Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Actually there is no consensus on this. Now that there is evidence that things like eyes and lungs have evolved more than once, there is speculation that life (there is no consensus over whether the discussion should start with replicating molecules, viruses or cells) may have appeared several times or as much as 1,000,000's of times all over the universe, including in space. It seems like most of the folks arguing common ancestry now are the creationists and ID'ers.
It will be fun to tune in 100 or 200 years from now to see where this discussion has gone.
Properly understood, science is neutral regarding an "intelligent designer." Until there is a scientific way to test for one, the concept is outside science. If soneone devises a test that provides results that can be repeated by other researchers, things will change.
I've been around a while, and the longer I live the more apparent it becomes there as many "scientific" views of the universe as there are religions. Some believe in abiogenesis, some don't. Some believe in macroevolution, some don't. Some believe in a heliocentric world view, some believe in a geocentric world view.
There is hardly agreement as to "how much can be explained" let alone how to explain it. I count it as a good thing that God created a universe infinitely packed with phenomena to explore, and then placed man in the middle to check it out. Yes. It is good.
It used to be VERY good. Before long it will be better than ever.
Only an individual who lives in a vaccuum would suggest that science is unanimous in its understanding of the universe, but that person would have only his own reason and senses to contend with.
I did not imply unanimity in "what scientists believe we can explain," and I wouldn't expect it.
G'night, all. Gotta quite early.
Until you find your clone there is at least some evidence you are special. Not a bad start, despite your aunt.
As for the "creation of God," this is what I believe to be true, and why I am obligated to treat you with respect. The fact that my biological being will one day rest in the bosom of the earth will be ample evidence that I have not treated you, nor your family, nor my most bitter enemies, with the respect they deserve.
What science should bear out is common ancestry among "kinds" (Whatever THAT means!) but not common ancestry between them. I say "should" only because I consider the text of Genesis as presenting a reasonable account of origins.
What exactly is a "kind"? Are lions and tigers different kinds?
I think the fossil record needs to be brought together in a more organized way to make it available to people. Now that there are software applications for the genome, they could probably be used to organize the fossil record as well.
However, there still isn't a good way to define species beyond the ability to produce viable offspring. And how do you define species for organisms that reproduce asexually? Some viruses get different so fast it's hard to tell what they are. I was just introduced to Hepatitis G. I didn't know there was an F.
That is a subject of which I am ignorant. I'm sure there are several thousand scientists who would be happy to inform us both with all certainty what it is, but they probably won't agree.
What do you think? I'd tell you what I think, but my credibility and experience as an observer is exceedingly limited.
Ya betcha, Big Daddy! They don't call me "long"-shadow for nothing!
Does a set of the new Darwin Central drink coasters come free with each copy?
LOL!
150 years and counting.
evol evil
I do not know of any textbook that presents the fossil record in a manner that reflects the exact geological location and position of each one. It is as if, when we find a fossil, we must cram it into a preconceived notion as to where it belongs in terms of complexity; as if it is a given that life began, then gradually increased in complexity.
Don't get me started. People with an evolutionist mindset screw the evidence up into their own story instead of taking pains to document with any precision WHERE the item was found and EXACTLY what it looks like.
Besides that, they have been all too anxious to extrapolate structures based upon what they think happened instead of leaving it the hell alone so future generations can (hopefully) make sense of it. As history runs its course we will learn the evolutionists did more to screw up knowledge than an iceberg did to screw up the Titanic.
No. They are both "beasts of the field."
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.