very true, the fact that you can only really disprove, but you do need some kind of backing to your theory. and in the case of a theory such as that of the big bang, you can only notice that wave lengths of light measurements point to an expanding universe from a single point, but not that of the creation of all things.
it is very flawed in that sense. and also, if any kind of theory needs such concepts as dark matter and string theories to keep it aloft, then i think it needs to be rethought. there is so much speculation within the theory to make it work that i can only wonder how it is deemed scientific.
as i said, similarity does not equal relationship. dinosaurs and birds have a wide variety of similiarities, yet that does not point to any kind or relation. for example, almost all animals have 5 digit bones, even whales do, but that does not mean that a whale is related to a mokey. here is a bit of text from In 6 Days, why 50 scientiest choose to believe Creation. . this may be a bit long, but bear with me:
Avian evolution and flight, a creationists perspective:
"For the evolutionist, there is the scenario of flight evolving at least three times independently!The wings of the three main current groups of flying creatures today are substantially different: birds’ wings are made of feathers; insect wings are made of scales, membranes, or hairs; and bat wings use skin spread out over a skeleton. So the evolutionist is faced with not just one [seemingly] impossible hurdle — that some reptiles grew feathers and began to fly — but two further hurdles. These are that flight evolved again when some rodents (mice? shrews?) developed a skin- like surface over their front legs to become bats, and then, quite separately, some insects grew very thin wings of scales, membranes, or hairs to becomes flies, bees, and butterflies!
Birds
A bird’s wings are made of feathers. A feather is a marvel of light weight engineering. Though light, it is very wind-resistant. This is because there is a clever system of barbs and barbules. Each barb of a feather is visible to the naked eye and comes off the main stem. What is not generally realized is that on either side of the barb are further tiny barbules which can only be seen under a microscope. These are of different types, depending on whether they are coming from one side of the barb or the other. On one side of the barb, ridged barbules will emerge, while on the other side, the barbules will have hooks. Thus, the hooks coming out of one barb will connect with ridges reaching in the opposite direction from a neighboring barb. The hooks and ridges act like “velcro,� but go one stage further, since the ridges allow a sliding joint, and there is thus an ingenious mechanism for keeping the surface flexible and yet in-tact.
The next time you see a flight feather on the ground, remem ber it is a marvel of lightweight, flexible, aerodynamic engineering. Reptile scales have no hint of such complicated machinery. Stahl has freely admitted, “No fossil structure transitional between scale and feather is known, and recent investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure speculation.�
There is no genetic information within reptile scales to allow such a unique device as the sliding joint of a feather to be made. The tortuous route suggested by some of small “advantaged mutations� to scales leads to clumsy structures which are, in fact, a disadvantage to the creature. Not until all the hook and ridge structure is in place is there any advantage, even as a vane for catching insects! Unless one invokes some “thinking ahead� planning, [Mommy Nature making selections?] there is no way that chance mutations could produce the “idea� of the cross- linking of the barbules to make a connecting lattice. Even if the chance mutation of a ridge/hook occurs in two of the barbules, there is no mechanism for translating this “advantage� to the rest of the structure. This is a classic case of irreducible complexity which is not consistent with slow evolutionary changes, but quite consistent with the notion of design.
But that is not all. Even if one had the feather, the delicate lattice structure would soon become frayed, unless there was also oil to lubricate the sliding joint made by the hooked and ridged barbules. Most of us realize that once the barbs of a feather have been separated, it is difficult to make them come back together.The feather becomes easily frayed in the absence of oil, which a bird provides from its preening gland at the base of its spine. Some of this oil is put on its beak and spread throughout the feathers, which for a water bird also gives waterproofing of its surface (thus, water slides off a duck’s back). Without the oil the feathers are useless, so even if a supposed land-dwelling dinosaur got as far as wafting a wing, it would be no use after a few hours!
As one might expect, however, the story does not end there either, for a bird can fly only because it also has an exceedingly light bone structure, which is achieved by the bones being hollow. Many birds maintain skeleton strength by cross members within the hol low bones. Such an arrangement began to be used in the middle of this century for aircraft wings and is termed the “Warren’s truss arrangement.� Large birds, such as an eagle or a vulture, would sim ply break into pieces in midair if there were some supposed halfway stage in their skeletal development where they had not yet “devel oped� such cross members in their bones.
Furthermore, birds breathe differently. The respiratory system of a bird enables oxygen to be fed straight into air sacs, which are connected directly to the heart, lungs, and stomach, bypassing the normal mammalian requirement to breathe out carbon dioxide first before the next intake of oxygen. Human beings breathe about 12 times a minute, whereas small birds can breathe up to about 250 times a minute. This is thus a perfect system for the high metabolic rate of birds, which uses up energy very quickly. In fast forward ffight particularly, birds could not sustain exhaling against the on coming airstream. Note also that birds are warm-blooded, which presents a vast biological hurdle for those who maintain a reptile ancestory for birds.
this is a very good example of how it is impossible for 1 animal to evolve into another completely different creature. surely you concede that foxes and wolves are basically the same animal if you want to prove evolution in that sense: they are both carnivorous land animals, they both have 4 legs, live in the same kind of climate etc. so its not like a link between these two animals is not impossible, they are pretty much the same animal.
yet i am pretty sure there are some major diffences that evolution could not have gotten around when you are talking about a fish to amphibian evolution.
the fish would have had to get rid of its gills partially to have lungs, develop a new breating system, a new digestive system adapted to food it wouldn't know exists yet, sense to help it hunt the food on land it hasn't encountered yet, grow legs and replace the fins, all the while managing to feed, reproduce and not get eaten by the predator or surving the conditions it is evolving away from.
there is not cahnce whatsoever for this happening in any amount of time, the stages are the same beit quickly or slowly. and for it to arrive to where we are now with our own person and mind is just absurd to believe.
so bear with me on that long text. sorry about it, but i feel it is very important.
- Patty
*NS Skateboarders* Vas y il l'a cassé!
the previous might have been pure genious, but it wasn't my intention. sorry.
