Science was wrong about the land bridge settlers....canit be wrong about evolution?

Question

Since the 1600's, science has taught that the Clovis settlers crossed the land brindge from Asia and settled the Americas. Scientists dug deeper, and discovered that this theory established as virtual law for over 300+ years, is false.

So, why deny other scientists the opportunity to apply the scientific method to overturn the theory of evolution? If your cause is science, I cannot see how. Please tell me where I am wrong.

The Bering Land Bridge as being the source of the first settler of the America's is shown wrong in the contrsuction of the Clovis spear itself, as well as the fact that human settlements existed before the settlers arrived through the glacial pass into the great plains.

Never have I said tha the Earth is 6000 years, nor have Isaid that God created man. I am just asking why evolution, which is based on correlational data and lacks evidence from the pre-cambian period to show its strength, cannot also be overturned when new science exposes its flaws.

There are substancial holes in evolution. It is an interesting theory, but it lacks causal proof. It relies on correlational data and imagination.

The human body has DNA in common with trees....does this mean that we are descended from trees, or does this mean that there is no link?

Mitocondrian DNA shows a consistant link from person to person that narrows more and more towards one woman as an "eve".

I am not refuting that the Bering Strait never happened, just that it is not the source of the colonization of the Americas.

Don writes in a sophmoric level, though I doubt this is his intent. Data upon data upon data shows carbon dated human settlements well before the clovis people were here. The clovis spears found in Alaska are younger than the clovis spears found out east.

People did cross the land bridge. For almost 400 years, or 300+, we have been told they were the origional settlers. We now know that is false. it is not a non-sequitor to state that if "known" science says that the Clovis people were the first settlers, then is it reasonable to question the validitity of "known" science as it applies to evolution. Given that both the findings of "evoluion" and "clovis" rely on circumstancial and correlational data, and cannot ever be shown is a causal way, as per the nature of the evidence, is it not valid to question the validity of scientific theories founded on correlational and not causal data?

I understand evolution quite well. I welcome further research to fill the gaps.

If BOB says something that is a lie, but we believe it to be a truth, it is reasonable and logical to question the validity of other claims made by BOB when we discover that lie. If you do not question other claims by BOB, you are a fool. If BOB is a science method, then you are a bad scientist for not questioning (never said abandonig) other claims made by that method.

Answer 1

The whole purpose of science is to try an explain the unknown and to put empirical fact behind the explanation. Its hard to put empirical fact behind something that happened so far in the past that the only evidence is remains. Nomads did cross the land bridge. That is not being disputed. The dispute is whom was the first.

No one denies scientist the ability to try and dispute evolution. Many biologists and paleo-anthropologists work on it everyday.

I don't see why there is such a divide between science and God. God created, science explains how. God told us what he did, not the mechanics of the creating. Science gives us the ability to explore and dive into that creation.

Answer 2

Believe me, nobody is stopping the application of the scientific method to overturn the theory of evolution. It's like asking why not jump off a tall cliff to test the theory of gravity. After all, gravity is only a "theory" too. Indeed, it's the only force in the universe for which we haven't yet discovered a fundamental particle. But it just makes sense not to test gravity that way from all the evidence gathered (sometimes the hard way). Study the life's work of Darwin and the evidence he collected, then go ahead and apply the scientific method to your heart's content. You're not going to come up with an age of 6,000 years for the Earth. Not even close. Not even in the next ballpark.

Answer 3

Why are you religiosity "experts" so against people trying to figure for themselves?? There's more basis for evolution than there is for "God created the Universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th"!
One is verifiable...the other is NOT and is supposed to be accepted without question. I thought blatant ignorance was ALSO a sin.
God didn't give us all BRAINS and then expect us NOT to use them.
Science is a work in progress, and facts get updated when proven differently. You're overgeneralizing "SCIENCE" as though you've confused it with a religion.....point out one "error", and there's people that jump out and declare it indicates that ALL science is "wrong", and usually those same people will suggest that scientists need to REPENT and "find God"!
Most religions DEFY being updated...which is why history has examples like the Spanish Inquisition and their modern day equivalent, the Islamic Jihadists. And GOD FORBID anyone should declare ANY of it "wrong".

Answer 4

Actually, there are several theories about how man crossed to the western part of the Americas, none of which are proven or disproven.

Simularly, as has been stated way too many times before on this forum, Evolution is a model it is continually being refined as we discover new information. On the other hand, there is no evidence of creation, the exodus or other events... what does this tell you?

Answer 5

It was not considered law about the land bridge i do not know where you are getting that.
A number of prestigious scientists believe that part of evolution is that it popped up in several places and it had many differences. There is not one place where all of sudden man was it was not like that it, it was a slow process that spanned the whole world.
That is why man has so many different colors and shapes.
Also this subject is freely open, as all things in science, to study and create new theories and disprove others that is the very basis of science.

Answer 6

Maybe, since science is proving itself wrong again and again and replaces facts with more up to date ones. Just because science may not fully be correct about evolution doesn't automatic mean creationism is correct. God is often used to explain the unknown, which included things like the weather, but science has since came up with reasons that it happens.

Answer 7

Evolution is a theory. The more they dig and uncover the more they learn about our world. Still makes more sense than some omnipotent being creating the world in seven days out of nothing.

Answer 8

The Bible under no circumstances transformations reason it quite is acceptable - It under no circumstances transformations by using fact it quite is a delusion. technology makes the excuse it quite is convalescing on it quite is theories - Newton's seen gravity replaced into not incorrect in simple terms by using fact Einstein replaced it. If it replaced into acceptable...there be no could strengthen - That thinking and clever stuff quite throws you, does not it. Evolution debunked back via the Vatican. - different than that the vatican helps evolution.

Answer 9

first of all, where do you get your information? I haven't heard the Bering land bridge theory being proved wrong.

And second, no one is getting in the way of people researching to see if evolution is true or false. They just don't want people to go around preaching things like "intelligent design."

Answer 10

I know of no true scientist that would ever try to prevent anybody from attempting to challenge anything in science.

Evolution is open to anybody who wishes to challenge its data or basis, provided they use accepted scientific methods to make their case.

It is the evolutionists who refrain from scientific scrutiny.