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 ...
The only reason I'm a conservative is due to logic and evidence.
I once was a liberal tarot card reader. Now I'm a skeptical conservative, thanks to my teachers James Randi and Martin Gardner.
"Last few thousand years"? I believe you're mistaken.
See post 510. Appendicitis may be actively removing the appendix. Or it may be going the way of a cave fish's eyes - there is no pressure to retain it, so if a mutation were to do away with the appendix, no-one would notice.
I see that you've decided to make it clear that you have no rational or reasoned responses, so you're singling in on one comment and completely ignoring the context. You've made it quite clear that you're yet another dishonest troll who absolutely refuses to let things like truth and reality get in your way; you'll continue to dishonestly misrepresent what evolution is and what science is no matter how often answers to your easily refuted claims are given. Have a nice day, troll.
Is that supposed to be a logical statement?
Are you assuming that religion is the only thing people can be passionate about?
"But the bible does not say "the fowl of the water"
Gen 1:20 let the (waters)teem...let the birds fly above the earth
Gen 1:21 with which the (waters) swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind;
.......
"nor does it say "the fowl of ground"
Gen 2:19 And out of the (ground)the Lord formed every beast of the field and every bird(fowl) of the sky,
"you are reading the bible like a liberal reads the constitution. You are making it up as you go along."
This is a 'projection' that I will leave be.
If you seek the Truth, you will find it. What YOU are seeking you will never find in the Bible.
They don't read it; the most they do is count the "may"s, "possibly"s and other speculative terms and use those to discount the evidence wholesale.
The person to whom you are replying believes himself to be omniscient and perfect. Therefore he believes that simply making a claim is tantamount to providing evidence for the claim.
I find your example in post #510, about the wisdom teeth to be extremely interesting...because it does seem a few weeks ago, there was a discussion about this very thing...an Id/creationist supporter was really making some really absurd statements about wisdom teeth...claimed that wisdom teeth do not provoke any problems until the person with the wisdom teeth were old enough to have produced children...hmmm?...that is in contradiction to my case and my best girlfriends case, being that both of us had to have our impacted wisdom teeth removed when we were both in our early high school years, and not exactly ready to get married and start having children....when people start having trouble with impacted wisdom teeth can vary, and hardly happens to them all at the same time...
When this argument failed to convince the ID/creationist supporter that he/she was incorrect, he/she then went on to carefully explain, well, God put those wisdom teeth there so that when the other teeth further forward fall out, the wisdom teeth have the great function of pushing the other remaining teeth forward...after I had a good laugh at that one, I realized I was discussing with someone who would make up any old reason, taken out of thin air apparently, to validate why we still have wisdom teeth...
I believe you are correct, about your prediction that eventually humans will not have wisom teeth...we can see now, even in the existing population, the variance in wisdom teeth...my best girlfriend had 4 wisdom teeth, all impacted, and all had to be removed...I had 2 wisdom teeth, both impacted, and both had to be removed...my husband never had any wisdom teeth to begin with and neither one of my sons has had wisdom teeth...(and having no wisdom teeth, which so often do become impacted and infected, is a true advantage, you avoid extreme pain, and possible infection)..
If you seek the Truth, you will find it. What YOU are seeking you will never find in the Bible.
The original poster stated that all of the old and new testaments are based on the first 11 chapters of Genesis being totally error-free. I (and others) have shown repeatedly that if you read the words in the first two chapters of Genesis, without adding words and phrases that are NOT THERE, and without going to modern re-writes of the KJV, that Genesis has inconsistencies and errors.
In other words, I did seek the truth, and found the bible lacking.
(note: the new american standard, which somebody else quoted from, is NOT a re-translation from the hebrew and greek, it is a modernization of the language found in the King James Version. Most pastors don't like it, as it has changed the meaning of many passages).
Correction regarding the New American Standard Bible: it was updated in 1995 and some of the hebrew and greek actually was re-researched. I haven't been able to find out which, however. I am curious, so I may look it up later and see if I can find out.
...and the Princeton guy replies, "At Princeton we know the pee is sterile-- it's the "equipment" that's covered in e. coli bacteria, you Haaahvahd dumbass."
The NAS study is one of 4 that I use. Greek and Hebrew
In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed and the lastest edition of Rudolph Kittel's Biblia Hebraica has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There is no controversy. just a bunch of con-men fleecing the Evangelicals.
I don't specifically remember that exchange, but I probably brought it up; it's an example I often use.
Does your family's experience mean that the gene(s) for no wisdom teeth is (are) dominant? That would weed the trait out even quicker.
LOL thanks!
Are you not on any ping lists? I'm on several; does that mean I'm an adherent of several religions?
> I'm a skeptical conservative ...
The most internally consistent way to be.
> my teachers James Randi and Martin Gardner.
Don't forget Penn & Teller.
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.