Posted on 02/26/2002 10:50:54 AM PST by dead
Only after scads of doctoral candidates had written their theses on this fake, assuming it was real. Piltdown Man isn't the only fraud, btw, that was later debunked.
I admit that science works. I have a fascination with science, and as a layman do quite a bit of reading on such subjects, particularly astrophysics. But I would say, again, that evolution, as a theory, does not lend itself to the scientific method -- it's never been observed, and the assumptions from the fossil record (i.e., conclusions from opinion, or "best guess") cannot be replicated in the laboratory. In fact, it is the relentless nature of scientific inquiry which today is chipping away at the basic tenents of evolutionary theory, and which will one day conclusively prove evolutionary theory is an wholy inadequate and false explanation of the origin of species. I love the way, over the last 20 years or so, the microbiologists have tied the paleontologists into knots.
I read one scientist who said that the theory of evolution wasn't very sound, but it was the best explanation science had come up with. I will admit that evolution is the best explanation there is for the origin of life....if one discounts the possibility of an intelligent Creator.
And, unfortunately, this seems to be the principle driving force behind the theory of evolution: a denial of God, not scientific integrity.
How do we know that my dog, or my rabbit, doesn't have his own God?
It may not be like the human God, but then he can't tell us about his beliefs.
That question was asked in Ecclesiastes, by presumeably Solomon. The answer does not matter to what our [duty] is.
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.
Yes, but then I haven't been able to get my rabbit to use a typewriter to record his thoughts about his God, from his own perspective of his lagomorph genus.
If one discounts the supernatural? Why, that would be positively... scientific?
I liked what Carl Sagan suggested in CONTACT: that God has hidden evidence of himself, say, in the run-out of pi...that eventually pi creates a pattern that can only be explained by an intelligence placing it there -- kind of like God's signature. Sagan, and most scientists, will only allow for the existence of God if there is proof, in the sense of scientific proof. Guys like Michael Behe are attempting to look for those proofs in nature.
Care to show one? The whale/hippo DNA evidence showed the errors of the fossil assumption, but then the fossil record is rearranged to fit the findings. A typical shell game, the bone evidence that is.
Some scientists are attempting to find evidence of "intelligent design" in nature, somewhat like Sagan suggested in CONTACT. They may or may not be successful. Even with proof staring in one's face, some people will choose to dismiss it. And even then, if science finds proof of God in nature -- an unmistakeable signature of God -- that discovery tells us nothing about what that God is like in terms of his character.
For anyone who cares, take a look at the book COMING OF AGE IN THE MILKY WAY by Timothy Ferris. It's the history of cosmology. What's fascinating about it is that it's really a history of failed models of the origin of the universe -- the rise and fall of theories, and the subsequent rise of fall of other theories that replaced older theories. The lesson of the book is that any scientific theory is only as good as the next bit of evidence discovered by some scientist. Nothing can be held as the absolute explanation, as gospel truth...unless, of course, it's the Gospel itself.
Actually for long term survival the good and evil have to approximately balance. A population with too much evil ends up destroying itself, too little they will be conquered. We may have evil built into our DNA, but we also must have team player qualities, i.e. morals. We invented jail to limit the number of people with too much evil. I'm not sure why saints are so far and few between, but there must be some evolutionary reason for their rarity. Possibly because they die poor virgins? Of course how we got here doesn't mean how it will be in the future. With growing socialism, genetic engineering, better health care, the evolutionary rules have changed. Evolution as we've known it has largely ended, for now anyway.
No, science has fulfilled it's mission: it has provided the best explanation based on the observable facts. If it were possible to detect scientifically the evidence of creation, then it would not be super-natural. But if we cannot detect such a creation, how can we ever know it happened? If we cannot detect it by any means known or knowable it lies outside the realm of observation and thus outside the realms to which science lays claim.
I liked what Carl Sagan suggested in CONTACT: that God has hidden evidence of himself, say, in the run-out of pi...that eventually pi creates a pattern that can only be explained by an intelligence placing it there -- kind of like God's signature. Sagan, and most scientists, will only allow for the existence of God if there is proof, in the sense of scientific proof. Guys like Michael Behe are attempting to look for those proofs in nature.
When they get the evidence, and follow it up with a theory that explains the evidence better than any other, and is testable, falsifiable, and predictive, let us know. Until then, stay outta the schools.
For someone adept at calling others liar you seem to misunderstand your own assertion. It was ---Assumptions from the fossil record are REGULARLY borne out in the lab. . All you have posted are fossil names. Liar.
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.