Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Science tests hypotheses.
Peer review is an important part of the process to Theory.
You should take a remedial science course somewhere.
micro and macro evolution are the same process.
Dataman says that the existence of music is just a guess or an assumption.
I suppose they're really wasting their time in college with that Music Theory stuff.
Boy, you really answered my question good.
It isn't so... But believe what you want... After all believers in Iron age fairy tales will believe... anything!
I would quote to you Louis Pasteur, a fervent Catholic:
"I leave my faith at the door of my lab..."
There is absolutely no comparison between Jesus and Darwin
Was not Darwin created by God?
Is not Jesus God's Son?
Does not the Trinity include Jesus?
Did not God create Darwin and every other man in His image?
There are many other design defects in man besides the vitamin C thing. Try looking at the design of the human eye. It is badly engineered.
Probably... And to paraphrase Galileo said "and still, it is true..."
Given that I leave Iron age fairy tales to children, I'll go to worthier threads!
Your correction won't stop him from doing it again tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that.... ;)
No one is there in the intergalactic void. No readings of its vacuum exist. Obviously there can be no such thing as a science of intergalactic astronomy or physics. Obviously there is no gravity in this void, since you have no direct readings of it to offer as evidence. It is obvious that there is only microgravity here on earth, since that is the only gravity you can take readings on in present time, and tangibly detect with your naked senses. All else is airy, left-wing conjecture.
...
Science operates almost exclusively on inductive reasoning, which is inherently fragile--and therefore, easy for non-scientists to get inappropriately exercised about--to draw conclusions. Until you acknowledge that, these wailings are going to, quite properly, drop on deaf ears, in scientific circles.
Creationism is a religious belief... It shouldn't be taught in public schools!
No, no, who cares, unknowable...
Next batch of questions?
If you have no shame, you never have to apologize for your mistakes. Or quit making them.
Lying for the lord is no business for the open minded.
If you're sure of that, then state it and how it might be falsified.
I read the Scripture as speaking to "all that there is", that God is the only pre-existing, uncaused cause of the beginning of all spiritual realms, geometries (dimensions), space/time in this universe, etc.
The number of Days however reconciles quite nicely with relativity for this universe. Fifteen billion years (roughly) at our space/time coordinates in this four dimension block (3 spatial, 1 temporal) is equal to 6 equivalent solar "days" from the space/time coordinates of the inception of this universe.
I have a Dr. in Ministry. Your interpretation of Genesis is faulty.
A degree in Ministry is not equivalent to a degree in Scriptural Theology and you know it.
However, mutations have been experimented with in bacteria and virae with results that are expected from the Theory.
Creating a microevolutionary mutation in a lab does not prove macroevolution, sorry. And the plural of virus is viri.
If the Theory had been found to be incorrect, science would drop it.
The "Theory" (how tellingly you capitalize it) turned out to be quite incorrect in explaining Darwin's own finches.
Now we move on to shubi's true feelings with two silly ad hominem attacks in one paragraph.
You creationuts always confuse scientific definitions to make your specious arguments. Give it up. We who understand science won't fall for it, but you might fool some Kerry voters
Ah yes. Those who disagree with shubi are definitionally insane and are "Kerry voters". Clearly someone with a very strong case on the evidence wouldn't need to make comments like this, shubi. That you have is fascinating.
Newtonian mechanics are still true, except at the subatomic level. Phlogiston is pre-science.
(1) The fact is that the scientific community clung to Newtonian mechanics for decades after it was clear that they were not sufficiently explanatory. Various stopgap techniques were applied to calculate away the inconsistencies until quantum mechanics was finally embraced.
(2) Well-regarded scientists like Stahl and Priestley steafastly defended phlogiston theory until Lavoisier finally provided definitive proof of the chemistry of combustion. If we adopted your definition of "science", then Newton would be "pre-science".
The above is simply false. I don't have the time to explain why you are totally wrong. However, genetics was predicted by Darwin in his Theory. Genetics forms the modern Theory of Evolution with Darwin's principles as a foundation.
Now you are just making stuff up. Gregor Mendel established genetics through experimentation in the 1850s while Darwin was still working on his Origin of Species. Far from being "founded" on Darwin's principles, genetics was developed independently of Darwin AND from 1866 to 1900 Darwinists completely ignored Mendel's research. A more correct description of reality is that Darwinists searched for decades to find a mechanism to explain "natural selection" and found that genetics might fit the bill.
Genetics, as a hard science, owes nothing to Darwinism.
Men wrote Scriptures.
So your position is that men and not God are the author of Holy Scripture?
That is not what the Bible says. I am surprised you would go to heresy to support your erroneous anti-scientific position.
I don't think a person who believes the Scriptures are manmade should accuse others of heresy. And my Bible says that only a fool is capable of saying in his heart that there is no God. My Bible also says: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". If something is clearly seen by empirical evidence, as St. Paul asserts, then it is not a matter of faith but of knowledge.
You think Darwin didn't exist?
I said nothing of the kind. You are really reaching, shubi.
This has been really disedifying. Let me know when you want to have a discussion, instead of just calling people names and pretending to credentials you don't have.
Then conversely, all the problems with "Intellegent Design" that are raised by scientists should be given fair voice as well. The first among these problems will be "there is no evidence of a God/creator".
And about the time that little Johnny comes home quoting the teacher saying "there is no God", that stuff will end.
Little Johnny may, or may not, reject God right then and there.
Maybe then Creationists will figure out that it's a better idea to just say that Genesis is not a scientific text and there are no real conflicts between it and science.
As is too often the case, Vade, you misrepresent my position. It is some of the evolutionists here that are insisting that evolution has too been witnessed. I'm just correcting them.
There's nothing wrong with treating evolution within the framework of a historical science, like archaeology. However, the instant you agree that macro-evolution cannot be replicated in the lab any more than Alexander's victories over the Persians, you lose the right to claim that Darwinian evolution is as much a "fact" as gravity and to mock those who disagree with your interpretations of the data as flat-earthers.
The problem you have is that none of the evidence is following the patterns that it should have if Darwinism were true. The fossil record does not show gradual change over time, as the article above points out, and everyone acknowledges this except for some of the less-informed evos--if the fossil record didn't have to be explained away, your side would never have come up with punctuated equilibrium. Punk-eek is not supported by what we know of genetics and biology, but gradualism is disproved by the fossil record; you have a problem here that needs to be publicly acknowledged instead of swept under the rug of your dogma. By the same token, genetic similarities are not following the pattern we would expect from the fossil record, abiogenesis has been so shot down by the facts that many of you now try to claim that it has nothing to do with evolution, and so on.
When you are ready to seriously discuss the issues instead of trying to shout down the opposition with mockery, we'll be happy to talk. But as long as you continue to act like religious fanatics whose prime tenant has been threatened (by science, no less), we're going to continue to call you on it.
And on that note, I'd better get back to work. I'm behind as it is. Good day to everyone!
How many does that make -- 1720?
These Discovery Institute op-eds just write themselves nowadays, don't they?The DI must have a bot that compiles a new op-ed from their Big-Database-o-Talking-Points.
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.