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 ...
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, chapter ten, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record:”
“Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject the theory.”
That seems clear. It is followed immediately by the following argument:
“For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.”
I put more weight on the one clear sentence, than on all the poetry that follows.
In this case, I should have made more clear that the institutions in question were public schools. As a teacher, I have witnessed personally the evisceration of curriculums in favor of agendas, biases, and causes. However, higher education in entirely open - many colleges and universities have excellent programs. Unfortunately, the indoctrination of children (rather than the education thereof) has reduced science "for the masses" to simple propaganda.
My children in my classes could tell me all about the evils of pollution - and hey, that's great - but so many high schoolers I taught did not have a CLUE about basic biology. It was completely sad.
But I will, because there have been so few. A stunningly solid record after 150 years and perhaps millions of fossils:
Piltdown Man. Science (not creationism) uncovered the fraud.
Nebraska Man. NEW Also: Nebraska Man in Textbooks? It wasn't much of a fraud.
Peppered Moths. Another non-issue.
Haeckel's Embryos. Yet another.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Archaeopteryx. Despite howls from creationists, it's not a fake.
Archaeoraptor. A crude fake, publicised by Nat'l Geographic, then quickly exposed.
Lucy. The "fraud" claim is actually a creationist fraud.
Why bother responding?
Sometimes you may think people lack knowledge when in fact they know more than you in a different area of science, so they're just approaching the subject from a different perspective. But Bobdsmith, I shouldn't have said "you have no idea what you're talking about." Clearly you know a lot about this subject. I have some Irish ancestors and sometimes my Irish temper gets the best of me. That was the first thought that popped into my head and I wrote it down. But Bob knows a lot about this subject. We're just looking at it from too different points of view. This is a complex subject with many uncertainties and therefore we're sure to see a lot of disagreements.
Known? More like some scientists have speculated.
That's a good post on the fractal geometry of trees. But here's the next question: how is this information encoded in DNA and how does the tree use the DNA information to grow using this fractal design? This is where it gets very tricky scientifically. I took a good class in molecular biology and these are not simple processes by which information in DNA is utilized.
It's not chemistry or genetics. It's neurophysiology.
What is your field of specialization? I'm curious beause you post a lot of stuff on these evo threads.
B.S. in Biochemistry, Ph.D. in Biophysics, Professor of Physical Chemistry.
It's not your credentials I question; it's the factual basis of what you wrote.
Maybe you need to read Genesis again. Two separate days of creation are described.
Those words hidden in Genesis 2:5 there was no man to till the ground are there for a reason. This description happened after the 7th day of rest.
Oh there is more than one genealogy list.
Just reread it and didnt see anything wrong, its says brought fourth everything the Sea could produce, then the next day was everything the ground could produce. So, some of the foul were created from the sea the rest from the ground.
The Word of God itself claims that those who truely seek the truth it will be revealed. For those who play games and have a hardened heart it will remain hidden and appear as a mystery loaded with contradictions. It's like one of those puzzles you try to solve why waiting for your table at Cracker Barrel. If someone just shows you how its done you really don't understand it fully. But when you realize it yourself then you have gained true insight.
The Word of God also states that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom". Try to start there and see if that helps in discovering how to read and interpret the Word of God correctly.
No, it is not two separate days, it is two separate stories. God rests on the seventh day, and then creates Adam - again, and the animals - again, and everything else - again. He does things differently, with many of them done in a different order.
Those words hidden in Genesis 2:5 there was no man to till the ground are there for a reason. This description happened after the 7th day of rest.
Right. Even though he created man on the sixth day (Gen 1), there is no man after the seventh (Gen 2). This is a gross inconsistency, and a blatant error - unless Gen 1 and Gen 2 are different stories of creation.
In several different places, considering different generations. To which are you referring?
You have a very severe reading comprehension problem. Genesis 1:20 clearly states that the fowl were created from the waters:
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
while Genesis 2:19 states, also quite clearly, that they were created from the ground:
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..."
Where are you getting your crazy idea that "some of the foul [sic] were created from the sea the rest from the ground"? It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that anywhere at all. If you want to quote the bible that's fine, but please stop making stuff up. It is not helping your credibility.
Thanks. Prolly explains what I found. That some split so handily at the impression-bearing layer is probably good evidence it had been infiltrated by moisture and microbes.
It has to do with the words written down in the bible. Either the fowl were created out of the waters, or they were created out of the ground. Which is true? One individual said that both could be true. However, the bible says absolutely nothing of the sort. The arguments that I have heard so far have been ridiculous. It has gotten to the point where the "the book of Genesis has no errors" crowd are making stuff up.
By the way, your "nobody can show it to you, you have to find the truth for yourself" argument is a total cop-out. It tells me that you cannot resolve the problems in Genesis that I have pointed out, and that your failure to do so somehow makes you a more righteous individual. You're better than me because you're wrong? Huh? I'm not buying what you're selling.
Do you not have any justification for your unfounded assumption?
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.