Posted on 06/24/2005 4:07:28 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
How convenient of you to formulate your own definition and understanding of science. How inconvenient that so many observers have arrived at the conclusion, based upon solid evidence, that intelligent design was involved not only with the creation of the universe, but is also responsible for sustaining it to this very moment. Since their evidence and observations are not in alignment with your own presuppositions they are suddenly deemed "not scientific, and "not capable of understanding science."
That tune's been whistling in the dark for 150 years. Reckon it will continue.
What evidence, let alone "solid evidence", exists that 'intelligent design' is, right at this moment, sustaining the universe in existence?
Born late in the year were you?
Perhaps you are floating in space. Perhaps the fundamental elements in your neighborhood are non-existent. As for myself, I was born into a universe that demonstrates logic, order, purposeful aggregations of matter, and communication of the same to my senses. It goes against the grain of logic to assume these things were formed by, or are driven by, unguided processes.
Well, if it looks extremely primitive and silly then it could not possibly be accurate could it?
If you have a better method if diagramming a nested hierarchy I suggest you present it here for all to see.
What logic would that be? Care to spell it out?
Well, obviously you're not a proofreader.....
;-)
You go girl!
or to put it differently,
I think you made valid points in a reasoned way. Don't let these joksters intimidate you. Many of the posted replies are designed to intimidate rather than to illuminate. Reason and fact may lead toward, or away from, evolution - only you can decide. I can see that you will remain resolute in thinking for yourself.
Why does the answer from so many who are married to evolution, when questioned, have to be "well where's your better idea?" Is it not possible for holes to be poked in a theory without offering an alternative? Perhaps by first accepting that there are holes in a theory, one can then be open to looking at new possibilities.
I'll look into the links you offered. Hopefully, they will address some of the interesting questions the scientists on the documentary "Icons of Evolution" raised.
It's a matter of semantics. Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old. That could be rephrased to say evolution predicted an earth at least that old -- the first accurate prediction based on an observed rate of change. Other predictions -- based on the saltiness of the oceans or the gravitational collapse of the sun -- were off by great margins.
Great question, but a better one would be; what is the "theory of evolution"? So far b_sharp hasn't been able to (or won't) produce the "theory of evolution". I was hoping he would on a previous thread, but to no avail. In other words, why bother punching holes in something that isn't even good science. The simple fact is, the "theory of evolution" does not pass the rigors of the scientific method and is therefore bad science.
At your service, WhiteKnight
My apologizes for sticking my nose into your post
"Darwin's theory required the earth to be several hundred years old."
I suppose you meant "several hundred million years old."
I believe Crick (of Watson and Crick fame) currently thinks life must have originated off earth, as he believes there was not enough time for life to originate on the earth.
You've clearly given this some thought. If dating methods differ, what does this imply about dating methods? Do you think there is a reliable way to date the earth? If so, what? And how old? I'd be curious to know your views.
Several hundred, several hundred million -- what's the difference among friends?
True. One could look at the age of the earth as either a failed objection to the theory, or as a successful prediction of the theory. Pretty good either way. The most important thing, I think, is that the theory is consistent with other fields of science. Including things learned in fields that didn't even exist at the time he developed the theory.
Modern dogma requires that we believe in Darwin and reject racism. This may not be so easy. Consider the alternate title of The Origin of the Species:
The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
"Favoured Races"? Tut-tut. If Darwin anticipated the scientific racism of the 1920s and 1930s, perhaps this too could be considered confirmation of his theories.
Illogic, of course :)
"As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified, and can be be stated to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt."
None. Evolution is pseudo science with the ultimate agenda to kill God and, hence, Western culture.
Fester, should I? Naaa. It's not fair.
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.