Evolution was not proven true...until THIS.......I am SUCH the believer now- and you??

Galapagos Finches produce Galapagos Finches- same with the tortoises

" Naturalist guide Ronald Daeumler, who recently spent two years on the Galápagos, observed: “Frankly, I was astounded on learning that this was really Darwin’s most convincing reason to show that evolution was a possible explanation of the origin of the species. He reasoned that if the finch could, as he called it, evolve a new beak, then it was probable that it could also evolve into another animal if enough time was granted. Could this thinking really be the foundation that has caused so many millions of people to renounce the concept of an intelligent creator? Was this the strongest support that Darwin’s islands could give to evolution?

“As a guide I was really interested in being able to identify the different finches. But since they are called different species I had imagined that identification would be a very easy process. However, as I did research I came to realize that the differences between these so-called species were so small that many could be identified only by weighing or measuring different organs such as the heart or brain. As one author said: ‘It is only a very wise man or a fool who thinks he is able to identify all the finches which he sees.”’

Daeumler then observes: “But really, have the Galapagos finches made what could be called evolutionary changes, changes that in time could change them into something else? Or are these finches simply variations and adaptations that are common to all different, basic types of animals? The facts were clear to me: these finches were still finches and nothing else, and long ages of time were not making them change into something else.” "

I posted this on thread linked below and the guy quoted above replied! {and gave attribution I left out!} There was some baning ,and I didn't get to reply then.

Thread: Then Galapagos Islands

It was as real as Never-Never Land in Peter Pan.

My brain's fine thanks, yours needs a lot of work on it.

:clap1:

never land and peter pan are, in fact, more believable than evolution

never land and peter pan are, in fact, more believable than evolution

never land and peter pan are, in fact, more believable than evolution

As neurophysiologist and Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles once so eloquently put it, “Arrogance is one of the worst diseases of scientists and it gives rise to statements of authority and finality which are expressed usually in fields that are completely beyond the scientific competence of the dogmatist. It is important to realise that dogmatism has now become a disease of scientists rather than of theologians.

and evolution is more believable than Genesis.

i guess Disney wins again!

Is OP's video full of photoshops supposed to prove something?

Since we don't understand the mechanism of this alleged evolution, we are on very shaky (scientifically improper) ground asserting that it is a credible theory. It's not even a theory at this point, just a notion that doesn't bridge many gaps.

So we can say the rest is unexplained. I am happy with that.

Or we can say some higher intelligence designed the systems. Since this is pretty obvious, I am also happy with that.

The photos are living proof of half this and half that creatures evolving. They make up for no one ever finding one single fossil of the fabulous scientific secret of evolution, formerly reserved only for the elite.. So much better than just drawing little creatures side by side with bigger and bigger ones. That's so old school now.

are these EVOLVING? or....Devolving?

No No No now looky here God Girl, don't try sneaking up on us wit no stinking trick questions like 'devolving'. Only ya all IGNORAMUSES even ask questions like that. Them things don't even tiny thingies no them thingies they don't never even exit exist. Now pardon me cause I needa slama anover brewshi crying out loud.

slam one then answer the question

oh yeah, the evidence is overwhelming

Yes it is I am impressed you have accepted this

Yeah...... no half and half fossils but.... so what? It's not like we're not talking science here, only theory. Two dimensional drawings of real creatures make up for the imaginary missing ones, k?