Posted on 04/05/2005 7:42:56 AM PDT by bedolido
Huh, cite sources please.
In addition, "evolution", as presently presented and understood, also fails the most elementary tests of what "science" is: Consistent results, independent repeatability, and no gaps requiring leaps of faith.
Nope. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and it falls well within the realm of science where ID or creationism cannot.
My first thought was that you could substitute "Legalists" for "scientists" and explain a lot about the recent events regarding Terri Sheravo (sic).
Simply defending the process' that have come to define an institution, abandoning the purpose in order to save the structure and sense of "being special", is a disservice to both sides and all concerned.
(Sort of applies to the UN as well....)
I would tell the person to look at the website I am providing, read up on the big bang, and learn why that is a bad statement.
Sorry. That is not science. Prove to me invisible pink faries don't live on the far side of the moon.
Nope. Evolution has nothing to say about God or atheism.
Tell me how you would design a test or prediction for ID. I can for evolution. Evolution falls within the realm of science, ID does not.
The survival of the fittest notion is on of the most misunderstood points of evolution. It should be survival of the most adapatable.
The notion of the fittest is misused by almost everyone.
Just a point that really bugs me.
Science is to a sharp rock as ID is to cloud pictures.
I like that. :-)
I believe in science and expect scientists to adhere to their own ruleset. When they do not and base a theory partially on bad science, I refuse to accept in in whole.
For clarification, there is a difference between macro and micro-evolution. Micro is observable and repeatable, macro is not no matter what hoax fossil is used as some "missing link".
I do not believe inter-species evolution is possible but am willing to look at the facts/evidence if it is there. I also do not believe that if it were true, it would preclude God. My problem, again, is that it claims to be a scientific theory yet is based on flawed science.
False. Humans do ID all the time, so the "feasibility" part of the problem has been experimentally proved.
Beyond that, your objection basically boils down to a statement that it's impossible to tell the difference between designed and non-designed biological phenomena. Of course, this cuts both ways: if you can't tell the difference between design and non-design, then evolution isn't science, either -- how could it be, if the fundamental basis of the theory is, by your own assertion, untestable and unprovable?
So the state of play is this: we know that ID can occur, because humans do it. To demonstrate the concept more generally, one would need to define some means of discriminating between "designed" and "non-designed" or, conversely, some demonstration that one cannot tell the difference between them. This is a valid scientific question -- why would you dismiss it as "non-science?"
The rub with this statement is you cannot prove there even is a God. You have faith there is one, but there is no scientific evidence.
>>
Ask a pure Darwinian Atheist "what came before this, and what came before that, and this and that."
At one point, something came from nothing. And no one knows how.<<
SHUT UP YOU STUPID CREATIONIST!!!
</sarcasm>
This proof must be unique because no one else has it or this debate wouldn't continue. I for one will take proof if you have it.
Ignoring the fact that neither you nor I are research biologists, how would you prove macro-evolution?
Well, certainly not yet. But it is still a good argument against much of the "higher" claims of evolution theory.
Saying a thing is not "scientific" does not make it dissapear in a puff of logic.
>>Evolution falls within the realm of science, ID does not.<<
Neither does consciousness, but I have experienced it personally. 8^>
How does this impact the theory of evolution?
Beyond that, your objection basically boils down to a statement that it's impossible to tell the difference between designed and non-designed biological phenomena. Of course, this cuts both ways: if you can't tell the difference between design and non-design,
You cannot tell me if the world was created last tuesday either. However, that does not fall within the realm of science. Science makes predictions from evidence and observation. And the evidence is that the universe is billions of years old and evolution took place here on Earth. Anything else falls within the realm of faith or a belief system.
then evolution isn't science, either -- how could it be, if the fundamental basis of the theory is, by your own assertion, untestable and unprovable?
Nope. There are predictions that can be tested for evolution. This puts it squarely within the realm of science. ID cannot make such a claim.
Yes, I agree with your statements about good science.
We should make careful observations.
It is what we theorize to account for these observations that brings the controversy especially if there is no way to verify the theory by observation.
The explosion at Mount St. Helens has raised a lot of new questions about geology and uniformitarianism.
Large canyons were formed in a matter of minutes through solid rock. Many layers of sedimentary rock were formed in a matter of days. Each layer having unique characteristics unlike laying down a pile of mud. A whole "forest" of "trees" has formed at the bottom of the nearby lake from logs sinking in a vertical manner soon to be covered with sediment possibly forming a future petrified forest.
These observations are now being used to modify/question current theories about the formation geological features, many of which had been assumed to take eons to form.
Here ya go. :-)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
BTW, follow the references as well.
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.