loserstevep's forum posts
[QUOTE="loserstevep"][QUOTE="Tolwan"]So what part of the theory of evolution do you find to be scientifically questionable? Specifically, what piece of evidence used to support evolution can you disprove?Theory = pretty much fact? I dont think so
For instance, renowned scientist Albert Einstein believe that to maintain an open wormhole for intersteller travel required too much energy, more than the universe provided. This was a widely accepted theory, however nowadays researchers such as Michio Kaku state that it is possible to make a large wormhole, he says it may take a civilization a million years more advanced than us, but says the to meet the power requirements are not completely out of the realm of possibility as einstein stated.
To this day we are still questioning wether his theory of relativity is absolute (NASA is performing more tests soon). Those who do the same on evolution should not be looked down upon, throughout history, the accepted theory of the day is often replaced by a new, sometimes completely different, theory.
Tolwan
I'm actually not against evolution. I feel it is a valid theory however, to play devils advocate (Ha, to myself :P) I would say that there are some huge jumps between species, missing gaps, unexplainable species that dont fit in with the charts, and of course, there is still the "missing link" for the human race. Obviously, we feel its some sort of primate, but we have no evidence of what kind, when, what it was, etc. etc. No fossil records, no DNA, nothing.
It could turn out that there is a huge factor we havent discovered yet, that could turn evolution upside down. Dunno, you ALWAYS have to be on the lookout when it comes to science, because - you NEVER know.
I understand what you are saying, but the fact is is that while there are obviously some missing links, the immense number of "intermediate" species discoverd is very convincing. Scientists cannot possibly find the fossils of every single creature that has ever lived, but the ones that they have found seem to butress the arguments for evolution greatly. For example, the intermediate species' between land reptiles and water bound fish have been found.So what part of the theory of evolution do you find to be scientifically questionable? Specifically, what piece of evidence used to support evolution can you disprove?Theory = pretty much fact? I dont think so
For instance, renowned scientist Albert Einstein believe that to maintain an open wormhole for intersteller travel required too much energy, more than the universe provided. This was a widely accepted theory, however nowadays researchers such as Michio Kaku state that it is possible to make a large wormhole, he says it may take a civilization a million years more advanced than us, but says the to meet the power requirements are not completely out of the realm of possibility as einstein stated.
To this day we are still questioning wether his theory of relativity is absolute (NASA is performing more tests soon). Those who do the same on evolution should not be looked down upon, throughout history, the accepted theory of the day is often replaced by a new, sometimes completely different, theory.
Tolwan
Log in to comment