Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[CGM]

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

ok, we are getting into semantics now. If you don't like the word method, then call it something else. It is observational though. And there is some experimentation, extrapolation, and method involved. But point taken.

I don't agree with the higlighted remarks. The fact is fossils have been found that document an evolution, a progression or advancement if you will, But there are gaps and questions remaining. But if you don't believe the dating technology, then there is not much point in me trying to tell you there is evidence of an evolution, is there?

Name the fossils. There isn't any fossil that demonstrates the gradual evolution of life on this planet in the way the theory surmises.

That is why Stephen Jay Gould and his ilk proposed the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' the idea that creatures don't evolve slowly over millions of years at all, but rather stay the same for millions of years and then evolve rapidly in an isolated population producing great changes in such a short space of time that sadly they cannot find the fossils to support it.

I.e becuase they had no evidence they invented a new theory to explain why there was no evidence and then went happily as before.

Of course the classical Darwinists argued that puncuated equilibrium was biologically impossible becuase there is no way to create via mutation so much new DNA in such a short timeframe but that doesn't seem to have put them off.

The fossil record doesn't show evolution at all, it just shows extinction.

It's interesting to note that the very earliest forms of life discovered on this planet, purple algae (called stromatolites) some 3.5 billion years old still exists in the same form today. It hasn't evolved in supposedly 4 billion years.

Crocodiles have been around and the same for 230 million years, ants 100 million, cockroaches almost 400 million, Horsehoe crabs are about 350 million years old.

I don't agree with any of the timescales of course I'm just highlighting the fact that the idea that scientists dig down into the rocks and find an entirely new and different world the deeper they go is completely false. They find many of the same animals we have today, and they still look the same as they did then, along with animals that have died out, as I said extinction not evolution.

You have changed the requirements on me. I have merely stated that there is fossil evidence of a progression. I've already stated there are gaps. That doesn't disprove the theory. I repeat, you have already said that you don't accept scientific dating as anything but a fantasy, so you are damn sure not going to accept from me any evidence of a progression or advancement over time.

This idea of a punctuated equilibrium is worthy of exploring, I'm kind of familiar with it. It's another theory that attempts to explain the gaps.

It sounds like you are saying that if one life form evolves, then all life forms must evolve. That's a bit of a stretch that I can't disprove any more than you can prove.

Bottom line, if you don't believe the time lines, and if scientific dating is crap to you, then there is no point in me raising evidence of a progression.

Here's one for you. If man and dinosaurs co-existed, then why did man, and so many other species, survive and dinosaurs die out?