By the way, I only had two wisdom teeth. Does that mean I'm more evolved than someone with four? What if I didn't have a cocyx or appendix? Would that mean I am more evolved?
No it wouldn't.
Seriously Woody, this is a very easy hurdle to get over, and if you're still stuck here then there is little chance I can help you too much. Start a course or read some very large books.
I have difficulty accepting that a cold-blooded egg-laying reptile can give birth to a warm-blooded living mammal.
The problem stems from how the mind looks at these things. By your sentence alone, we can almost see you picturing a crocodile 'one day' deciding to give birth to an elephant. It doesn't work like that, but the way your mind sees the whole thing it's not a surprise you get confused.
Why aren't reptiles evolving into mammals today?
Evolution is not something you can just go out on the weekend and photograph. With insects it's a lot easier because their lifecycles are much faster than other animals - which is why every single year 20,000 new insects are found and named. However, the typically creationist view of evolution is one where that insect then turns into a pig the next day. It's a very long process, and not one you can just sit down and film happening.
3) Prediction: A useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by deductive reasoning, that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradict the predictions, then the hypothesis under test is incorrect or incomplete and requires either revision or abandonment. If results confirm the predictions, then the hypothesis might be correct but is still subject to further testing. Woody: Speciation occurs, but that doesn't prove the entire theory of evolution is true. Step 3 is shakey at best
How is step 3 shakey?
Woody: So what experiment confirms that life evolved from inert ingredients? Woefully inadequate shortcoming here!
? Life coming from inert ingredients is not evolution, but abiogenesis. There is a lot about abiogenesis that isn't known - as talkorigins would tell you:
"There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific. Much scientific work has been done in testing different hypotheses relating to abiogenesis, including the following:
research into the formation of long proteins (Ferris et al. 1996; Orgel 1998; Rode et al. 1999);
synthesis of complex molecules in space (Kuzicheva and Gontareva 1999; Schueller 1998; see also: "UV would have destroyed early molecules".);
research into molecule formation in different atmospheres; and
synthesis of constituents in the iron-sulfur world around hydrothermal vents (Cody et al. 2000; Russell and Hall 1997). "
But Woody, what do you consider as 'life'? Clearly you wouldn't consider a self replicator with a strand of six dna nucleotides, (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994), as 'life', and yet they are simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry - and being self replicating "set the stage" for evolution.
As you can see, it's not "woefully inadequate". Yes there are still questions and still a lot that isn't known, but they're doing a much better job than you are, (sitting there simply dismissing it through lack of study).
Well Snakelord, 2 out of 4 ain't bad, but sorry, evolution is not a science according to the scientific method.
Well, I hate to ruin your entire life, but evolution is a science according to the scientific method. You just don't understand it.
You must prove that life can come from inert ingredients, otherwise there is no beginning, and the whole theory of evolution falls on its face.
Again you're just wrong. This is why I had told myself not to bother with you. It's like men debating womens clothing. If you don't know anything about it, which you obviously don't, don't debate it.
Life can come from wherever it wants - stones, gods, Mickey Mouse or the giant invisible bouncy ball and it doesn't in any way hinder evolution.
There are several other evolutionary "proofs" that science has failed to verify as well.
Such as?
Thus after testing the theory of evolution with the rigors of the scientific method, evolution theory remains a hypothesis that must either be rewritten or abandoned altogether as the scientific method requires in step 3 because it is not a "useful" hypothesis in its current form.
Alas, it is your "hypothesis" that needs to be rewritten or abandonded, (I'd vote for the latter).
Yet you tenaciously hold to your "faith" in evolutionary theory as your secular religion
How dare you. A man who accepts the word of any old shepherd he's never met as complete and total truth telling me I have "faith" and "religion"? Don't be an asshole. Come back when you understand it a bit better.
As for your knowledge of evolution - you haven't shown me much. Spidergoat and audible have shown me some fairly impressive things.
Dude, it ain't my job. There have been countless evolution threads in this forum that you could go and check up on, but other than that I would simply suggest you take up a course, (starting with the very basics). There is nothing I can say here that is going to help. You're arguing against something because you consider it trend to do so, but you haven't got the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.
Woody: OK simple enough. Goose pimples occur when the sweat glands constrict to seal in body heat. Sweat glands regulate the body temperature. There is actually a different type of sweat gland under the arms and in the pubic areas. This type of gland releases a musky odor.
Looks like I'll have to explain it to you..
They are brought about during moments of fear or cold, and caused by the contraction of the papillae, (connective tissue), at the base of the hair. It's not to do with sweat glands, and it's purpose is actually quite simple.
It causes hair to stand on end, (to stand out). On a human that is generally quite hairless overall, it doesn't have much of an effect - but on an animal that has a lot of hair it serves a very important function. When they get a moment of fear, the papillae squeezes together causing the hair to stand on end. This makes the animal look a lot bigger than it is, and thus possibly prevent an enemy from attacking. During moments of cold, the same process occurs keeping the body better insulated.
While it would have great use on a monkey or similar animal, it has no purpose to a being without a lot of hair - and thus to a human is worthless.
Woody says: I used to struggle with the seven day creation point of view, because it is apparant that geological formations are many millions of years old. The seven days, however are not seven literal 24 hour periods of time. They are actually much longer.
If you use this (worthless) excuse, it would then apply to all other dates in the bible, no? So instead of Noah being stuck at sea for 40 days, he was actually stuck there for 4 million years right? Or instead of Moses wandering the desert for 40 years, it was actually 40 million years right?
You have no basis with which to use normal human time measurment for one story but then multiply that by millions for a story right next to it.
Let's say Moses wrote Genesis for arguments sake. There would be no justifiable reason for him to use two completely different time measurements. When he says "1 day", he means 1 day, and when he says "40 days", he means 40 days.
I know you need to dream up any nonsense excuse because your bible is simply unrealistic garbage, but you have no justification for it.