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 ...
Where did the first sign of life come from? The first single cell organism? What did it evolve from? Life just started from nothing?
Where did God or the ID evolve from? Were they just started from nothing or did another God or ID make them and who made them etc. forever.
I don't believe your supposed to raise or even try to answer that one.
are just that:Theories. An invisible force is and invisible force, whether it is God or Evolution, therefore is subject to the same hypothesis: They are both false because they lack evidence.
Lets get on the same page. What is your idea of a hypothesis, a theory, and evidence?
Nowhere.
That was a reference to an earlier post of mine in which I developed a partial argument of the fallacies of creationists. Your committed error number 2.
Because you WANT abiogensis to become a part of the evolution science is insufficient. You, if to be in the realm of science, must provde compelling data first, not just mere argument.
...untruthfullness here is relative untruthfullness; the evolutionists repeating misleading information and disproven assumptions.
Now you've committed error No. 1: (lying.)
I essentially agree with this. "By making it a cause" as you say, it has acquired the status of doctrine.
We may note that not all strains of popular skepticism are religiously motivated. The very funny _Science Made Stupid_ mocks evolution, commenting that it makes a lot of sense, "especially if you don't think about it too much." It goes on to suggest a compromise amalgam of creation and evolution.
Then we have the venerable Firesign Theater in their album _I think we're all Bozos on this Bus_, poking what we might call gentle fun - "... yes, many uncomplicated peoples still believe this myth, but here in the technical vastness of the future, we can guess that the past was surely very different. We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps ..."
It seems strange that 6000 species of chimpanzie lived on this earth at one time but during this same time period, every dig unearths humanoids and not chimapanzees, Lucy for instance was proven by the french to be a chimpazee, but Americans still tout her as a human ancestor.
Christianity, to be fair here, has even less evidence, almost all of it is faith based, but then again so is evolution.
NO TRANSITIONAL speices exist. Period, you can lie about it, fake it, claim it, but in the end none exist.
Darwin himself had doubts about his theory and said that if the transitional species didn't turn up soon, then his theory was in the toliet, but of course Dariwnist insist that this theory is correct regardless of the evidence which suggest otherwise. Like christianity, evolution is not provable, unless of course you want to accept conjecture and false fossils as evidence.
Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, and takes hundreds of millions of years to rotate once, so we can say that "deep time" is very definitely a requirement of any meaningful study of astronomy.
So do the cheese-eating surrender monkeys
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)
You shouldn't say things like that. Somebody might take you up on it.
Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis have two very different stories of creation. Things are done in different sequences. The creation of woman is different. The two creation stories contradict one another. Open contradiction is a blatant error. Therefore, the book of Genesis is false. QED.
Have a nice day.
read later
You are certainly correct that the origin and nature of consciousness have not been successfully addressed by science. We may note, however, that medical and neurological studies give every indication that consciousness is entirely dependent on the material organization of the brain in its every detail.
> I'm actually surprised there are even five evolutionists on Free Republic
There are a great many of us. Science and Conservativism go together, and thus we can tell that the vast mountain of evidence for evolution is countered by nothing but infantile whining from "other." Deal with it.
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.