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 ...
Well, if every moral guideline fostered by universal religious principle were abandoned (which many of these same types are agitating and arguing for - people like me are equivalent to the Taliban etc), society would turn first into something reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies" followed by a horrible totalitarian clampdown based on the principle of Might Makes Right
We had the moral guidelines fostered by religon in Salem. They burnt the witches.
Well done. Why can't there be more posts like these?
Glad that you linked back to that thread...I remember it well...good grief, everyone was on that thread, and it seemed to run on and on....I am particularly glad that you linked to the exact posts, because somehow I missed them the first time around...I guess I need to go back to that thread, and refresh my memory about all that went on then...I know it got quite ugly...
Please see post 458
I didn't say *all*. And folks on both sides use Christianity and creationism interchangably. Be that as it may, oztrich boy does admit it by using the word *us* implying that it is more than just him. Since he is clearly on the evolution side, an admission by him of that should be acceptable.
Cute, cute.
Yes, all the religions of the world agree that innocent women and girls should be killed because of malicious gossip. Hmm, funny I never read that in the Bible, Talmud, Vedas; how did I miss it?
Yes, all the religions of the world agree that innocent women and girls should be killed because of malicious gossip. Hmm, funny I never read that in the Bible, Talmud, Vedas; how did I miss it?
Maybe you didn't study history or you got a latter day education.
All kinds of people commit all kinds of atrocities in the "name" of religion. That has nothing to do with actual universal religious principles.
The difference is that the universal moral principles founded in religious or spiritual values are consistent with each other, and when sincerely practiced, create and foster an atmosphere that promotes personal happiness. Naturally, this being the world that it is, such principles often are not practiced. But the fault is not in the principles.
On the other hand, secular humanist philosophies create more havoc and misery the more closely they are followed.
Correction
//little jeremiah is well read in the books she/he listed
So why do we find structures with similar or even identical function yet vastly different construction in different animal species?
What I see as a coder is this vastly different construction is using the same building blocks (cells) and new combinations of similar rules (or Code in my world). We just don’t have access to the source code or good documentation. Without the code, all we have is useless parts. If you ever experience the joy in reverse engineering an existing complex system without any access to the source code you would better understand this. So much of any system seems simple from the outside. Often this is only what our less techie managers see. Then when it comes to parallel testing the old one and the new one you start seeing how much you missed and much of this can only be seen when you start pumping in years worth of data and calculations. Welcome to my world.Google Chaos theory and weather models , or the butterfly effect if you want to delve deeper.
but often superior than many of the other types.
Superior in what sense? If all creatures had this superior vision what would happen to those creatures that survival depends on the poor seeing prey? Things are designed to fit into a whole that neither of us will ever be able to get our mind around. We are talking about cause and effect in large complex systems.
broken vitamin C synthesis in primates.
You can NOT say with certainty that this serves no usefull purpose. Design always involves trade offs, think armor v. speed. We can say with certainty that we do not fully understand this yet. We can even say at this point with our current knowledge it looks like poor design. How much knowledge does Science lose when we think we are done in knowing anything? You see “broken”, I see perfection not yet realized. Which Scientist is better, the one that stops digging out answers or the one who keeps on digging deeper?
I run into this when I have to fix other's code that is poorly documented. I remove the line that I think is useless only to get burned may months later when the right combination of complexity/logic ends up needing this line of code that I arrogantly removed. Things like this keep me humble. Now take into account that none of the code that I have ever worked with even comes close to the complexity of systems in living things such as eyes.
Perhaps I lack the eloquence to get you to see what I see. I just want you to open your eyes to the possibility of something more.
Cheers
You're doing nothing but dancing - sorry. You can assume 14C levels to be anything over time. Absent first hand information from 5000 years ago, there is no way to know whether such an assumption is reasonable. If you don't know the environ in which the Earth was created, happened or whatever your stance may be, you cannot speak to the "reasonableness" of Radioactive decay remaining constant. In short, if you don't know, you can assume anything. You only seem to like the assumptions that fit your ideology. Or perhaps it's any assumption that denies the existance of a "God" if you will. That usually seems to be the chaffing point.
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.