Faithful Ancestors

Science News Magazine ^ | 6-11-2005 | Bruce Bower

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Nothing kills a person's credibility more than referring to evolution as religion.

To be precise I should have referred to the religion of macro evolution. For we can actually see changes in life WITHIN the various kinds of life. For instance, certain insects may develop resistance to pesticides over time. But we've never observed macro evolution. A kind of life giving rise to a different kind of life. When you can show me something like a rat giving birth to a cat, I'll believe. I need evidence. Show me evidence, not your evolutionary fables, and I'll believe. Until then macro evolution is a mere religion of blind faith. A mighty ridiculous one at that in my opinion.

[Gumlegs]

When you can show me something like a rat giving birth to a cat, I'll believe. I need evidence.

It doesn't take very long, does it?

" ... something like a rat giving birth to a cat" would disprove evolution. To be precise.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

" ... something like a rat giving birth to a cat" would disprove evolution. To be precise.

You mean the next time a rat gives birth to a cat I can't even count that as proof for macro evolution? That's quite deflating.

Hebrews 11:1 says:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Unless the macro evolution believer has seen macro evolution actually occur in that they have actually seen the process of one kind of life giving rise to another kind, I will regard their science as a faith as faith is described in Hebrews 11:1.

[Doctor Stochastic]

God created light in mid transit so we would 'think' the universe is older than it 'really' is.

And why would She have done that?

[Dimensio]

You mean the next time a rat gives birth to a cat I can't even count that as proof for macro evolution?

It certainly wouldn't count as evidence for "macro evolution". Nothing in the theory of evolution would produce such an outcome.

[shuckmaster]

But we've never observed macro evolution

Only complete idiots even use the term "macro evolution" much less expect to observe it.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Only complete idiots even use the term "macro evolution" much less expect to observe it.

No matter what this idiot calls it, it moust be observed to be called science. If there's no observation, it's not science but faith.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[b_sharp]

"That would be a fateful trip, jumping into a time machine and setting the dial to a time which never existed."

A dozen independent cross verified dating methods disagree with you.

"And I swear, my ancestors were not monkeys. If there was a planet 3 million years ago, and it had monkeys on it, they looked exactly like monkeys do today"

You are quite correct, your ancestors, 3 million years ago were not monkeys. You would have to go much farther back than 3 million years before you encountered a monkey ancestor. Lucy was an ape, just like you. However I doubt very much if monkeys from 3 million years ago looked like they do now. Monkeys now don't look like monkeys do now.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Um, excuse me, but isn't there light visible from objects a LOT more than 3 million light years away?

Um, excuse me, but if that light was shining when you were born, don't you think it might be wise to leave "3 million light years away" an open question? It wasn't all that long ago our forefathers figured out light was not of infinite speed, and even then it took over 53 years of grueling scientific banter to "figure it out."

Have you lived long enough and observed enough to know for certain that "nothing travels faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum?" Preach it if you wish, but don't be surprised if scientific progress, as much as it has slowed down since Charles Darwin, eventually knocks you out of the pulpit.

[b_sharp]

"What malarky. The creationist argument has much more science on it's side than does the evolutionist argument, which has none, other than theory and wild guesses. try again."

You mean like the ark, the flood, the Grand Canyon, Paluxy footprints, a 6000 year old earth, vapour canopy, super rapid tectonic plate movement, hydroplate theory, on and on...

Yup! Plenty of science there.

[b_sharp]

"When you can show me something like a rat giving birth to a cat, I'll believe. I need evidence. Show me evidence, not your evolutionary fables, and I'll believe. Until then macro evolution is a mere religion of blind faith. A mighty ridiculous one at that in my opinion."

Your knowledge of evolution is staggering.

[b_sharp]

"No matter what this idiot calls it, it moust be observed to be called science. If there's no observation, it's not science but faith."

Where did you get the idea that science has to be directly observable? Do you think we have directly observed an electron? Quark? Lepton?

Don't change the concept of science to fit your pre-conceived ideas and desires.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

When I used the term observable, I meant a process operating in the here and now that can be seen operating in the here and now. I'm not talking of insects giving rise to generations later to pesticide-resistant insects or the such like. I'm talking about generations of insects eventually giving rise to generations of something else. The original article stated this:

A weird kind of creature strode across the eastern African landscape from around 4 million to 3 million years ago. Known today by the scientific label Australopithecus afarensis, these ancient ancestors of people may have taken the battle of the sexes in a strange direction, for primates at any rate. True, no one can re-create with certainty the court and spark that led to sexual unions between early hominids. Nothing short of a time machine full of scientifically trained paparazzi could manage that trick.

What a touching display of blind faith in their fable of what happened in the long long ago in the by and by. These people state that this "Lucy" was the ancestor of humans. I have as much scientific basis for saying that Lucy was only the ancestor of later generations of Lucys and was only the descendant of earlier generations of Lucys. In fact considering what we observe in the here and now, I think I have more scientific basis because all we observe in the here and now is creatures reproducing their own kind as the Bible states.

But the article stumbled on one bit of truth, the need of a time machine to prove these things. I wish those indroctinated in the Darwinist fairy tale would at least abandon the pretension that they have reason on their side and the believes in the Bible merely operate on "blind faith". When we're talking about something that supposedly happened so long ago and something that happened over such a long time ago we're talking faith at best. Faith being the acceptance of evidence of things unseen to give substance to things hoped for as described in the book of Hebrews.

Nothing in the world should be accepted blindly. As I Thessalonians 5:11 states:

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

The Bible itself demands and commends a logical test of its claims.(Acts 17:11) Why can't the typical Darwinist hold their faith to the same standard?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Your knowledge of evolution is staggering.

As is my knowledge of astrology. But I know enough to know I don't see the stars exerting control over man in a predictable and describable way nor do I see generations of one kind of animal transforming themselves into another kind of animal.

People too easily become mental slaves to "conventional scientific wisdom". It wasn't too long ago that conventional scientific wisdom stated that the world was flat.

[Thatcherite]

Creationist "It wasn't too long ago that conventional scientific wisdom stated that the world was flat." canard placemarker

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Canard? Perhaps I was being unfair and perhaps my words were not selected with precision. I should have said that conventional contemporary wisdom of the time thought that the world was flat. That unprovable notion is not worthy to be called true science, just as the Darwinist fables of today are certainly conventional contemporary wisdom but fail the standards of science.

Call Darwinism faith-based speculation, but don't call it science. A Ph.D. and a lab coat does not a prophet make.

[anguish]

That unprovable notion is not worthy to be called true science

Science is never proven - it's substantiated by evidence or falsified.

Call Darwinism faith-based speculation, but don't call it science.

Just like plate tectonics is "faith-based speculation"?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Just like plate tectonics is "faith-based speculation"?

Is plate tectonics something to do with creation science or intelligent design? If so, those are faith based speculations also. Any speculation about the beginnings of the world and life is necessarily based on faith as nobody was present to watch and creation from nothing is beyond scientific study. Unless we are planning to raise up a generation of creators of universes, I see no reason why origins is a fit subject for study in any school. Kids need to learn knowledge that is useful for the here and know.

While I admire the creation scientists and IDers for their willingness not to leave the the field of faith based speculation to the Darwinists, I generally think that the time of Bible believers would better be spent in proving the Bible. Romans 10:17 states that faith comes by hearing the word of God, not by some vague "feeling from the Holy Spirit" and not by fossils.

And for those that reject the Genesis account of creation out of hand, I wonder if you have spent effort in proving or disproving the Bible? My lack of extensive knowledge of evolution is suggested as a disqualification to my competence to judge it. Yet on the other hand, lack of Bible knowledge is seen as no disqualifier to rejecting the Genesis account. Why the double standard?

[Dimensio]

And for those that reject the Genesis account of creation out of hand, I wonder if you have spent effort in proving or disproving the Bible?

Why should those who don't accept the creation story of your religion waste time trying to disprove it? There are countless religions out there with their own creation stories; are those who accept science to set out to disprove each and everyone, or is your religion the only one that gets special treatment inthis respect?

My lack of extensive knowledge of evolution is suggested as a disqualification to my competence to judge it.

When you suggest that rats giving birth to cats would be evidence for evolution, yes your credibility comes into question.

Yet on the other hand, lack of Bible knowledge is seen as no disqualifier to rejecting the Genesis account. Why the double standard?

There's a double-standard, but not the one as you suggest. Evolution is backed by an extensive history of multiple lines of evidence. The Genesis account...is written in the Bible. That's about it. It isn't our fault that a literal reading of the Genesis account is contradicted by observed reality, and it isn't our responsibility to "disprove" an assertion not supported by evidence in the first place, yet many Biblical creationists insist that their creation story -- out of all the others -- somehow be given "equal treatment" with evolution despite the total disparity of evidence.