Posted on 04/21/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by gobucks
You in essence state that you can come up with nothing that proves evolution, and then you once again contort the facts to turn it against me, and then run away.
I think all reading this will see that you have no proof of a belief system that's primary claim is that it is empirical and evidentiary.
Very revealing, but not at all surprising to those of us who know that your so-called science is a house of cards.
It's a yes or no question. Like? Like "yes" or "no".
Oh goodness, not that again. Well, of course they will never evolve into something different than a canine because everything that originated from the canine node will remain a canine. Just like everything that originated from the mammal node will still be a mammal or from the vertebrate node will stay a vertebrate.
Can you prove that claim with actual scientific evidence?
"The fact that you were taught a lie, and believe it so adamantly, really does not speak well of modern religion."...or evolutionists. :)
That's simply a consequence of the nested hierarchy which in turn is the result of the evolutionary process.
The charge was indeed heresy. It had to be since it was a Church tribunal. Nonetheless the idea that the sun orbits the earth originally came into the Church from non-Christian sources. Church leaders then found some vague Biblical passages to justify them, though not one of those passages actually says the sun orbits the earth. Greek ideas were all the rage during that time. They were sort of the secular humanist ideas of that era, and the Church picked many of them up the same way that many churches today adopt faddish ideas.
Bump. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Something had to have created it.
And can you prove that with scientific evidence?
Saying that something can happen is not evidence that it did. That would be like saying that someone is a murderer because they could kill someone if the wanted to.
I think you're on the wrong track here. The whole thing is a matter of classification.
I'm looking for scientific evidence......empirical proof that evolution occurred.
So far, I haven't seen any.
Since you seem so certain that you are stating facts, I mistakenly assumed you had proof that what you were saying was accurate, and not just guesswork.
I've asked this before and have gotten no response-
Please like to a source showing scientists on a large scale regecting evolution.
"No one is suggesting we use the Bible as a textbook in biology class"
Read the article:
"There's nothing wrong with the Bible being added as a reference text," he insists. "If the science classroom is asking questions about how old the earth is, then this"—Hofland pats a tiny blue Bible—"is as good of a reference as rocks in the ground."
Right, but designing, observing and repeating is evidence that it did. Bioengineering isn't a wish, it's a scientific discipline. Why argue that?
That would be like saying that someone is a murderer because they could kill someone if the wanted to.
Something tells me your off course. Check your instruments.
Tribune7's question was why we don't observe something which according to the theory of evolution doesn't happen. Got it so far?
Assuming arguendo that evolution is true, we get a nested hierarchy, i.e. a tree-like structure. Now if you pick one branch from this tree and assign it to a certain category then every branch that sprouts from the original branch is a subset of this category.
So what Tribune7 demands is that such a new branch should be a member of a different superset. But this can only happen if two twigs which originate from branches that diverged a long time ago intersect. An example of this would be a dog giving birth to a cat. This however, contradicts the nested hierarchy predicted by the theory of evolution.
Current canines can change but they will still be classified as canines. It may be necessary to introduce new categories but these categories will remain a subset of the canine category.
"Right, but designing, observing and repeating is evidence that it did."
No, it isn't. Again, by that logic, you could argue that someone has murdered someone because you can prove that other people have murdered others.
Notice he is not suggesting the Bible as a primary textbook for biology classes, nor any science class for that matter. The word "added" means just that: it can supplement learning.
With so many devotees of the philosophy of evolution so dedicated to their cause they cannot understand simple human language it is no wonder they make such poor scientists.
So let us follow the nested tree backwards and point to the place where a canine is no longer a canine. What is it then? It should be easy to trace. This history is apparently so solid to evolutionary philosophers as to be above and beyond question. What does science propose as the point at which canines cross the line into a species, genus, or phylum other than that in which it currently resides and has resided throughout all of recorded history?
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.