Did you read the book?
How about doing that. That is what essentially this thread is about.
You know, you can go out with the prejudice that God does NOT exist and use science (Even if forcing it to fit the mold) to try to prove your point. On the other hand, if there is scientific data refuting evolution, this is junk science according to you. Having a closed mind, going out with the intent to verify a preconceived idea using science and never really testing the theory itself is NOT science. That was not science when the church forced the idea of all bodies going around the earth or when evolution is taught as a fact and indisputable. It’s a THEORY, not a fact. There is information out there which contradicts this theory. This theory is based on some pretty heavy (big) assumptions (Dam near miracles). In the past there have been lies and aspects about this theory proven wrong.
While I do not know what the answer is, I am willing to accept more options than “God is dead and we can under no circumstance admit that something like creationism happened”. Evolution gives an explanation as to the why and how all this is. It even was used to explain why certain races were intellectually inferior in college texts. Evolution is poison to some because it contradicts the bible, makes life unholy and because of many other angles. The fact that some schools recognize that evolution is no more than a theory is credit to their open mind since it is a theory, no more. There are other ideas out there. The inconsistencies, assumptions of evolution SHOULD be taught. The intent is not to discredit evolution, but to show the “whole” picture and not brainwash, which is the alternative that you obviously support. Historically, evolution is taught as a fact. No mention is made of the past lies, the aspects proven wrong or the 7 major assumptions it is entirely based upon (Without them there is no evolution). Obviously though, you know something which even the biggest advocates of evolution don’t know since these assumptions (Do you know what they are? Or are you only loaded with one sided quick and snappy comments for a fast little session in polemics?) make no mention and obviously are no issue to you.
Because an alternative theory is consistent with the teachings of the bible it is not automatically wrong. Your committing a fallacy in your argument. Read what I wrote. I did not say this made it right, but this also does not make it wrong. But you kind of tip your hand with your comments.
It’s 2 in the morning, at 0530 I head to work, sorry I must sleep. Good night.
Red6
How about doing that.
You mean the one with the biblical quotes--I'll pass. If you mean Behe or Dempski, I've read them, thanks.
You know, you can go out with the prejudice that God does NOT exist and use science (Even if forcing it to fit the mold) to try to prove your point.
I don't have that prejudice, and last I heard, neither did the majority of working scientists. It's just not an issue that's relevant to scientific work, which is, for better or worse, about tangible things about which there is at least a smidgen of detectable evidence to draw inferences about. That doesn't mean we have exhausted the possible explanations for things when we do science, nor do we remotely make any such claim. There is only a pitched battle between Darwinian theory and God in the minds of creationists. Just because you insist on posting God in the boxing ring, doesn't obligate science to put on the gloves.
It’s a THEORY, not a fact. There is information out there which contradicts this theory. This theory is based on some pretty heavy (big) assumptions (Dam near miracles).
Behe-ist Nonsense. There are non-miraculous explanations available at every major turning point in the story of life. These stories are often highly conjectural at the moment, but what they do show, is that we aren't painted into a corner where we have to accept that a series of miracles, divine or otherwise, had to occur. Historically, betting on miracles has been a losing proposition for a very long time.
In the past there have been lies and aspects about this theory proven wrong.
Exactly as can be said about the many theories of gravity and stellar evolution we have gone through. Natural sciences are human enterprises and they have lots of problems and deadends just like any other complex human enterprise. Big deal--(well, yes, to a creationist).
(Do you know what they are? Or are you only loaded with one sided quick and snappy comments for a fast little session in polemics?) make no mention and obviously are no issue to you.
What sanctimonious hogwash. Trot your your mysterious 7 problems and lets have a look at them. Like most creationists, you have a problem with the process of induction upon which all scientific reasoning of significant note rests. The evidence for evolutionary theory rests on a much firmer evidentiary foundation than that of any other natural science. It is a laughable conceit that the inevitable anomolies in naturally occuring evidence somehow outweighs the triple-pronged confirming evidence of the geological column, the fossil tree, and the molecular clock. There have been countless opportunities for unambiguous disconfirming evidence in these multi-disiplinary investigations. And in no case has there been disconfirming evidence remotely adequate to call the present paradigm into question. Like most of the creationists we have run into here, you are bluffing with a bust hand--that's why you are being so coy about troting out your 7 deadly pillers to anhilate Darwin.