Posted on 08/21/2005 1:18:04 AM PDT by MRMEAN
|
The List-O-Links.
Also, this may be helpful: How to argue against a scientific theory.
Of course the real hard-core creationists hardly stop at evolution. They reject astrophysics and quantum mechanics as well.
I don't believe your statement is strictly true.
Here is the definition of empirical:
adj : derived from experiment and observation rather than theory;
What makes evolution embarrassingly unscientific to me is that it is never subjected to empirical proof. I understand the difficulties, how do you experiment with a process that takes millions of years, and how to do you observe something that by definition has taken place long before the observer exists.
Nevertheless, you can't say it's science if you can't prove it, and "proof" of evolution has always been extrapolation of data that can be explained by other means.
To claim that evolution is science undermines the whole structure of hypothesis and proof, of theories tested out in repeatable conditions.
To be sure, it is not my statement, but rather the conclusion paragraph of the article - with my editing (in brackets). I should've made that clearer.
Besides that, I think others are likely to address your points more effectively than I could.
You can study physical evidence all you want and make conclusions, but it really comes down to the Big Bang, and what happened/existed BEFORE the BB, or if the BB is only a part of a Bigger Bang. The secularists will simply fall on the explanation that it just IS. Some already have.
Right. They'll eventually have to reject any science that doesn't support a literal interpretation of Genesis. So besides tossing out biology:
I guess the US Constitution will have to go too, because the only political systems in scripture are monarchies.
out goes astronomy (the geocentric universe is scriptural),
out goes geology (the earth is only 6,000 years old),
out goes medicine (suffering is a manifestation of God's will),
out goes nuclear physics (the age of the sun, powered by fusion, the age of the earth, determined by radiometric dating of isotopes), etc.
Well, this secularist doesn't resort to the dismissal that 'it just IS'; my personal view is that there must be something that preceded the origin of this universe. Sadly, we are not even remotely close to figuring out what that is, nor does there seem the slightest reason to think that we will find out within our lifetimes. Oh well. Life isn't fair.
The Wald quote appears to be from 1954, and isn't an accurate quote. I'm still looking this up.
Your Wald quote is a fabrication, a complete lie. a simple fact that can easily be confirmed by a ten second google search.
PS. By "preceded" I'm not necessarily referring to a timespan, but rather to something which takes precedence. Some undefined rubric apart from the universe within which the universe situates. Time as we know it may be (and appears to be) a localized phenomenon particular to this universe, which raises another point altogether: even if we knew of the Truth, we probably couldn't handle the Truth. In order to have closed system - i.e., a perfectly discrete reality - then it must ultimately exist in dimensions grander than those that we can perceive. Time must always extend before and after any given point and space must always extend in every direction from any given point. Therefore, we would not (yet, if ever) be capable of comprehending the ultimate Truth. That's assuming it exists. Reality might be totally irrational beyond the confines of our universe (and any other focal points of order) in which case it need not be a closed system.
Quote fabrication ping.
I think it's funny to consider that both schools arent totally right because both are wrong on the time frame. Many think G*d created the universe in 7 days. That's fine but what if 7 days to G*d is 7 billion years to us? Just a thought.
In the context of debate, what is the difference between unanswered and unasked questions? In fact, what does "unasked" mean?
What has always confused me about evolution is the evolutionary jumps. Homo erectus were roaming the earth for over 1.5 million years and had a larger brain capcity then early humans (over 1000cc). However, a few humans show up 40,000 years ago and they completely disappear off the face of the earth. Not one pocket survives.
But this happens during every evolutionary jump for every species. One freak (there is no spontanous freak growth) is born and breeds his/her traits into the old species, the new superior species wipes out every single pocket of the old (impossible to imagine) species, no matter if they are in a secluded pocket on the other side of the world. The old species just disappears, even though they survived millions of years until a freak was born.
"The man who cannot believe his senses and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but in the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven and the other even into the health and happiness of the earth."
G.K.Chesterton
Orthodoxy, 1908
How about filling in a few holes in Intelligent Design? Who was the designer or designers to begin with? That would be a start. If they were so intelligent then why did they design so many species that dead-ended or proved incapable of adapting to changes in the environment? Thousands of species of dinosaurs, most with limitations that prevented them from adapting. How intelligent was that? Why design dozens of different species of homonids only to have all but one die out? Why not get it right from the start? Given what we know, and looking at their track record, perhaps a more accurate title for your theory would be "Oops, Let's Try That Again Design".
Wrong, but just for giggles, name, say, five "holes".
AND most evos, the scientists that is, won't admit it,
Because it's not true.
and stoop to lying and faking evidence because they can't find the real evidence to support there theory.
Please stop lying about scientists, it just makes you look like a moonbat.
Transitional specie fosils have been faked many, many, times.
Just once in 200 years of paleontology ("Piltdown Man", and even in that case it has never been determined who exactly faked it -- there are at least three possible suspects -- or for what purpose.)
So stop lying about there being "many, many" faked transitional fossils.
And before someone mentions Archeoraptor (which is different from Archaeopteryx, please note), that wasn't "faked", that was a Chinese peasant trying to reassemble what he thought was two parts of a complete fossil, but the bogus reconstruction was quickly recognized within days of the publicity about it, and no evolutionary theory was every based upon the short-lived mistake. But to this day, creationists lie about it and try to present it as a case of evolutionists knowingly "lying" in order to "deceive" the public.
The faking is stil going on too, witness the latest fakes from China concerning dino to bird artifacts.
Wow, more false slurs from a creationist. Why am I not surprised?
Yes, creationism and ID have many holes also
That's putting it... mildly.
but I think evolution should be taught fully, by fully I mean all the fakes,
Piltdown usually is covered. What else ya got?
all the evidence that doesn't exist,
Why on earth should anyone "teach evidence that doesn't exist"?
all the theories that are presented as fact
...which is none of them...
should be taught the way they really exist.
They are.
If this is the best we have then say so but be honest about it, tell them the truth about Lucy for instance, she is a chimpanzee,
Please stop lying.
we know that now for sure
*YOU* only "know" that "for sure" in the same way that liberals "know" for "sure" that George Bush attacked Iraq in order to get the oil money -- and for exactly the same reason (you've been lied to by propagandists).
but die hard evos keep saying she is a link.
She and the scores of other hominid fossils are indeed transitional forms.
Teach the truth, how hard can that be?
Good question, but apparently the creationists have a real hard time doing that.
Don't want to teach ID, fine, but teach the truth about evolution.
We do, thanks.
Science has always had gaps and false trails, and scientists have always covered them, the false trails,lying and trying to hold on to something that was wrong.
Ah, yes, the Conspiracy Theory version of science, as spun by the creationists.
Evolution has reached that point where the evidence in the fossil record shows it has many, many gaps in the theory and it needs to be taught that way.
Such as? Let's see if you have any idea what in the heck you're talking about. Liberals want "the truth" about President Bush taught too...
Darwin was wrong in many of his suppositions.
Name one.
Teach the truth, it can't hurt.
We keep trying that, but then the creationists keep trying to lie about it.
Don't you agree?
Yes, I believe we should teach accurate science. Now if you creationists would just stop trying to insert slanderous propaganda into the curriculum, we could get back to teaching science without interference.
The plot thickens...
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.