What? Evolution is fact. It is fact that species evolve. This has been observed time and time again. There is no arguing whether or not evolution is fact.
Ok, in that regards I can agree. Only what we can witness. Anything past that is still considered theory. sent from my samsung note 2
That is still theory backed by science. Does that make it fact? Serious question. At one point the scientific theory was that the earth was flat. Sometimes scientific theory changes based on new evidence.
This is true. But evolution is fact. It has been observed and recreated multiple times. This really is not an argument. FWIW, I'm not going into the evolution of mankind. I'm strictly talking about evolution as a principle of science.
I understand we can observe evolution today, but as far as global warming is concerned how can they accurately tell us what the temp was that long ago? Sent from my SGH-T959 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
I'm with you on that but you must admit that science uses those small samples on a much broader scale. This is where I thought you were coming from since the discussion was based on how do we know what happened millions of years ago. sent from my samsung note 2
There are six types of evolution, cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro, and micro evolution. of those only the last is fact.
well I think most global warming charts just use the last 150 years of recordable data, but if you want to know how they determine the temperature from a thousand years ago, it's mostly from ice cores, coral growth, tree rings, boreholes, etc. They use multiple variables to determine these temperatures.
So I've never heard of evolution being broken down like this, so I typed in "6 types of evolution" in Google, and every site that discusses this is a Christian or Creationist based site
I didnt know they only used 150yrs of data, but I did know the variables they use. I guess my issue with it is the variables themselves. Each variable can be effected by different events they may not know of. So how can those variables be reliable? Sent from my SGH-T959 using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2
multiple tests, multiple observations, multiple experiments toss the anomalies It's not like scientist just do one experiment or make one observation and call it fact
Agreed. Do I think it possible that Giraffes evolved into taller species because the shorter ones kept dying off? Possibly. Do I think it possible that a fish grew legs, a pecker, and opposable thumbs and turned into man? No. I believe in creationism because it is the most logical explanation to me. To believe that everything exploded from one molecule or that bacteria turned into fish which turned into man is even more looney than believing there is a greater being which is a viewpoint so openly mocked in todays society. Evolution on a small scale has been observed. As has man made pollution of the exact chemicals that can lead to climate changes. I just have a hard time in extrapolating the scale of studies that many do so frequently in science. We have 100 maybe 200 years worth of good climate info which have shown cycles, therefore we assume our data to extrapolate back thousands of years as a constant without factoring in these cycles? IDK if carbon dating works or not, but I literally LOL when I read people try to describe and defend it over the internet. No machine can be accurately calibrated to measure the unmeasurable. It's almost as funny as the people who really believe the Hubble Telescope can see back in time because of the twisting of words when it sees a star 4 billion light years away. (again, how on earth do we know this distance to be accurate when the fastest thing in existence would take 8 billion years to travel there and back to verify the distance?)
Perhaps if you did a little reading, you find that most of what you typed is wrong or has a very logical explanation.
BTW, I do find it quite funny how people pick and choose which parts of science they believe. Why don't people try to argue, say, gravity? Newton's Law? chemistry? electrons?
Hey, can you give us a definition of "evolution?" I ask because it seems the word seems to have evolved more than life has.
I'm skeptical of all science that isn't measurable. Including within my own field. I don't claim that all science is bunk, just that it isn't a certified fact in most cases as it is touted....and it certainly doesn't disprove a creationism theory neither (another popular view point). Are rocks and the Earth 5 bazillion years old? Who knows for sure... but I find it hard to believe a machine can measure the age of something into the millions of years. It is based on carbon dating, but it must assume a starting point for that decomposition in order to spit out a number. I just think literally and logically on most topics when considering both sides of things, and one thing I whole heartedly agree on with you is that humans aren't near as powerful in changing the earth as we like to think we are.
We need proof. What does your wife say? I know what charlie will say so that's 1 strike against.:D sent from my samsung note 2
