Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
So the emission of an alpha particle from a nucleus is an observable process? The earth orbiting the sun is observable? BTW, you do know that evolution HAS been observed by scientists both in nature and in the laboratory, don't you?
Because 1) it hasn't been that long since your side totally controlled this argument at gunpoint and 2) I want science as it is currently understood taught in science classrooms on my dime, since I don't want my nieces and nephews to grow up to be houseboys in Chinese mansions in the Hollywood hills.
The definition of species is and always has been full of arbitrary definitions. The only thing necessary to define a species is whether, in fact, groups interbreed. Not whether forced matings produce offspring, but whether unforced mating occurs.
Populations can be separated by geography or by something as simple as a variation of some signal, like a mating dance, a call, or a pheromone. The change might be trivial, but result in two, non-interbreeding populations, capable of additional differentiation.
Houseboys in Chinese mansions?????
Next you'll tell me that Blue Staters are smarter than Red Staters.
micro-evolution yes.
If you wish to debate, perhaps you would present your debating points on the following questions:
Some things are spiritual. Our soul gives us the opportunity for eternal life (through God's Son, Jesus Christ). It is essentially your "mind." It will come down to "proof," but, how many animals are wondering about their origin, purpose and future existence?
"There is a great, uncrossable gulf between animal brain and human mind. The evolutionary theory assumes that humans are animals. But one thing evolution can never explain is the total difference between animal brain equipped with instinct, and the human mind with creative reasoning powers of intellect and devoid of instinct in the strict sense that animals possess it.
Some animals have physical brains as large or larger than man's brain, and with similar cerebral cortex complexity--but none has the powers of intellect, logic, self-consciousness and creativity.
The physical brain of a dolphin, whale or elephant is larger than the human brain, while a chimp's is slightly smaller. Qualitatively the difference between them and the human brain is very little--not enough to remotely account for the vastly superior intelligence and output of the human brain. The gap between animal brain and human mind is incredibly vast!
But man's mind is vastly different from animal instinct. Man is able to devise various ways to do any one thing or to achieve a predetermined goal. Man can acquire knowledge and reason from it. He can draw conclusions, make decisions, will to act according to a thought-out plan.
Man can choose--he has free moral agency. He can devise codes of conduct and exercise self-discipline. Man can originate ideas and evaluate knowledge because he has a MIND which is patterned after God's own mind!
Man alone can wonder, " Why was I born? What is life? What is death? Is there a purpose in human existence?" Man, unlike the animals, not only knows how to do certain things, but he also KNOWS that he knows--that is, he is aware that he has "knowledge." He is conscious of the fact. He is self-conscious, aware of his own existence as a unique being."
soul-less placemarker
In response to your first two questions, I don't object to the view that the earth is very old.
For question three, I don't object to natural selection. Variation does occur, within kind.
For question four, we have no way of knowing for sure if there are outside limits to variation. Human experience indicates there are. There's no proof either way. Evolution assumes that over time accumulated mutations would lead to all the millions of species we have on earth today. This is basically the crux of the debate. I doubt that the massive number of diverse species on earth could have come about this way, and doubt that admittedly interesting theories such as those put forth to explain complex systems (e.g., Behe's critics) can explain something like an eye.
As for your question five, try this:
http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/32/000608/12.html
And realize I'm a layman, not a scientist!
Right, thanks. I am not going to try to figure out problems such as; the large dog/small dog situation. It doesn't mean they aren't both dogs, it is just a barrier. When "men" interfere, they usually find out why it didn't occur naturally.
You're a victor in your own mind...I mean your 'atoms-bumping-into-one-another'.
Ok. Still no answer. No method of deciding whether two entities are the same species. The Usual Creationist Dance without ever answering a simple question.
I thought 1123 did a good job of explaining it, you probably find that definition "gray." so why don't you define it so we have something to "start" from. It is hard to tell if you are playing word games or trying to make a point.
Though I wasn't there I would assume that more laws than the Law of Gravity were at play when the fossil record was laid down. Fossilized creatures with the capacty to rise above through physical exertion should be found at higher levels. Are they?
When was the last time you baked up a heavy element in a supernova? Never have, and probably never will. So?
When was the last time you felt the North American continent drift?I don't have to feel it. I'll trust the measurements other scientists have made.
When was the last time you observed light reducing in wavelength after traveling for billions of years?The only billions of years I know of are in the imagination of men.
Sciences operates on induction . . .
I appreciate the value of induction when it comes to scientific inquiry. I also appreciate it when scientists know the difference between induction and story telling.
By the way, should we trust you to be the arbiter of sanity for the rest of us?
Next you'll tell me that Blue Staters are smarter than Red Staters.
I wouldn't give a tinker's poop for the amount of intelligence you can find in the average voter in either color. And it's a cinch bet that teaching astrology, or UFOlogy, or necromancy or any other crackpot notion that hasn't earned it's stripes in the same way scientific theories have, as if it were just as entitled to sit at the table of reason as science, won't improve that one bit.
I don't think so. It is a theorized phenomenon based on other observable processes, unlike the development of the fossil record.
The earth orbiting the sun is observable?
See above.
BTW, you do know that evolution HAS been observed by scientists both in nature and in the laboratory, don't you?
Sure, in very small degrees. But this is hardly anything to substantiate the proposition that it took millions of years for life to form as we know it.
I am also a layman, with no formal training in biology beyond the introductory college level. But regarding the question of commkon descent: what formal principal of analysis differentiates between DNA's use in establishing parentage and relatedness among humans, and its use in determining relatedness across species? What general rule can you invoke?
What human experience set outside limits to variation? In 1900, human experience would have set limits to the speed that human transportation could reach, or the altitude that could be reached.
There is a difference between experience as engineering, and experience as a set of principles. What principles are you invoking?
An "I refuse to connect the dots" placemarker.
What exactly is the difference between induction and story telling, other than the fact that scientists put their stories to the test?
Equally, one might assume the earth and moon were both made of green cheese when the fossil record was laid down--lacking further evidence, I think we may safely assume the law of gravity prevailed, and heavy, dense things did not uniformly float on top of light loose things.
Fossilized creatures with the capacty to rise above through physical exertion should be found at higher levels. Are they?
That's a good one, what mechanism do you propose for this--flash fossilization?
I also appreciate it when scientists know the difference between induction and story telling.
There is no functional difference between story-telling and theories derived by inductive reasoning--it is just a question of how much faith you put in the story, and why you do so. Your disclaimer is absurd. You want to argue that a story with virually no positive, tangible, incontrovertable evidence is more believable than the one story with more and better evidence than any other scientific story around today. Holding your hands firmly over your eyes and saying "what evidence?" over and over, is not a pursuasive counterargment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.