evolutionists goof again

Originally posted by Badwater
Good luck with the sea eagles - they are the bird most closed related to the bald eagle. An interesting aside about eagles is that they are a name given to large raptors that do not necessarily have common characteristics with one another. That is to say falcons have attributes which make them alike, owls do as well, kites, etc.; however, eagles do not. Our hunter means you can trade speed for stealth because you're using vision to track your prey.

thanks, its quite awesome. when i was talking to the lady from the RSPCB (royal society for the protection of cruelty to birds), she took out a tape measure and showed me the length of a sea eagles wing span, i held one end and she the other, my goodness i thought, he could pick me up and carry me away. it was huge!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
two distinctive revelations from Evos this year already, firstly that dinosaurs and birds DO NOT share a common ancestry, Bible students of course knew that already and this latest confession that an entire subspecies in now absolutely Simian. you shall note the significant evidence on which their stupendous claim was based, a jaw bone and a few tee ...[text shortened]... ase note that this was a rhetorical question.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8318643.stm

The thing about evolution is, its to big, if you show one belief about it wrong all
that has to happen is someone can come back and say, "well than it must have
happened this way instead of that." There are enough things about the belief that
are true that those things that are not, will just never be enough to discredit
that belief for all the things it is being credited for.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The thing about evolution is, its to big, if you show one belief about it wrong all
that has to happen is someone can come back and say, "well than it must have
happened this way instead of that." There are enough things about the belief that
are true that those things that are not, will just never be enough to discredit
that belief for all the things it is being credited for.
Kelly

You are more or less correct. The Theory of Evolution includes not only a large number of concepts, but also can be applied to what we observe around us, which includes all living things past and present. If, when trying to dispute evolution, you merely pick one particular instance of a characteristic of a living thing and try to show that the current explanation for why it evolved does not make sense, all you can possibly achieve is to rule out that one particular instance. That leaves many alternative explanations within the theory of evolution and it doesn't even begin to address all the other instances of evolution.

Its rather like an atheist trying to disprove theism by showing that the god Apollo was not really the son of Zeus.

It gets even worse when the attempt to disprove evolution is clearly based on ignorance of the subject matter and is outright wrong (as Robbies earlier claims regarding species were). And it gets worse still when someone clearly does not want to admit their errors and understand the subject matter (as is the case regarding Robbie and genetic mutation)

A successful attack on evolutionary theory would have to either show that there are flaws in the basic concepts (eg that the fittest do not survive), or that it is not the best explanation for the available evidence ie give another explanation that fits the observed facts better. Interestingly, it is not necessary to do both.