while there are proofs of evolutionary processes, there is not definitive proof that we evolved from amoeba. yes, there exists proof that we have "evolved" from more primal versions of our current Homo Sapienic selves, but there is yet to be solid proof linking us to apes and "less".
i also don't want you to hear me saying that evolution is wrong. i am being scientific.. i'm being quite scientific. i will not settle on saying one thing or another is exclusively correct unless it can be proven without any scientific doubt.
both sides of this arguement construe what they want from the evidence they can show. biblical scholars will point out artifacts of specific items mentioned in the Bible (yes, they escape me at the moment), but evolutionary supporters will point at lower primal forms of ourselves and jump to conclusions placing us as descendents from apes.
neither side is conclusive and as such, either side has a valid right to present their arguement as theory, but neither side has the right to present it as cold, hard fact.
when you can show me conclusive proof that i can view and/or hold in my hands, i will not agree with ANY theory.
i do have one question though, if evolution were true, then why don't we have current incarnations of of "missing links" between any two species? and i don't mean one species of dolphin, as an example, begetting another species of dolphin. i'm talking about fish with legs (granting that there is the mudskipper), or flying reptiles, etc..
and i don't believe, in my opinion, that climate has anything to do with it. if one species exists that supposedly became another species entirely that also exists, then there is climate for there to be current version of "missing links". there should be a wild menagerie of odd critters flitting about.. according to the algorithms of evolution itself.
i'm not being stubborn, i'm thinking in black-and-white. no conclusive proof = no conclusive fact.
i expect that if ever i am bestowed with that knowledge that we'll all be wrong, possibly a congolmeration of theories is what the true facts are.. perhaps it's something none of us have even dreamt of.
just the nature of our universe and it's beginnings tells me that we have no idea what the real truth of these matters are. they might be able to say, "this" is how stars are made, but they have no proof of where everything in the universe started from.. even the Big Bang theory needs a beginning, one it doesn't provide.
-
ok.. this has gotten much longer than i anticipated and i think it's time i go relax my brain cells.. so, there you go.
one last thing, i have to mention i'm proud of this community to be able to have such an intelligent discussion without saying "you're wrong, i'm right".. instead we illustrate our points with lucid thoughts and decent debate. good on ya', SLers.. good on ya.
iv) The initial germ units and cells and thence the initial zygote (fertilized ovum) for the multi-cellular primitive generations of all species, including the highest vertebrates like man, were created without the uterus. The perennial debate: "Who came first, the egg or the hen?" thus ends in favour of the egg." This has a whole lotta WTF? going for it... it evidence for what exactly? He confuses an unfertilized, pre zygote egg with a chicken egg? A chicken egg that is, in fact an external uterus by all accounts. You could also support Dawinian evolution by saying that the egg came first because that animal that laid it was not quite a chicken. This guy lost whatever credibility with me he might of had with this one.
