Darwin's greatest challenge tackled

I've got to admire you evolutionists. You have real faith.

No we don't. We have knowledge, understanding, and evidence.

You have to start by believing evolution in order to believe that these findings support evolution any more than they support a creator God.

No we don't, but I suppose it might look that way to someone unfamiliar with the subject.

Please explain, for example, why you think that differences between the genomes of two species would match to a high degree the statistical pattern of random silent mutations in divergent lineages from a common ancestor one would expect from an evolutionary process, is somehow equally good support for "a creator God". Why do you suppose God would always make his handiwork look as if it was the result of an evolutionary process, when there are an almost infinitely many other configurations he could have used for his purposes without being constrained to evolutionary plausible ones?

Please explain.

After you're done with that one, please explain why He is in the habit of faking all that apparent endogenous retrovirus evidence, and so on.

We'll wait.

ah, yes, inductive logic! Keyes approach to a logical relationship between two propositions where it is impossible to argue from one to another decisively!

It's fascinating that your description bears an incredible resemblance to the very first result one finds (after skipping the two programming links) when doing a Google search on "inductive logic":

Keynes (1921: 8) describes a “logical relation between two sets of propositions in cases where it is not possible to argue demonstratively from one to another.”
-- From Inductive Logic: Brief Historical Background and Motivation

So is it just an incredible coincidence that you would happen to echo this obscure quote in response to general_re's mention of inductive logic -- or did you have to go look it up to see what it meant, then just parrot it back in the hopes it would make it appear that you knew what he was talking about?

By the way, you misspelled "Keynes".

And no, people actually familiar with the subject of inductive logic would be highly unlikely to describe it in such a stilted manner, so don't try that excuse. Instead, the vast majority of people comfortable with the subject would describe it in a manner similar to how dictionary.com defines "inductive reasoning" (which is another term for the same thing):

inductive reasoning n : reasoning from detailed facts to general principles

While this is very useful in many cases,

That's putting it mildly... Most of the reasoning that people do on a daily basis is inductive logic.

my point stands.

No, actually, it doesn't. And that's the point general_re was making, which sailed right over your head.

No hard scientific proof. Just speculation and hope.

Again, there is no such thing as "hard scientific proof". Science doesn't work that way. The fact that you think it does reveals your lack of understanding on the whole subject. And inductive logic is far more than "just speculation and hope", which you might have learned if you had bothered to read and understand more of the information your websearch turned up, instead of just seizing on the first thing which would help you (transparently, alas) fake it.

Science and technology are based in huge part on inductive logic, and always on *evidence* -- not on "speculation and hope", which are much more the province of religions.

As John F'n Kerry asked, "Is that all you've got, Mr. President?"

All that, and much more. What've you got?

Like Beowulf and the Iliad? Fascinating.

LOLOLOL

We don't even know when Beowulf was written, where it was written or the who the author was.

Now, the Iliad -- which is history in the sense that Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is history i.e. drama based on an historical event -- has significant historical value. The existence of Troy has been confirmed as has its destruction in battle about the time Homer claimed it was.

Troy was considered mythological not too long ago, btw.

Now the Iliad was written in 800-900 BC and described events which occurred about 100-200 years before. Our earliest copy is from about 400 BC.

So despite these handicaps, and despite its purpose being drama rather than data, we glean some truth from it.

Now, the New Testament was written in 40-100 AD. Our earliest bits come from 130 AD. It was not written as drama but as simple reporting. It includes witnesses and researches to the events who did not appear to collaborate.

The Bible is by far the most reliable book of antiquity.

Anyone who rejects the sovereignty of Jesus Christ and His atoning death on the cross will not be accepted into the kingdom of God. Sadly, they will find their abode in Hell for all eternity. Jew or Gentile, it makes no difference.

On the other hand, anyone who bows to Jesus Christ in this life and unashamedly professes Him as the only true Savior and Lord over all will be accepted into the kingdom of God. Their abode will be Heaven. Jew or Gentile, it makes no difference.

Judgement Day is fast approaching. What have you to lose by tasting the freedom that the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, has to offer? He wants to be your savior and friend.

Well, after all of your posturing and insults, it seems you have a problem with someone pointing out a ‘may have’ and a ‘likely’ in the article so let’s now look at the ‘absolutes’.

The title:
Darwin's greatest challenge tackled

One of the first lines:
Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved

Honestly, has the ‘evolution of the human eye’ (Darwin's greatest challenge) now been ‘tackled’ by this ‘concrete evidence’ as the article implies?

Now you are making suppositions.

Assertion Without Proof. The premise was, "everything has a First Cause."

Why is it not believable that God didn't have a first cause, but everything else did?

Because it invalidates the first premise.

Science isn't about believing or 'not believing' anything, but experience and evidence.

He tells me so in His word . . .

I had written a bunch of stuff and bailed the third or fourth time you used this argument. Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. You don't know it's "His Word" - only that it is claimed to be. Fallacy of Reification for word "Word."

Well, the debate never ends. It just moves from one issue to another. It's really about belief. You can't answer where things came from unless you were there. You can only conjecture.

Some people trust too much in science. Those who do so are quick to forget its failures and just as quick to quote its successes. How many times have scientists ridiculed and even tried to silence colleagues for suggesting some unorthodox view, only to have the unorthodox view win out later. But then, the new idea is just as vulnerable to being otherthrown. It isn't knowledge, it's theory. And faith.

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.