Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Evolution has been observed. We observe what you call micro-evolution all the time. We observe that the fossils indicate transitions (take a look at cetacean fossils for example). We observe that genetic similarities correspond to the lineages created from the fossil record and extant organisms (morphological similarities). Conclusions garnered from statistical analysis by one group of scientists can be repeated by another group. Conclusions drawn from a fossil by one group of scientists can be confirmed or rejected by another group.
How is this speculation?
"You're the one creating a strawman by ignoring the fact that evolution is NOT fact, but only a guess. Yeah, evolution collects what evidence from different fields? Maybe a PIG BONE and points to it as evidence of a man's? You mean surefire evidence like that?
Evolution is indeed a fact. How about observed speciation events? There are hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been collected that are not pig bones. Just for your edification, fossils are not the most important evidence for evolution (in this case common descent), DNA evidence is more important and providing corroboration for much evidence collected before the '50s.
"And let me add, Evolution is not only speculative, it's an illogical conclusion to most of the evidence.
You keep saying this but I have yet to see any specific argument presented by you or any of your fellow believers that shows how the evidence runs counter to the ToE.
Hey, PH started this thread. You mean PH is Hovind? That's like saying the head of the KKK is a black guy (As I recall "Mad" magazine did just such a story many years ago.)
Looks like Full Court is another practitioner of the "Argument By Making Things Up" School of Debate.
So many demands...typical of evo fascists and their mania to maintain power over the public school science classes.
You are so obvious...really.
Good way to get out of actually engaging the argument.
But I guess we are hung up on being able to "name" and "state." Before we accept something as scientific, we want tedious things like facts, deomnstrations, and sources for statements. Horribly, terribly, damnibly fascistic of us. And obvious. I don't forget obvious.
Whereas... what is it you want? ... To be able call anything at all "science" as long as it makes you feel good? I could be wrong -- enlighten me. What do you call "science"?
We are enjoying the last of very nice Chilean Cabernet Sauvignon here.
What are you --a remedial reader?
I betcha you were the guy who never got invited to parties...or had to crash them. So in frustation and anger got involved in objectivism and Ayn...in order to have a life so to speak.
Actually, I think it's worse. They don't make things up. It takes too much effort. They just borrow other's stuff which is made up and don't bother to check it out.
"However, it's no contradiction to say that Evolution is a Fact and a Theory."
Evolution is neither a fact nor a theory.
Only nincompoopish, gullible simpletons believe in the cult of evolution.
Way to raise the level of debate. What are you, six?
You have only told me you refuse to take God's word for anything.
Okay, I'll bite, where in the Bible does it even *mention* the Grand Canyon, much less make any statement about how it was formed? We'll wait.
Or did the little voices in your head tell you this?
The laminar layers you speak of, themselves, with all of their contents, were the product of the very same deluge that covered the highest mountain top in 40 days.
Why, because you just stamp your feet and say so? ROFL!
Sorry, but deluges don't leave delicate scorpion tracks in dry sand along hundreds of different vertically stacked layers, not to mention a thousand other features of the Grand Canyon strata which are 100% incompatible with your bizarre claim. I'm sure you enjoy your hallucinations, but don't mistake them for reality, and don't try to tell us that they actually accord with reality, because they don't.
I refer you again to the caption of the cartoon in the post to which you are responding: "Fundamentalist: A religious person whose faith is strong enough to overcome even evidence". Sound like anyone you know?
Damn! I am "enjoying" the after effects of a Rhinovirus.
You are always welcome to join the party. Your posts are always enjoyable to read.
You keep demanding. I keep telling you what's wrong with Evo and Darwin. You are so fixated.
Solution: Do your own research dear. You are the whiz bang so take a breath and plunge into the murky waters of Creation. Find out what the other side is saying yourself.
The cool thing about the Net is that it will be studied for the ages. For all we know, PH is Hovind! I mean, for most of us, this is an interesting debate, but as my Dad told me, in a pool parlor, some guys are playing for keeps. If you've got bills to pay, no telling what one is capable of.
How many witnesses have there been that have seen and bird evolve into a dinosaur or a fish evolve into a man?
How many? I gotta try that time travel machine you've got! Again, ignor my argument all you want, it doesn't change evolution into a factual occurance.
I don't ignore your arguments at all. I am just trying to correct your odd view of how science works, or should work.
There is no need for a well-supported theory, such as the theory of evolution, to rely only on personal observation. Its pretty tough to pinch a quark or to pick up a wavicle, but science has developed methods to deal with this kind of evidence. Evolution is no different.
From your posts you are obviously against the conclusions that science, particularly evolution, is reaching, and so have embarked on a personal crusade to destroy as much of it as you can--starting with evolution. But remember that the methods are the same in all of the fields of science. Evolution does not rely on a special, sneaky, secret method just to disparage Christian beliefs, as is often implied on these threads. It is science, and it goes where it goes--attempts to force it into specific directions will go where Lysenkoism went, down the dumper.
[Probably 60 posts behind now]
Feel free to point out where the linked essay is in error, if you think you can.
Only nincompoopish, gullible simpletons believe in the cult of evolution.
...and that doesn't count as an actual rebuttal or refutation. Do feel free to try again after you sober up.
700?
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.