Science, Creation & EvolutionMore Logic (Russels Teacup)ID HAS to exist. If it cannot, this is not acceptable, or even feasible, to those who propose ID because that would mean that there is NO creator. In the same sense, there can be NO other explanation for the creation of life than ID. This invalidates ID as scientific before any debate of the issue begins. Science proposes educated guesses and tries to prove itself wrong. ID has the answer and tries to prove itself right. ID is not Science, it is porpaganda. In other posts you hold that evolutionary theory is untestable, and you hold that reason as showing that evolution is not a scientific theory. So which is it, untestable or improbable due to testing? It cannot be both, unless, of course, you use the methods of ID, then you can choose whatever best supports your point at that time. Nor would science try to disprove god. As there is no evidence which points to the existence of a god, scientist would never propose a hypothesis as to the existence of a god to account for anything and thus their is no need to test the hypothesis and disprove god. This demonstrates fundamentally flawed understanding of the way evolution works. Fish do NOT evolve into reptiles, reptiles do NOT evolve into homo sapiens, etc. They all do, however, share a common ancestor. Fossil records are indicative of this. While there is no absolute path (the smoking gun) and destinctly identifiable ancestor, there is, as you go back in the fossil record, a clear indicator that at one time life was less complex and less diverse. Given time this life became more complex and diversified - particularly as plants and animals take to the skies and land. 100% support of evolution? No, but it does follow the basic principles. Support for ID? None. Probability of the existance of a creator: impossible. If there was ANY evidence for a creator, the chances that the creator even remotely resembles the christian god: Even less than impossible. The answer to your question is so simple that anyone with a casual understanding of evolution could answer. It was not lost. In fact, it was never "gained". Humans did not evolve FROM reptiles. Again, we do share a common ancestor, this ancestor did not necessarily have the ability to regenerate limbs. I really do not see the relevance of the above quoted by Aineo, although, while not always accurate, Aineo's references are usually at least relevant. So I invite you Aineo to clarify the relevance. I do understand why the speed of light is relevant, just not what role the quoted article demonstrates the relevance. Cry off friend Aineo, to call a science a religion is to cut too deep. Cry off, should your comments incite a flame war, one which neither side is likely to survive unscathed. Science and Religion view the world in two vastly different perspectives. Religion: Answers are known. Details to support that answer are sought. Science: Nothing is known. Information is gathered, ordered, campared and tested in order to find the answers. Were Science a religion, the life of the scientist would be much easiier! All one would have to do, as often done by the religious, is state that it is law because they have faith that it is law. And being a religion, it would not matter what others said, it would not matter what the evidence said, because it is true based on our scientific faith. Ah, the bliss of this self contained logic would indeed be refreshing. But alas, it is not to be so, we must forever be questioned by the religious, the close minded, and ourselves. To be open to other ideas and theories is the cross that science alone must bear, and yet we do so gladly. We continue to help the religious find the light despite their misgivvings towards us. We will persever in the face of bigotry and persecution. We will turn the other cheek and take our solace in the knowledge of what we do is not only for us, but also for those who would smite us. We will... OK, enough already. Links to support c as a defined constant are not needed as the volume of work surrounding this subject are numerous and easily found. If assistance is needed, try google, the library, any high school science class, etc. It is also good to remember that in the next 50-100 years the already substantial evidence that supports evolutionary biology will also be accumulating. Heck, in a few hundred thousand years, we will have observed macroevolution, given we continue to exist and we continue to persevere in the face of religious persecuion. Defeat? Taking this personal are we? No, there is no such evidence or observations. If you would please repost links to this evidence it would be appreciated, as the links concerning the speed of light decaying failed to demonstate anything other than an increased ability for man to accurately measure the speed of light. The data used to show a decay in the speed of light invalidated itself by not showing a decrease in the speed of light, but rather a variation in the speed of light as some later measurements were faster, and others slower. Also, for clarification sake, please state your stance on how the speed of light will defeat evolutionary biology. I assume it is due to the amount of time that evolution takes, but I do not want to make false assumptions about your meanings. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame