Sigh. You have destroyed nothing, you have proven nothing. Minor point, Darwin is not my god, he was nothing more than a brilliant scientist. At this point,
even if he was wrong about some things, that would not damage the validity of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). There are too many paths by which it has been
proven, independant of Darwin and his observations.
"The fact is, there is so much evidence supporting evolution...
This falsehood was destroyed 2-3 times. Not typing it over again.
Do try to stick to the truth. Nothing that you have ever said in any way diminishes the validity of the ToE.
"that no one scientific discipline contains all of it."
In other words, there's so much contradiction that no one can put any kind of a sensible picture together.
Wrong, to the point that it appears to be a deliberate lie. Every science that touches on any part of evolution has confirmed the validity of the theory. Age of the Earth? Check. Age of the rock where fossils are found? Check. Fossils found in the right order as predicted by evolutionary theory? Check. Genetic similarities based on expected degree of separation from evolutionary differences? Check.
"Physics teaches us about radioactive decay, giving us one family of tools which we can use for dating fossils."
Oh brother! Carbon dating.
I don't have the time to educate you on what carbon dating is in order to show you what it isn't.
In your blind furry you'll just hear the first half anyway.
Do you even know what carbon dating is? Do you have any clue as to when it is used, and when it is NOT? Also, radiometric dating is far more than just carbon dating.
You assert that the transitions necessary in the THEORY of evolution "applies on a molecular level, too."
Now I know I don't have one of those sharpened, scientific, analytical minds, but when evolution applies on a molecular level, doesn't that mean one (you) cannot take a molecular process that occurs today and use it to depict an occurrence from a long ago past, the very time of which it is asserted that molecular activity was entirely different?
I believe that you are refering back to this:
From talkorigins.org
Chemistry has not changed in the past few billion years. If a molecular process works in a certain way today, then it worked in the exact same manner 3 billion years ago, or 10 billion years ago, for that matter. Life has changed in the past 3 billion years, but the underlying chemistry is the same now as when the first living organism came into being.
Oh, and in science, being a THEORY is as good as it gets. There is no higher position than "theory" when it comes to explaining the facts and observations of scentists.
Oh wait... "ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2008) - The precise timing of the origin of life on Earth and the changes in life during the past 4.5 billion years has been a subject of great controversy for the past century."
Looks like some of those sharp minds are figuring it out!
And as more evidence comes in, many of those controversies fade away. Some of the controversies from early last century look almost humorous from the perspective we have now, but that is only because we have tools that they could not have dreamed of. Then too, some of the controvesies that we have today, they could not have concieved of them back then, again due to the better tools we have now.
These days, it is possible to use a combination of powerful microscopes, cameras and computer image enhancement to gain a great deal of information from a bone. Information such as: how the muscle was attached, how much force the muscle exerted on the bone, the time period over which the bone grew while the creature was alive, the pattern of blood vessels within the bone, and more. By examining pollen samples in soil, it is possible to determine what the climate was like for an area. As time moves on, the sheer number of fossils found increases greatly, and that gives us exponentially more information on which to work.
"The fact is, there is so much evidence supporting evolution...
This falsehood was destroyed 2-3 times. Not typing it over again.
Do try to stick to the truth. Nothing that you have ever said in any way diminishes the validity of the ToE.
"that no one scientific discipline contains all of it."
In other words, there's so much contradiction that no one can put any kind of a sensible picture together.
Wrong, to the point that it appears to be a deliberate lie. Every science that touches on any part of evolution has confirmed the validity of the theory. Age of the Earth? Check. Age of the rock where fossils are found? Check. Fossils found in the right order as predicted by evolutionary theory? Check. Genetic similarities based on expected degree of separation from evolutionary differences? Check.
"Physics teaches us about radioactive decay, giving us one family of tools which we can use for dating fossils."
Oh brother! Carbon dating.
I don't have the time to educate you on what carbon dating is in order to show you what it isn't.
In your blind furry you'll just hear the first half anyway.
Do you even know what carbon dating is? Do you have any clue as to when it is used, and when it is NOT? Also, radiometric dating is far more than just carbon dating.
You assert that the transitions necessary in the THEORY of evolution "applies on a molecular level, too."
Now I know I don't have one of those sharpened, scientific, analytical minds, but when evolution applies on a molecular level, doesn't that mean one (you) cannot take a molecular process that occurs today and use it to depict an occurrence from a long ago past, the very time of which it is asserted that molecular activity was entirely different?
I believe that you are refering back to this:
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
From talkorigins.org
Chemistry has not changed in the past few billion years. If a molecular process works in a certain way today, then it worked in the exact same manner 3 billion years ago, or 10 billion years ago, for that matter. Life has changed in the past 3 billion years, but the underlying chemistry is the same now as when the first living organism came into being.
Oh, and in science, being a THEORY is as good as it gets. There is no higher position than "theory" when it comes to explaining the facts and observations of scentists.
Oh wait... "ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2008) - The precise timing of the origin of life on Earth and the changes in life during the past 4.5 billion years has been a subject of great controversy for the past century."
Looks like some of those sharp minds are figuring it out!
And as more evidence comes in, many of those controversies fade away. Some of the controversies from early last century look almost humorous from the perspective we have now, but that is only because we have tools that they could not have dreamed of. Then too, some of the controvesies that we have today, they could not have concieved of them back then, again due to the better tools we have now.
These days, it is possible to use a combination of powerful microscopes, cameras and computer image enhancement to gain a great deal of information from a bone. Information such as: how the muscle was attached, how much force the muscle exerted on the bone, the time period over which the bone grew while the creature was alive, the pattern of blood vessels within the bone, and more. By examining pollen samples in soil, it is possible to determine what the climate was like for an area. As time moves on, the sheer number of fossils found increases greatly, and that gives us exponentially more information on which to work.
