It is quite silly to think that an eye could evolve on its own. Without even one piece developing, the eye wouldn't work. It would be useless while evolving in previous generations and they would die out and we would find their fossils. Yet, we don't find their fossils.
The silliness is in the assumption that the eye cannot evolve, that it would not have worked if even one 'piece' were missing, that prior versions of the eye would therefore have been useless, and that the eye would have left fossils to begin with.
Given that we have observed organisms in nature that have a stunning range of working eyes, from simple patches of photosensitive tissue all the way to eyes that are far more capable than the human eye, it is ludicrous to simply declare that no prior version of the eye can possibly have worked.
Such as the truth that Orta Benga was considered a monkey instead of a human back in 1904?
Such a shame that kids in schools back then were being taught the "absolute truth" that Orta Benga was a monkey. They probably got a big fat red X on their paper if they classified Orta Benga as a human. I feel sorry for him being paraded around like an animal.
Wonder why they don't teach this to kids in the textbooks today. Kinda makes you wonder what science is trying to hide from us and why they are afraid of their past. The lengths they go to in order to try and prove their wild theory is quite interesting.
Actually, I doubt Ota Benga was used in schoolbooks to begin with. Not only that, but I think the only ones trying to push him as an example of an earlier stage of human evolution were trying to fulfill some agenda - notably, that their racist beliefs were based on science rather than prejudiced opinions. Just like you're trying to fulfill an agenda of your own by posting here - to show that your theistic beliefs are based on facts, rather than your own variety of prejudiced opinions.
They sure do like to shout "We got the truth!" when they themselves don't even know if they have the truth.
You mean like you're doing here on this site? The difference being that you assume you have the truth without having anything in the way of real, verifiable facts to back it up with.
That's why they shouldn't go around proclaiming the fact of evolution, considering our knowledge is rather limited compared to 100 years from now.
Just think in 100 years, they may laugh at people who thought evolution was true.
Except nobody who actually understands evolution attempts to portray it as an ironclad set of facts that can't possibly be proven wrong. When people refer to evolutionary fact, they mean that it would take a bonafide miracle to come up with something that could overcome the theory of evolution at this point in time.
You can dream about how evolution might get shown to be false in the next hundred years if you want. But there is virtually no chance of that ever happening. Instead, what will happen is that someone will find something that fills in a hole in evolutionary theory, probably with something that nobody foresaw (just as Einstein filled the holes in Newtonian physics with quantum physics). So it will be 'wrong' (or rather, incomplete), but not false.
There's a lot of space on this Earth to start digging for that poodle. Maybe they shouldn't assume that T-Rex and poodle lived far apart from each other.
Sure there is. But why assume that you're going to find that ancient fossilized poodle based on the writings of a book that's only a few thousand years old? Especially when you yourself have admitted that 'demons' have screwed with every other religion on the planet. Claiming that yours is somehow exempt is nothing but special pleading.
It's because the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere except the textbooks. For example, if I went in my backyard and dug up a T-Rex, would the "Jurassic era" then be in my backyard?
Fossils are found willy nilly all over the place. No way to tell columns and eras from that. My backyard point testifies to that fact.
All this proves is that you're as utterly ignorant of geology and paleontology as you are of other branches of science.
Indeed, it's not only possible to tell geological columns and eras from fossils, it's been done thousands of times. Just because your ignorance on the subject doesn't allow you to understand how it works does not then make it not work.
The geologic column exists in the Grand Canyon?
That's where they found every fossil?
If it's not where they found every fossil, then where is the column?
As I thought, you don't even know what the geological column is. You're just going based off of the nonsense from ICR and other creationist websites which use that as a red herring to distract people from the fact that they don't have any actual evidence to support their young earth beliefs.
The real irony is that the geological column was worked out by geologists about two centuries ago. It's even older than evolutionary theory, in other words. By the way, it's not a literal column. It's actually the layering of newer material onto older. So the geological column is basically the entire crust of the Earth.
If you had the time and money to dig deep down into your backyard, you would start finding fossils. But we're talking dozens of feet just to find relatively recent fossils (from tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago). Think hundreds of feet to get into the dinosaur era, millions of years ago. You aren't going to get there with a pick and spade.
So it is possible that there could be a startling discovery in my backyard that could turn evolution on its head?
Sure. Anything is possible. But the likelihood is practically nonexistent.