Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: trubolotta
Evolution is not something to be “accepted”, it must be proved or it is not science. Nor was the “heliocentric view” a matter of acceptance, but of scientific proof. The “poor state of science” in our schools is a result of exactly the type of thinking you are displaying that acceptance or consensus is science. Neither is science.

There is plenty of "proof" of evolution. There are very few branches of biology in which it is possible to work without taking evolution into account.

The reason I put "proof" into quotes is that, in science, nothing is ever really "proven". The best we can do is to gather more evidence; either the evidence supports the theory or it doesn't.

In the case of evolution, the evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming. That isn't to say that the theory cannot undergo revision as more evidence is accumulated; such revision is an integral part of science. When evidence just plain does not support a theory, the theory is rejected in favor of a better one--that is why we look to Charles Darwin as an early pioneer in biology, and not Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Darwin's theory best fit the data; Lamarck's did not.

62 posted on 05/27/2012 8:09:40 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom
There are very few branches of biology in which it is possible to work without taking evolution into account.

Nonsense. The study of biological processes, structures, chemistry and mechanisms does not require any accounting for evolution. It is what it is by virtue of discovery. Conjecture may be useful, but proves nothing in itself. Quite the contrary, it is the evolutionist that depends on the discoveries of biology to support, refute or question their theories.

The best we can do is to gather more evidence; either the evidence supports the theory or it doesn't. In the case of evolution, the evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming.

The evidence is quite underwhelming and rife with fraud, artistic license (pictures of morphing species) and subjective interpretation. The excuse will always be the same; we know the evidence is out there, we just need more funds and more time to find it.

Most of your arguments in many of your postings were abandoned long ago and replaced by newer theories. You need to get up to date. You need to evolve.

68 posted on 05/27/2012 9:08:05 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: exDemMom
There are very few branches of biology in which it is possible to work without taking evolution into account.

Nonsense. The study of biological processes, structures, chemistry and mechanisms does not require any accounting for evolution. It is what it is by virtue of discovery. Conjecture may be useful, but proves nothing in itself. Quite the contrary, it is the evolutionist that depends on the discoveries of biology to support, refute or question their theories.

The best we can do is to gather more evidence; either the evidence supports the theory or it doesn't. In the case of evolution, the evidence supporting the theory is overwhelming.

The evidence is quite underwhelming and rife with fraud, artistic license (pictures of morphing species) and subjective interpretation. The excuse will always be the same; we know the evidence is out there, we just need more funds and more time to find it.

Most of your arguments in many of your postings were abandoned long ago and replaced by newer theories. You need to get up to date. You need to evolve.

70 posted on 05/27/2012 9:28:43 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson