Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
His words were:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits.
Were you expecting some sort of new refrigerator? Or a new line of action figures? Cosmology hasn't had any practical or commercial benefits either. Neither has General Relativity.
This is why creationists have such a hard time gaining credibility. They don't know enough about science to understand that the correctness of a theory is not judged by it's sales numbers.
On the other hand, when the kids were little we had a lot of fun with Captain Planet action figures, but I think that's a different topic. In fact, my oldest daughter could sing the theme song from the cartoon in German. It was popular over there.
"Water!"
You and I have probably not gone over this material before ~ this time I didn't attack the evolutionists for being nice little true believers who posit the existence of a supernatural being called Natural Selection.
Probably because they were behaving themselves this time and only once screwed up and said the genome can be changed by "Environmental Pressure" ~ again, another supernatural being.
The genome changes, and critters live or die in greater or lesser numbers in comfort or not. The external environment might have something to do with how well they dine, but it's not tinkering directly with the gearworks in the little machines inside!
With all due respect, I don't think you're getting the point, here. Gravity is a force, which can be defined as either a 'push' or a 'pull', depending on how one chooses to define you +/- signs. The difference is a matter of convention. Newton's theory says it's an attractive force. That's as specific as it (or any other field theory) can get.
I don't think I was getting the point. I think you are correct.
My point, however, is that we don't know what we don't know, and finding out whether it is push or pull could have ramifications of which we are not aware - yet.
There's something I think we can all agree on!
;)
Good comments. You basically have confirmed the distinction between micro and macro evolution. It is obvious that viruses mutate, dog breeds change over time (both random and selectively), animals go extinct or increase/change based on conditions. Creationists don't deny that.
What creationists do debate evolutionists about is in your last paragraph - was man made specifically and for a higher purpose than animals, is our life here random chance, how did such vast, complex and intricately related environment of earth come to be.
Also, the subjective beliefs of inventors/researchers are relevant. If you believe that the world/the universe operates on an unpredictable basis, you won't try to figure out how a process "works" or a bacterium is put togehter, as you wouldn't expect the design to be consistently replicated. And if you think that humanity was placed here by space aliens, you might be inclined to research the space aliens and what they intended to accomplish.
It also makes a huge difference in the importance you place in the questions you ask, the research you do. Should there be equal resouces extended to understanding of human activity or fighting human disease, ailments, accidental or intentional deaths and that of other species of animals (plants?) Is the life and death of a human of more import than that of a hamster?
They're = their. LOL!
"The ultimate goal of science is discovering the truth..."
I was talking about Darwinists' ultimate goals, not science's. I do not consider evolution science, nor Darwinists scientists as in the sense of hard science scientists.
"Science just happens not to care about political correctness, religious correctness, or anybody's personal feelings, for that matter."
True. And, since evolution is not science (either soft or hard), they may care about those attributes. In fact, for the most part, evolution revolves around those and other pseudo, intangible concepts to make their shoe fit.
"Who's ultimate goal?
Darwinists'.
I thought that was clear.
Agreed.
On whose decree, yours? The decree of "Lone Rangers of Science" that publish their own (frequently flawed) opinions on websites? Funny that just about all biological scientists fail to see it your way. Peer-reviewed literature and field research tells quite a different story.
Before people become speakers as to what is science and what isn't, they should first spend some time in the audience.
Seems to me that the two above declarative statements, We descend from monkeys and We descended to monkeys. contradict each others. If we descended TO monkeys, it follows that we must have been something other than monkeys. Iow, we did not descend FROM monkeys to begin with since we were other than monkeys, but through passage of time descended TO monkeys.
No matter how you slice it, it doesnt' fit, unless one forces to make it fit. The shoe doesn't fit.
"On whose decree, yours? "
Yes, mine, and countless scientists.
Evolution is more of a phylosophy, a faith or belief. More akin to pseudo science, but definitively not a science.
Darwinists? Who are they? Do you mean biologists who work with, and expand on, the theory of evolution?
It is?
I didn't read this in the rules. Can you point me to it?
Please be more specific. What's wrong with which of them?
.... But to be fair to creationists, it should be acknowledged that evolution is a theory that has been evolving. It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.
What on earth are you talking about? The most famous "change" in the theory in the last 20-odd years is punctuated equilibrium - except this is already in "Origin", so it's not much of a change. There's certainly more fossil and genetic data, but the theory itself hasn't changed much since DNA was discovered - gotten more detailed, sure, but not really changed.
One man's Baal is anothers CHOICE.
Is this all that stopping you?!
Back when I was a Primate, before I evolved(born again), I believed in evolution as taught in the schools(nonsense).. Now I believe in evolution taught in the Bible.. Primates do indeed need to evolve.. into different creatures d;-)~',',.....
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.