossil evidence makes me believe one way or another, but it does many others. You could be right about not needing fossil evidence. If we get better at deciphering what all that junk DNA is for maybe it will shed light on our past.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
I often have heard this claim but not once has anyone saying this ever presented scientific evidence why we should believe this. Often I am given biblical reasons or reasons of evolution's improbability. Can anyone give me any valid scientific reasons that evolution is a fairytale?

Yes I did reread this post and all I can see by it is an angry person calling out for answers and being rude to anyone replying. Not just this post but also the one about vacuum energy. If you know it all then quit asking people. Also, a person can have discussions of points of view without being an advocate of that view. You seem like you wish to brand people and tuck them away in your mind under an assigned category. Lighten up a bit dude.

Originally posted by joe beyser
If there is a wealth of fossils then where are the missing links? You made my point better than I did. Cant say as a lack of fossil evidence makes me believe one way or another, but it does many others. You could be right about not needing fossil evidence. If we get better at deciphering what all that junk DNA is for maybe it will shed light on our past.

There is no such thing as a missing link. That is an old outdated concept from half a century age that creationists think is valid, Shows how much they keep updated in science. If you mean transitional form, all fossils are transitional. Tell me, do you think everything that dies leaves a fossil?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your wonderful attitude continues.

How far do you want to take it?

-m.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Wow, you're drunker than I am!

I wish! 🙁

-m. 😉

Originally posted by mikelom
Your wonderful attitude continues.

How far do you want to take it?

-m.

Considering you told me in this thread to watch my back and THREATS are against the TOS, I wouldn't mind taking it so far the mods ban you. That answer your dumb question?

Originally posted by joe beyser
If there is a wealth of fossils then where are the missing links?

Considering the number of species that have existed, and the number of fossils found so far, we are a long long way from finding fossils of all species that ever lived. In fact, as species slowly change over time and speciate or go extinct, it is practically impossible to really give solid boundaries to species anyway.
Generally a 'missing link' is when we know of two species in the fossil record or living today that we believe are related and we are looking for a species that represents something in between the two and helps to verify the relationship. We have found many such 'missing links' and may even be looking for more (I don't know if there are any important ones still to be found). But the one mostly referred to by creationists is the ancestors and close relatives of man - many of which have been found, far more than were originally expected.