Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Like the fact that Darwin believed in a Creator, capitol "C". If you would have read the origin of species, you would know this. Even he would disagree with your brand of evolution.
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator......... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (Darwin Origin of species)
|
Do we really know the origin of what we call natural laws? In Darwins days basically everyone still believed in a creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Actually, the Bible says that the world is round. Science caught up with the Bible about when, oh, the middle ages (wink).
|
Excerpt please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
BTW,the theory of evolution can stand or fall on it's own. Your not passing over this inconvenient simple truth would be the intellectually honesty thing to do. Agreed?
Now, since it is fact that we are dealing with, lets start with this.
The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it "scientific" in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduces in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about about where we came from or how we got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more "scientific" than any other kind of religious faith." (Macarthur)
What say you?
|
The word "science" originated from the Latin word for knowledge "scientia", basically spoken science is everything that produces knowledge and understanding and therefore the theory of evolution is a science in the true sense of the word because it leads to knowledge and understanding. Many areas of physics, psychology, history, philosophy, and many other areas of science in many cases are no more provable than the theory of evolution because they often deal with things beyond our current reach. It's for example impossible to reproduce or prove the existence of mental illnesses in any scientific way and it is equally impossible to prove or disprove the existence of black holes and many other theories modern physics deals with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
One must make a distinction between macro evolution.
Microevolution- this is when organisms adapt to the changing conditions of the environment. It improves existing genes. It does not create new genes. An example that illustrates this is the classic peppered moth argument. Basically, when the trees are white, there are more white moths, conversely when the trees were turned black by pollution at the turn of the century, more black moths survived simply from being harder to see, not changing into a different moth. The moths are still moths, not a new creature.
Macroevolution-the changes within species that results in a new and separate species. An example of this would be a fish evolving into a bird. This has never been proven or observed in nature.
Micro is witnessed in nature every day. Nobody denies it. Macro has no proof, and has relied on muddying the waters between the two, and a propaganda campaign to hide the truth from the general public.
There has never been observed even a single example of a mutation that has actually improved the genetic code by adding new meaningful information. But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people.
|
Human races and diseases? Light skin and hair for example, traits based on mutations, increse the attractiveness for the opposite sex and thus create better chances of reproduction. And many diseases evolve constantly to adapt to medication and the attacks by the immune system. Are those not example of improved genetic code by adding new information through a process of mutation?
I'm pretty sure that given some thousand years of isolation the current human races would probably have developed into different species no longer able to produce healthy offspring by crossbreeding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Read more about this from the links below.
What say you?
BTW, Ben Stein's new movie "expelled" will show more on this.
|
I read some of your links and I'm not convinced. A lot of pseudo science and to many Jewish sounding names involved to take it seriously. The world really does not need more Jewish a priori junk science. Darwinism may not be fully probable yet but at least it is a theory based on philosophy conform to the laws of reason and logic, creationism on the other hand is based on dogmas and biblical nonsense. Exchanging reason for dogmas is leading backwards. The theory of the flying pasta monster, no less unreasonable than creationism, is at least funny.
Do you honestly believe that there is a big daddy in heaven and whenever he gets bored he creates some new species to see how they fit into the world he created? That when he became bored of the dinosaurs he removed them and tried something new?