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.
####(My answers follow the ####)
Did you read the book?
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.
####Wow-You’re at a point where it’s no longer necessary to read the text and know what is said (In regard to at you’re taking about). In a vacuum you place judgement and criticize based on assumptions. Anyone not you OPINION is an idiot. You’re definitely an evolutionist!
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.
#####Really? Objective science brought you: Thalidomide, Episiotomies (for a while they did it to practically every woman), electro-shock therapy, Phrenology, Eugenics. By the way, what is better; Margarine or butter? Ever look at the field of Psychology and the crap they put out over the years? Science is driven by preconceived ideas. Men find the answers they are looking for by only exploring certain options, phrasing the questions, polling the right populations and interpreting the data the way they want to get the answer they need to satisfy their position.
####Evolution is in no ring with creationism. Science is based on “Proof” and “Experimentation”. Evolution is in the ring against itself. Something is not right because we have no other explanation which we like. Evolution actually stands on pretty thin ice.
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.
####Yet, the questions posed are valid. Many things seem NOT to be explainable through evolutional theory. Something’s are NO longer divisible. They can not be seen as having gone through any sort of evolution since their components only work in entirety.
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).
####However, when it comes to evolution it seems to be the evolutionist who clings to this theory, is reluctant to admit it’s a theory, and in modern times has repeatedly made false claims about discovery reference his theory. Example-Pilt Hoax man, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny and many many more. Dr. Wells of UC Berkeley (Micro biologist) has a list of false and deceptive claims made by those who on blind “faith” accept evolution as fact. In fact, a lot of the pictures you see that show man dragging knuckles and then walking around in a suit are pure artist renditions. The fossil evidence DOES NOT EXIST. They are extrapolations based upon a few finds that may not even be related to human origin, can be viewed differently depending on how the bone is placed. Again, science wants to see it a certain way. So the fossils jaw is intentionally pulled forward to give him a more primitive look. However, this is not even mechanically feasible (But it does make him look more Neanderthalish [Or how we think he “should” look like])
(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.
####No, I just don’t want to rewrite a book you can buy and read. At $10.95 it’s really not that much!
####The assumptions made by evolutionist (Leaps of faith without proof) are
1. Non-living things gave rise to living material. Spontaneous generation.
2. This only happened once.
3. Viruses, plants, animals and bacteria are all related.
4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoan
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
7. Fish gave rise to amphibians to reptiles to birds to mammals.
Without these ASSUMPTIONS there is no evolution. You do realize that these are assumptions?
There are many holes in evolution. Much of what is stated as fact is assumptions and theory. It is not being irrational when I want it pointed out that this is a theory. It is a theory, taught as a mater of fact to our children. That is not good science or education, it’s brainwashing.
Again, as I said in my first post reference this subject. I do not know the answer. But neither do you, even if you think you do. If you truly believe in evolution, then you do so on “faith”. Then you do believe in miracles all awhile you laugh at those who do not embrace your “THEORY” as ground truth.
Red6