Posted on 01/13/2006 8:24:51 PM PST by WatchYourself
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
Another case of classic projection of themselves onto Evolution by creationists.
So this clown wants to proclaim anyone that studies anything that has ever happened prior to the present is not a scientist? Hilarious.
How do you observe, study or formulate religion?
Not trying to start a fight, but not all science is subject to direct experiment. When a phenomenon - in this case, life on Earth - can't be tinkered with, we have to settle for a strictly empirical approach. Let's teach kids what we've observed, nothing more... including no mention of a creator. That's reading something into the data.
Astrology and astronomy
Ptolemy and Galileo
This has always been my objection to the way that evolution has been taught in schools and universities. Darwinistic evolution is a THEORY, and while some parts are fact, it is being taught as an official government belief system rather than a theory. Evolution as a process is documentable in many circumstances, and I would vastly prefer for schools to teach it as one aspect of a cluster of scientific phenomena. Unfortunately, it is being taught as a monolithic belief system, a closed process devoid of all freshness, discussion or reason.
In making evolution a cause rather than a theory, the educational establishment has devolved evolution from science to secular religion...
The only folks on the current political scene who disagree with the theory of evolution in this manner get their impetus from the bible, particularly the creation story.
I think that his post is obvious, you don't study, observe or formulate Christianity(which I assume is his/her religion)nor do you study, formulate or observe evolution.
This is the way I see it. I neither endorse evolution or ID.
I know, evos and christians will say I am lying but I believe it is the truth and here is how I see it: Religion is based on an invisible force, this force created all life on earth and accounts for the changes in the species. This force is all powerful and is taken on faith because there is little proof that this force exists. The force is called God.
Darwinism is base on an invisible force, this force created all life on earth and accounts for the changes in the species(phyla, order, family etc) and is all powerful and taken on faith because there is little proof that this force exists. The force is called evolution.
In both cases the force is what drives the universe, and of course life on earth, and is still manipulating things.
Christians readily admit that their force must be taken on faith, evos say that they have proof but fail to produce it, producing instead evidence that relies on speculation and theory. Saying things like "dinos were begining to experiment with flight during this period". This is a stupid statement because if evoluition is true, then the dinos, or any other speices, did not experiment with anything, it was thrust upon them by the mysterious force called evolution.
Both of these theories, and they are both theories, are based on faith, both are, basically, unproven, and both are a religion.
There is very little difference between Christianity and evolution. Actually, none if you study both theories and look at them closely. The over riding factor in both of them as far as I am concerned is that both of them are false. Neither have evidence that their theory is correct, neither prove anything. They are both wrong and I await the correct hypothesis of how life got here and how it changed over the millions of years the earth has been here, until then both christians and evos can suck an egg as far as I am concerned.
This relies on an incorrect version of "evolution."
Each generation is minutely different from the previous one.
Each generation is the result of those who (1) survived and (2) reproduced.
These minute changes in the genome add up over time. Any changes which are deleterious (fatal) are, well...fatal! Out of the game. Any changes which are neutral or beneficial are retained to possibly (1) survive and (2) reproduce.
To say that "The odds for this to happen in one species let alone the entire spectrum of animals and plants is beyond statistically possible" is to beg the question. Either you support the theory of evolution, with minute changes adding up to large changes over time, in which case the statistics are meaningless, or you believe that evolution couldn't happen as theorized, in which case statistics are a possible tool against the theory.
And you know, those who think statistics are against evolution -- they're against evolution from the beginning. Statistics are just a wedge to try to gain some traction.
Geology is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up geology.
Sedimentology is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up sedimentology.
Palynology is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up palynology.
Astronomy is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up astronomy.
Biology is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up biology.
Microbiology is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up microbiology.
N-ology is the religion of self-absorbed. Atheists refuse to acknowledge God, so they make up n-ology.
Evolution must be a force because it has been proven that outside influences(such as cold etc) do not change a species but merely emphasize the variation within a species.
For instance if I cut off my index finger and all my progeny cut theirs off, my g, g, g, g, g, great grandchildren would still be born with index fingers. This has been known for many, many years but some evos still try to survival of the fittest drives evolution, it doesn't and has been proven.
Breed a species for instance for one characteristic and if you breed long enough you won't come up with a new species(as had been thought originally) but will wind up with the original species.
Evolution, to work as it is theorized, has to be a force, and unknown one, but still an invisible force. Try to warp it as you will, it is just as myterious and unknown as any religion.
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.