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 ...
I really just hope there's someone with some intimate knowledge of these fossils: When I split them, and found some that were 'organic', I could also smell them...a bit of gag-me peanutbuttery odor. I just wonder if it's unusual....what with all the pressure that formed this shale, and the 56 million years it lay there! Alleged 56 million years....and there's the point.
I did note that the organic component of the fossil impressions was not long-lasting. All that was left after a few days was shale and/or fiberous mineral on the impression.
I figure this might be interesting; and it's not something I read about....rather experienced....which gave me reason to view textbook geological and evolutionary theory with some skepticism.
Okay, I think this is where the engineering background comes in... back in the ancient days, before autoCAD, one would use mathematical points written in equations to produce an "image". My father could actually manipulate these equations so he could make the "image" appear in his head. He was a marvel, and it helped immensely. So when we talk about the representation of points of reference of DNA as an "image" this is how I interpret those points of reference. They produce an "image" that can be deduced from those points.
However, here is the gold: it should be proven by some of those points. The theory must be tested. In reality, all previous thought should be proven periodically to find out if we are truly basing our "facts" on information obtained, and not just on some elaborate scientific dogma created around a pet theory.
Wolf: you might be surprised at my views; I have had an incredible opportunity to experience science in my life, and I have had the hand of God move in my life in ways beyond explanation. Science and God have never been mutually exclusive for me - in fact, I find scientific fact supports my theory of God. I think this is because the more I find out, the deeper I go, the more I discover how little I know...
Once we get beyond linear time limitation and into string theory, things really start to become weird.
Potential? Oh, you mean there is speculations of falsifications?
The DNA is entirely proveable based upon images, facts and tests (which should be repeated so results can be replicated). Replication of results is important in any study, test, theory or hypothesis.
The theory of evolution is based on exactly the same types of facts and tests, including of course DNA studies. You need to consider what you mean by "entirely provable". To you, the prevalance and acceptance of DNA testing is proof of the whole kit and caboodle of DNA structure and function, but how do you know that all this testing and the results are not simply some kind of gigantic fraud? Or maybe it's not really testing what it purports to be testing.
Does this seem ridiculous? The objections of creationists to the evidence supporting evolution are no less so.
There's a typo here, the Carboniferous was 355-290 mya. The last dinosaur was 65 mya.
Interesting story. Do you still have any of these fossils? Did you ever show any of them to a prefessional? Could you tell someone how/where to find some? Do you remember what species were represented? Thanks.
Whoops, you were typing while I was typing. Read my above post.
I really have to go to sleep, but let me say this: Tonight has been utterly and immensely enjoyable. Do any of you realize that the sheer joy of scientific discussion here is far greater than any pyrrhic victory in my having stifled your own theories? Do you actually see the benefit of what we have done here tonight?
We had science. It was fun. I loved it. That is the beauty of this universe - discovery, analysis, and the simple wonder of wondering...
Good night, all. Thank you.
Lots of very tolerant people here, get really pissed when someone doesn't agree with them on lots of subjects.
Why don't you read it and find out? It's really quite interesting. Start here.
And that's just the beginning...there's the bone structure, muscular strucure, cardiovascular system, etc. You get the idea. There's no possible way for all this information to be stored in the DNA in each cell in the human body and there would be no way to precisely replicate all that data millions of times every week in cell division.
I think a lot of this fact/theory confusion goes back to the late S.J. Gould. He advocated the distinction between what he called, "the fact of evolution" and "the theory of evolution".
The "fact of evolution" is the empirical record of the succession of the various epochs of life on earth as recorded in the fossil record and informed by radioactive dating and other methods.
The "theory of evolution" is the body of fact and speculation informing the causes and mechanisms of this succession. His position was that the "fact of evolution" was unassailable on a rational empirical basis, whatever the uncertainties might be in "the theory of evolution."
I have always thought that it would be better to refer to "the facts of earth history", so that it would be clear that we are leaving "the theory of evolution" out of the picture when we discuss them. Note that Cuvier formed a picture of the epochs of life on earth which presumed a succession of cataclysmic events dividing these epochs, amounting to a non-biblical SERIES of "special creations".
"So when the Bible says the heavens and earth were created in 7 days. could be interpreted 6 X(times) hundreds of millions of years to rotate once(Which could constitute a day)"
Evolution is a fairy tale, however, nowhere in the Bible does it say in any shape, fashion, or form that the heavens and earth were created in 7 days. I know that is what some claim is said, but it is not Written.
Further Peter tells us the length of a day with the LORD and it was not a 24/7 hour day.
Man in flesh was put here for a specific purpose and flesh was not life until the "breath of life" = soul was breathed into his nostrils. When were the souls created, as Genesis does not give a specific date when that event occurred, yet it does tell us that the 'soul' is what made flesh alive?
I don't have any left. That was 1968. My mom ditched them along with all my Marvel comics. (Spidey, 1-110!) (ouch)
Along the highway, Rt 24 from MA to Newport RI there's a band of exposed shale on the east side of the highway (West Main Road) very close to the Rathion complex. That place is the most prominent of several I'm familiar with. Just start splitting the rocks. Never found animals, but many ferns and ginko-like leaves.
If you're familiar with the area, there's also a rocky beach near the defunct Kaiser Aluminum plant that has shale dumped from, I think, the cut made for the highway, and assorted rail excavations from the early 1900's. Any of the pieces of shale found from there, north to Tiverton and Fall River, along Mt Hope Bay shoreline, and south to Newport (you can see the shale in the local stone walls and antique house foundations....good fossil hunting....don't get caught) are good areas. Find one or two, and you get a sense of the exact type that will bear fossils.....very clean, with a rusty-colored flat edge. It got to the point where I had about 400 lbs of fossil-rock in my bedroom. Ma was somewhat pleased, at first, that I stopped harboring snapping turtles, frogs, and assorted wildlife with my new hobby.
I guarantee that in a matter of 15 minutes I could come up with a number of fossils.....I took my kids to the old hunting grounds about 15 years ago.....they got bored because it was too easy. Gloves and a mason's hammer, ground to a sliver edge, are good to have. Happy hunting!
[snip]
...no way to precisely replicate all that data millions of times every week in cell division.
You can, of course, show that it's impossible? If you can you're guaranteed a Nobel.
You use the "wiring" of the nervous system as an example. Have you ever studied how it actually develops? Are you under the impression that every nerve cell has its own special genes?
PH: Another candidate?
Only to the unlearned would a claim of falsehood be made about Genesis and the very two different days of creation.
Science has demonstrated that it would be impossible for all peoples to have been born of only two human beings. So it makes common sense there would have been more than two fully grown adult human beings formed.
Last post should have pinged you too.
It used to be called the "Law of Faunal Succession". Cuvier, Lamaarck, Darwin, et al came up with theories to explain it.
I'm no theologian, but why did all men fall if only one couple was guilty of eating the fruit?
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.