Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rudder

As it seems to have to be pointed out on every bloody thread. No, evolution is not a theory "like" gravity. Gravity is an observation seeking an explanation. Everyone lives with gravity. Everyone does not live with macro-evolution. Evolution is an explanation looking for an observation - quite backwards of the typical model. And evidences are viewed in the light of that explanation, not the other way around. When you proceed from your conclusions as evolutionists have done, anything is possible. Evolution is a sham that has to hide behind legitimate science because it cannot stand on it's own.
That's why these twerps need the ACLU and government intervention to protect them. Without that, they wouldn't stand a chance.


95 posted on 10/20/2005 9:56:39 PM PDT by Havoc (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Havoc
No, evolution is not a theory "like" gravity.

Absolutely, 100% incorrect.

The planets in orbit around the sun we observe, and the theory we have to explain the motion of the planets is called the theory of general relativity. Layers of rock and sediments and the mid-Atlantic ridge we observe, and the theory of plate tectonics we have to explain how our planet changes over time. Likewise, the fossil evidence and comparitive genetics we observe, and the theory we have to explain how life changes over time is the modern synthesis theory of evolution, comprised of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritence, and modern theories of molecular genetics that have come about since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule in the 1950s by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and others.

96 posted on 10/20/2005 10:03:36 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

To: Havoc
Evolution is an explanation looking for an observation - quite backwards of the typical model. And evidences are viewed in the light of that explanation, not the other way around.

Actually, you have considerable merit in your criticism. The same argument was raised by me when I was a student in the midst of ardent evolutionists. Not that I disputed the arguments for evolution, but that many published scientifc reserach articles were couched as if their findings must prove evolution. Forty years later I still find that as a fault of many scientists.

However, the data, from many, many different fields (from geology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, physiology, and more) all srongly support the concept of evolution. There are scant, if any, data which support an alternative theory. While it has its detractors, evolutionary theory has no viable scientifc alternatives.

Nevertheless, all scientists should proceed as nothing is a given.

103 posted on 10/20/2005 10:19:37 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson