AnnMarie wrote:
It cannot be proven or disproven, so in that regard we are all agnostics-I don't know and you really don't know either. I just wanted to all this topic because of the "Can evolution be proven" post
Matter of fact, parts of the Theory of Evolution really are theories. I do not mean the entire thing. Parts are proveable, and parts of it are nothing but guess work masquerading as fact. There are millions of pre-Cambrian fossils dating back as much as 500 million years. Then, during the Cambrian Period, there was an explosion of life, jumping from single cell, or simple multi-cell, to complex invertabrates. According to Evolution, they evolved from one form to another. There are millions of fossils to establish the existence of these creatures, but there are basically no transitional fossils to show how they evolved from one to the other. We are supposed to take the one on fact, and the other on faith. Millions of pre-Cambrian, millions of Cambrian, zero transitional. What's wrong with this picture?
There have been some nearly complete skeletons of dinosaurs recovered. Not much doubt about what those guys looked like. Now go to a museum, and many of the dinosaurs contained therein are nothing more than an artist's conception, fabricated from a couple of bones. There is no doubt that some of these creatures existed, yet the existence and the appearance of others, purported to be fact, is nothing but a flight of fancy.
Reptiles, such as dinosaurs, we are told, evolved from amphibians. There are major internal differences between the two, even though they are somewhat similar at first glance. The skeleton is different. Reptiles don't have gills. Reptiles have a four chambered heart, like humans. Amphibians do not. There are hundreds of thousands of amphibian fossils, and reptile fossils, but no proven transitional fossils other than a handful that are basically wishful thinking. With the huge fossil record, doesn't it strike you as odd that there are millions of the one, and none of the other, yet we are to give equal credence to both? Perhaps both science and religion need some rethinking, as both are guilty of taking proven fact, mixing it with supposition and pet theories, and presenting the whole thing as a fait accompli.