[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?