Posted on 06/17/2007 6:54:37 PM PDT by Rodney King
The Bible is unique and sacred for the following:
Its uniqueness
Its historical accuracy
The evidence of fulfilled prophecy
Its scientific accuracy
Its demonstration of changed lives
You should read it...it’s amazing!
They made hypotheses, experimented, and proved their theories with results. I doubt they got too caught up in whether their results were too axiomatic.
If you want to use that logic to make the case that science cannot disprove the existence of God, fine, but it also cannot be used to prove his existence either.
Evolution has science that can be tested over time. "God did it" does not.
No, but we can put you in a straight jacket while the rest of the world gets on with our lives.
You have scientific proof for the existenced of God?
You are clearly confused over the difference between unproved and unprovable presuppositions (some call them "axioms") and empirical methodology.
When Oppie theorized that you could split the atom and create a nuclear explosion, no one talked about axioms, empiricism, or God.
Yet anytime evolution is brought up, all of a sudden the hard core Genesis literalists come out and tell us that nothing is real, all life and existence is relative, and start assigning very human qualities (like empiricism, spirituality, and purpose) to a very concrete and unemotional universe.
Where are all the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx?
What in particular are you looking for? Archaeopteryx has such a dinosaurian skeleton that it probably would have been classified as a small theropod dinosaur if it hadn't had such nice feathers. The theropod dinosaurs as a group have many avian traits. In fact, there's one group, Alvarezsauridae, which until recently were classified as flightless birds! The group that Archaeopteryx most closely resembles, the Dromaeosauridae, has some researchers arguing that it should actually be placed under Aves (the birds). Among the dromaeosaurids is Microraptor, a fully-feathered gliding dinosaur. Others of the dromaeosaurs had feathers as well. Another theropod group with strong avian traits is Oviraptorosauria. These dinosaurs had beaks and some (probably all, since scientists and modern birds agree that once you've acquired feathers, it's not often you get rid of them) were feathered. This is another group that some scientists think is more accurately placed in Aves.
There should be countless fossils with incremental changes, yet there are none.
I find the people most likely to say things like this are the ones least likely to have read a paleontology book.
Okay, maybe Oppie did quote from a Hindu text about the end of the world. But that was strictly to deal with his own very human emotions over creating something so destructive; it had nothing to do with the very real science that he used to create the weapon.
Hold on a minute. Let's take one of those stages; Protoceratops-->Diarthrognathus.
From my reading Diarthrognathus is a Triassic mammal-like reptile. Did you mean to insert a different Latin name?
Our actual first ceratops is Psittacosaurus, which shows the transition from bipedalism to quadrupedalism and the beginnings of the skull's frill. Then we have Protoceratops and Leptoceratops, which were not linear descendants of Psittacosaurus. These ceratopsians have larger frills than Psittacosaurus and are quadrupeds. In later evolution, the frill increased in size, sometimes dramatically, and horns were added. This would have been a gradual process, and not all of the evolutionary lineages are preserved.
Did Protoceratops just wake up one day and become a Diarthrognathus?
Oh dear. Assuming we're talking about a ceratopsian that came later and not a Triassic mammal-like reptile that came far before, the answer to your first question is No. The evolutionary process from one species to the next would have been slow.
Did Protoceratops develop in tiny thousands of stages until one day he became Diarthrognathus?
Describing it as thousands of stages is arbitrary, but yes. The changes involved initially would have been an increase in size. The largest Protoceratops were already developing a nasal horn. Future changes would have been modifications of these, plus at some point the addition of a few more horns.
Did two Protoceratops conceive a Diarthrognathus, and if so, how was another Diarthrognathus able to find an opposite sex mate to breed with?
No. Evolution is a process involving populations, not individuals. You would have a population of Protoceratops gradually becoming larger and increasing the size of their frill and horn. Eventually you would see a new species, which would in its turn slowly change. What we see in the fossil record are snapshots of these changes, since fossilization is a rare event, especially for land animals.
I think evolution is a totally plausible theory, but I don't see its reflection in the fossil record.
What can I say? I do.
I find it hard to believe that you’re a scientist. Do you wake up every morning thanking God that you believe in him, because if you didn’t darned if you might just fall through the floor or shoot up through the roof?
I dont give a crap about "evolution." What I DO care about is the utterly nonsensical, idiotic, and stupid preening of empiricists who prate emptyheadedness about "you have faith and I have proof." I happen to be a serious evangelical who is also a measured fan of Penn and Teller in that I believe in calling bullshit by its name.
"Evolution" threads gives simplistic fundies to show off their wares and correspondingly gives fatuous arguments by empiricists a chance to display their own brand of the same idiocy. While vicious attacks (like this) are no subsitute for reasoned arguments, now you know my opinion. I will, I promise, try to back it up online for you over the weekend. Fair 'nough?
Good post. :-)
You had an opportunity to engage in a discussion of empiricism and methodological naturalism back at post 940.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1851882/posts?page=540#540
Science does not engage in truth finding or proofs. It does engage in acquiring reliable knowledge. Since I know most of the people here who argue for evolution, and I know that they spend a lot of time refuting the charge that science “proves” things, I expect you to find a counterexample or withdraw your claim that we prate about having proof.
I am not. I am a broker/trader/money manager, who happens to have a degree in chemistry and a few years of experience as an engineer.
Do you wake up every morning thanking God that you believe in him, because if you didn’t darned if you might just fall through the floor or shoot up through the roof?
No, I rather thank God that he maintains the order of the universe and I can be confident that he is immanent in his creation so that the elements behave in an ordered and predictable manner. Kind of like ALL the men of science did before we decided to dress up NATURALISM like some kind of drag queen and call it "science." You keep the same insistence on order, predictability, and uniformity...., you just don't have a clue as to why anymore. Instead, you are forced to some idiocy about statistics and our incredibly limited range of experience (which itself is not even consistent when we approach matter and energy on a qauntum level)....... so you bluster instead. Clear enough?
Thanks for your responses. I have always enjoyed interacting with you.
Every time an observation is made, it tests the hypothesis that physical laws do not change.
People have looked at evidence for the speed of light, which is thought to be constant, and determined that it has been constant for billions of years, maybe since the beginning of time. In the same way other constants have been studied. You seem to have this hangup in which you think that because something is assumed, it cannot be confirmed or denied. If it really were true that we were just supposing that these things have been constant and are currently constant and do not or cannot check up on them, then such assumptions would be outside the realm of science. As it is they are not because they are constantly tested.
Two words though, for those who's faith is shattered by the possibility of evolution: Theistic evolution.
Give it a try. It won't bite! That is of course if you don't have a problem believing the Bible is metaphorical and or allegorical at times. If not, how are you typing without hands?
Note for the super-literalists: Something can be objectively true and still be metaphorical or allegorical. Didn't know that? Well now you do. Hint: it's because while there's a difference between literal and metaphorical, both are still able to deliniate truth. So let's drop the "can't have salvation without the creation story being literally true!" canard, because there's no basis for that other than, quite frankly, some deep seeded bais against or hatred for science.
How many are there in the universe?
Do we have any celestial data for which we say "hmmmm, this doesn't seem to fit our model?
Exactly how many photons (assuming for the moment that photons really ARE particles) of light would you assume have been tested??
How many photons of light would you say are there in the universe?
How categorically sure can you be that all travel at the same rate of speed, given the paucity of your data set?
There is nothing wrong with using a working model, as long as you people are honest about the infinitesimally small data set you are using to propose it......,, and you do not. Instead you mock. That is the response of a heresy tribunal and not an empiricist.
Instead you mock.
:'-(
If you're complaining about my treatment of you in particular, that's quite apart from this issue and is due to your treatment of me. According to my data set, you're among the more spiteful people I've run into here. So please don't martyr yourself over it. It's much more effective when you don't begin your martyrdom by poking the lions with sticks prior to leaping in the cage.
You either ignored or missed the quotes I put around the word 'prove'. It is the Creationists who demand that things be proved 100%, no scientist I know concludes that his work 'proves' anything. Your comment about empiricists is wrong, I doubt there are any strict empiricists in science, I suspect they are all pragmatists, but in any case the simple observation of an event or object is never taken as proof of something but as a start to investigation.
If you want to discuss requirements of 100% proof, talk to all those Creationists who demand Evolution be proved by direct observation. Scientists will just shrug your question off as coming from someone misinformed.
Just as a final note, you are equivocating with the word 'faith'. The 'faith' used by science is much different than the 'faith' used by the religious.
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.