Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
"Thinking people do not look to scientific texts for spiritual advice, and neither do they look to scripture for scientific facts."
I've met lots of "thinking people" who have developed their moral and (so called) spiritual facts based on scientific exploration while decrying scripture as a hoax.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.
One does not look in the Standard Handbook of Engineering Calculations for advice on how to deal with a difficult marriage. However, if you want to determine the propert pipe wall thickness for certain pressures and fluid velocties, then you'll be looking in the right place.
Of course, that's why the whole body of evidence must be considered together.
Science doesn't work in "proofs", in works with evidence to build working models - and that is exactly what evolution is. If enough evidence comes along that can't fit to the model's predictions, it's a sign something is wrong with the model - but that hasn't happened to evolution yet.
What would, in your mind, be convincing evidence that life evolved on earth? (With all due respect, I think there's a lot more evidence than you realize - a lot of it does take a while to learn to understand.)
Do you have any idea what is being argued in 1299?
I thought I did, but looking back I can't make any sense of it.
And this means what to me re: one animal evolving into a different species? Again, more subterfuge clouding up the original question. Where is the proof of this animal becoming a different animal?
- Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
- Rule 2 Therefore the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign to the same causes
- Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies with the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
- Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
Take a look at these. No unnecessary causes. Causes are universal and constant. Causes observed in experiment are the same as those in nature. Established theories are considered true or nearly true until replaced by more comprehensive theories.
Every phenomenon required for evolution has been observed. Every piece of evidence gathered in the last 200 years is consistent with evolution. There are no competing theories.
When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.
Since this is what you require, please define this 'missing link' in detail sufficient to potentially classify any future discovery as being 'your' missing link. Please be as detailed in your description as possible.
All dose skulls are fakes'n frauds, just like that Piltdown Man. Yus scientists tinks you're all gonna pull one over on da' woofman. But I knows better and whens I gits round to it, I'll post all ma prufs here.
There appear to be many possible sources for your plagiarized post. This one may be the original.
http://www.livingwaters.com/downloads/Lesson61.pdf
So did you write it or did you plagiarize it?
Yours is a common misunderstanding of evolution. In truth, the theory doesn't even remotely suggest that this happens. Individuals don't change. Populations change over generations. Please read this short essay. It may be helpful.
Swiss-cheese thread placemarker.
Pollyanna placemarker.
Lucky prime placemarker.
Cut-n-paste error in the last paragraph, that's all, I think.
I guess he clarified his question in 1302. Still, I find it interesting that those most violently opposed to evolution are those least able to talk about it.
I could name several FR anti-evolutionists who have significant education in biology and chemistry, who are much less hostile to common descent. It seems that people, like Behe, who know something, have trouble asserting the earth is flat.
Nebraska Man placemark
'very funny' placemarker
I'm not impressed with superlatives, conjecture, and the language of science. Produce the evidence or not. If not, then we agree to disagree. Enough said.
Tagline change placemarker.
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.