See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Creationists: can they be scientists? You bet!
Source:
Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part9.asp
Published: Feb 11, 2006
Author: Pam S. Sheppard
Post Date: 2006-02-11 17:02:42 by A K A Stone
Keywords: Creationists:, scientists?, they
Views: 2404
Comments: 382
As an astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle (author of chapters 5, 6, and 10 of War of the Worldviews) knows that a belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not needed to understand how planets orbit the sun or how telescopes operate. While some evolutionists are spreading the false idea that creationists can’t be real scientists, Lisle is busy doing real science. In fact, he (along with hundreds of other scientists) knows that science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Dr. David Menton, cell biologist and popular AiG speaker and writer, has often said that although it is widely believed, “evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.” As Lisle points out in this chapter, even the rise of technology is not due to a belief in evolution. He writes, “Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics, which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible.” So, why are there such differences between evolutionary scientists and creation scientists if both groups have the same evidence? Lisle addresses these differing conclusions by explaining that each group starts with different assumptions when interpreting evidence. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Lisle writes that both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists generally agree on these models. For instance, they agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, etc. On the other hand, historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. We don’t have access to the past. As Lisle points out, we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from fossils and rocks, but we cannot directly test our conclusions because past events cannot be repeated. With evolutionists and creationists having such different views of history, is it any wonder that each group arrives at such varying interpretations? Biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point while evolutionists reject this recorded history and have made up their own pseudo-history from which to interpret evidence, Lisle explains. The fact that there are scientists who believe in biblical creation is nothing new. In this chapter, Lisle discusses several “real” scientists who believe in the Genesis account of creation, including Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, and computed the nature of planetary orbits, among other things. Today, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, as recorded in Scripture. As Lisle points out, his Ph.D. research (which was completed at a secular university) was not hindered by the conviction that the early chapters of Genesis are literally true. In fact, it’s just the reverse, he writes. “It is because a logical God created and ordered the universe that I, and other creationists, expect to be able to understand aspects of that universe through logic, careful observation and experimentation,” Lisle explains. Lisle concludes the chapter by posing the question, “Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver?” “If our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by God, as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature. Science is possible because the Bible is true,” says Lisle.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: Feynman Lives!, christine (#5)
:) Jerk - you are certainly not a RF. He prolly would have got the connection between freedom4um and welcome to 4, ya think?
Tom, I never claimed to be Richard Feynman, especially because he died in 1988. I am simply a fan of his work and how he lived his life. I have noticed that the people on this site are very big on name calling when it comes to people who disagree with them, how ironic.
O for G=d's sake.
I didn't disagree with you, you were just being a jerk, very simple.
So you AGREE with me AND you call me names? How am I being a jerk?
"It's an Inside Job" christine posted on 2006-02-12 15:12:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #3. To: christine (#2) Level 4? Please explain... Should I have brought my hip boots? Feynman Lives! posted on 2006-02-12 15:19:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #4. To: Feynman Lives! (#3) 4 as in short for Freedom4um. "It's an Inside Job" christine posted on 2006-02-12 15:30:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #5. To: christine (#4) Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!) :) Feynman Lives! posted on 2006-02-12 15:35:12 ET If you can't figure it out... Maybe you need to consider how you come across to others, the decoder ring statement and the "most useful" statement is fifth grade pompousness. But I will put aside all of this and let it go - maybe you are not the troll "Richard" that got canned for being a disruptor a week or so ago (tho you really sound exactly alike). If so, I do apologize.
Maybe you need to consider how you come across to others, the decoder ring statement and the "most useful" statement is fifth grade pompousness. But I will put aside all of this and let it go - maybe you are not the troll "Richard" that got canned for being a disruptor a week or so ago (tho you really sound exactly alike). If so, I do apologize. Tom, Clearly you read the worst into EVERYTHING. I was being PLAYFUL with Christine. "Level 4" sounded like a secret access, so I was keeping in her playful vein. Who the hell is Richard, and what did he do to your family? I happen to be a fan of RICHARD FEYNMAN, do you have a hatred for all things Richard? (for the record, MY name is Monty - I hope you don't hate that name as well) Why are you taking all of this mis-directed anger out on ME? I didn't do anything to you and you are being King of the Assholes to me. Go talk to a counsellor. I was looking for a site that had access to many global newspapers, and your site came up (it rocks if you like to read international newspapers). I found your chatboard to be intruiging, and thought I would join in the fray. Now, I will accept your apology if you stop trying to antagonize me.
Monty? It's been awhile :P
Zipporah, How the heck did you do that picture? ROFLMAO! (uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel)
(uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel) it's Monty Rock .. whacko from the 70s!
LOL! He does, he really does! Good call.
Ahhhh.... do I get a secret decoder ring? (it would have been most useful to decode your first statement!)
#20. To: tom007 (#19)
Jerk - you are certainly not a RF. He prolly would have got the connection between freedom4um and welcome to 4, ya think?
#21. To: Feynman Lives! (#20)
I never claimed to be Richard Feynman, especially because he died in 1988. I
#22. To: Feynman Lives! (#20)
I have noticed that the people on this site are very big on name calling when it comes to people who disagree with them, how ironic.
#23. To: tom007 (#22)
I didn't disagree with you, you were just being a jerk, very simple.
#24. To: Feynman Lives! (#23)
hi Feynman Lives!, welcome to 4.
#25. To: tom007 (#24)
If you can't figure it out...
#26. To: Feynman Lives! (#25)
Monty
#27. To: Zipporah (#26)
#28. To: Feynman Lives! (#27)
How the heck did you do that picture? ROFLMAO!
#29. To: Feynman Lives! (#27)
uh, and who the heck is that dandy? He looks like the love child of Tom Jones and Art Garfunkel
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#30. To: Elliott Jackalope (#29)
It creeps me out that this photo is NOT some kind of photoshop creation... this guy was a real person? Well, he certainly had a good self image! LOL
#31. To: Feynman Lives! (#30)
There is only explanation possible, or needed. "Hey, it was the 70's". Anyone who was there will quickly nod and smile a sad, wry smile of understanding.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: Feynman Lives! (#30)
We should all, I think, respect the thought and work of Richard Feynman, arguably one of the finest mathematical minds of the 20th century, a specialist in, teacher of and contributor to quantum mechanics. He was also humble. He said that anyone who maintained they understood quantum mechanics hadn’t studied it enough, or words to that effect. The flood “myth” is found among virtually all the peoples of the world and should thus not be discounted. (Myth is in quotes as some use it these days as a synonym for “lie”, a very bad habit, because myth can convey more truth than supposed fact.) A tsunami of cataclysmic proportions would fill the bill. And Evolution does not come close to being established scientific theory. It is failed hypothesis at the very best. Basically, Evolution has never been seen to occur, in the lab or in nature, despite decades of effort in the lab (fruit flies). Mutation has, however, been shown to be uniformly destructive of genetic information, hardly a fact that favors evolution. And on and on … I respectfully suggest that you need to again review the facts and evidence before you conclude that Evolution is not full of holes. We inhabit a universe that is eloquently and beautifully mathematical, and beyond all rational expectation. It is “governed” by the mathematical laws of physics. There is no “reason” why this should be so, but it is. Do these laws just happen to be? Did they appear out of nowhere? Or is it consistent to think these laws were “written” by a Creator far deeper and more able than our capacity to comprehend? I think that it is. Welcome to 4um.
#33. To: tom007 (#24)
Aric2000 is back on LP this morning - after about being away for about a year.
#34. To: Feynman Lives! (#18)
don't have much time. Prove they are 3 or 4 million years old. Radio carbon dating dated fresh rocks from mt st helens ant millions of years. Keep worshipping the white shirts.
dating 3–4 million years ago.
Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it - Thomas Jefferson
#35. To: Phaedrus (#32)
Phaedrus, I never stated that the scientific theory of evolution has answered 100% of the questions in the universe. Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations. By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion need not conflict. Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for this change. Individuals change throughout their lifetimes; they grow, receive injuries, color their hair, or pierce their eyebrows. These changes are not evolutionary, because they cannot be inherited by the next generation. The changes are lost when the individual possessing them dies. Individuals do not evolve, only populations evolve. Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change. The biological definition of a species embodies this concept: a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed. This point is very important: species always consist of changing and interbreeding populations. There never was a irst ‘saber-toothed cat,’ ‘first mastodon,’ or ‘first dinosaur.’ Instead, there was a first population of interbreeding individuals that we call ‘saber-toothed cats,’ or ‘mastodons,’ or ‘dinosaurs.’ At any given time in the past, members of populations of a species were capable of interbreeding. In Darwin’s time, the nature of inheritance and the cause of variation were very poorly understood. The scientific understanding of heredity began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s in Brno, Czech Republic. This understanding accelerated throughout the 20th century and now includes knowledge of chromosomes, genes, and DNA with its double helix. Evolution could not occur without genetic variation. The ultimate source of variation can now be understood as changes or mutations in the sequence of the building blocks of the genetic material carried on the chromosomes in eggs and sperm. I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies that show how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: -Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli. -Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas. -Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. -Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast. -Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Here are the basics for what is required for evolution: 1. All organisms produce far more offspring than can survive to adulthood and reproduce. This means that many of those offspring will die without reproduction. 2. Organisms vary in many ways, and much of that variation is heritable - that is, variations that exist in the parents are passed on to the offspring. 3. Some of those heritable, variable traits affect an organism's fitness - its ability to survive to reproductive maturity. 4.(This is the kicker.) Those traits that increase an organism's fitness will tend to be passed on to the organism's offspring and to subsequent generations. However, there IS evidence in nature that shows the evolution of many species over millions of years, man included. You need only look back in the last century and see how man is evolving. We have managed to find ways to significanlty increase our population, are taller, live longer, and infant mortality rates have dropped dramatically. I appreciate your reverence for the good Dr. Feynman, a man who thought that the entire concept of religion was ridiculous.
Evolution has never been seen to occur, in the lab or in nature, despite decades of effort in the lab (fruit flies).
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Stone, I am curious, just how old do you think the earth is?
#37. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#35)
The problem with evolution is not that theory exists - I have no problem with a theory existing, including this one. What I have a problem with is that the existence of this theory has become a quasi-religious belief in the scientific community that precludes all other possibilities. Evolution has in practice, ceased being a theory and has become a DOGMA. I would like to see evolution, in the true scientific spirit, turned back into a THEORY. Then we could consider other THEORIES along side it.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Stone, It is hysterical that a guy who clings to religion is quoting Thomas Jefferson, a man who was insistent that religion play NO PART in the formation of this nation.
#39. To: mehitable (#37)
Mehitable, I don't understand why evolution would concern you so much. However, if you can show me another valid scientific theory that could be taught along side of it, I would be happy to look at it. Before you get started, remember, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it is religion dressed up as science. But if you can show me another valid scientific theory, I would be interested in hearing about it.
#40. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#39)
Just by saying that Intelligent Design IS NOT a scientific theory, you are framing the debate by excluding anything that contradicts your point of view. That's not how debate works. I'm not a scientist myself and personally - I don't care how life came to be on earth or whether it exists anywhere else, so I'm the wrong person to ask. I'll leave it to someone else to debate anyone scientific theories that exist out there. One thing that I may simply throw out to you is that evolution for many decades (it may have changed somewhat recently) postulated incredibly slow changes in organisms. Well, that's part of the scientific religioius dogma - what if these mutations occurred spontaneously and represented ENORMOUS changes from one form of life to another? I think there's much we don't know and we should keep open minds. Blandly accepting the THEORY of evolution as dogma, which I believe you do, stops us from considering other possibilities or variations of possibilities. It stops thought.
#41. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#39)
It is not "evolution" that concerns me. It is dogma that replaces thought and debate with intellectual sclerosis. I don't want to simply be told what to believe just because some group of scientists consider this idea preferable to all others because it seems to preclude a "God". That is THEIR bias. Whether life evolved somehow through microrganisms (although that still does not explain what the ultimate origin of even those minutes things would be) or through some form of Intelligent Design, or was created by a gigantic Fudge Covered Marshmallow, does not concern me. I deal with what is here now.
I don't understand why evolution would concern you so much.
#42. To: mehitable (#40)
Mehitable, First off, you just stated one of the principles of what evolution IS. Mutations that occur spontaneously and represent changes from one life form to another over time. Well done! Now, getting to your other point. By stating accuraltely that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory I am merely properly categorizing it, not framing the debate. Intelligent Design does not contradict my point of view. It is not even in the scope of the topic. You can't bring tomatoes to a lecture on meat and say that they are framing the debate by excluding your tomatoes as potentially being meat. Like I said, bring me a valid, supportable theory and I will look at it openly.
One thing that I may simply throw out to you is that evolution for many decades (it may have changed somewhat recently) postulated incredibly slow changes in organisms. Well, that's part of the scientific religioius dogma - what if these mutations occurred spontaneously and represented ENORMOUS changes from one form of life to another?
#43. To: mehitable (#41)
I deal with what is here now. Then why are you even the slightest bit concerned with this topic? The theory of evolution is not telling you what to belive any more than the theory of gravity is. Or don't you believe in the theory of gravity either?
It is not "evolution" that concerns me.
#44. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#43)
I just answered that in my previous post to you. Obviously you have difficulty either comprehending or communicating, and I think you are merely being argumentative towards anyone who remotely challenges the sanctity of your "theory". As for the theory of gravity, I can see the effects of gravity directly - personally. I do, however, possess enough flexiblity of mind to conceive that there may be conditions or circumstances that affect or even nullify the theory of gravity. If you have done any study of mysticism you would be aware of such assertions. My personal belief is that all theories are fine until something comes up to disaprove them - and when that happens those adherents of "theories" ignore the fact and cling to the idea. I would advise you also to read up on the findings of Charles Fort.
#45. To: Zipporah (#28)
ZIPPPPPPPP - I LOVE MONTY ROCK!!!! wasn't it Monty Rock the 3rd???? I used to watch him on the Merv Griffin show back in the Stone Age. (or was that the Stoned Age)????? He was....kewwwl.
#46. To: mehitable (#44)
Mehitable, I am not trying be deliberately argumentative, I am trying to have a discussion that does not waver off into some fairey land where magical things can happen. You say that you can see evidence of the theory or gravity. Good. Well, I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies that show how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: All of these are DIRECT evidence that evolution DOES occur. Thus, the theory is being proved before your very eyes. Again, not being deliberately argumentative, just unafraid to deal with facts instead of mythology. And I appreciate your candor in this discussion.
I think you are merely being argumentative towards anyone who remotely challenges the sanctity of your "theory". As for the theory of gravity, I can see the effects of gravity directly - personally. My personal belief is that all theories are fine until something comes up to disaprove them
-Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
-Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
-Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas.
-Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast.
-Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
-Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
-Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
#47. To: Feynman Lives!, all (#46)
Once upon a time, people explained lightening and thunder and echoes and tons of other things that we now have some "scientific" basis for, in terms of magic. That was the limit of their understanding and it made sense to them. In fact, for generations, they could not perceive it could be anything other than whatever their society considered "true". Perhaps those things that you consider science now, are lacking in some element of magic, and those things that you now consider "magic" have simply not passed beyond the frontiers of science? I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things to occur in patterns. In being so occupied, you miss both the exceptional thing and the possibility of other, less material, dimensions that interact with ours. Again, I urge you to go forth and read Charles Fort, that you may be acquainted with the exceptional. You'll understand my point after you've done some reading.
I am not trying be deliberately argumentative, I am trying to have a discussion that does not waver off into some fairey land where magical things can happen.
#48. To: All (#47)
This should read: I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things that occur in patterns.
I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things to occur in patterns.vv
#49. To: Feynman Lives! (#35)
that's a very well reasoned argument, imo, and i think to deny evolution is to deny reality. it seems that folks want to make it much more complicated than it is. i also agree that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
#50. To: mehitable (#47)
Mehitable, You err in your estimation of my background. I am VERY familiar with Fort's work, and I would say that he was essentially a satirist hugely skeptical of human beings'--especially scientists'--claims to ultimate knowledge. He is funny to read, articualte and very interesting. So, now that I have passed your reading test, AND I still hold the same view point... what is your position?
I would say you have a narrow mind, focused too intently on material things to occur in patterns. In being so occupied, you miss both the exceptional thing and the possibility of other, less material, dimensions that interact with ours.
#51. To: christine (#49)
Thanks Christine, I agree that religion and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
#52. To: Feynman Lives! (#50)
My position is that you didn't understand Charles Fort's work.
#53. To: mehitable (#52)
Fort is considered by many as the father of modern paranormalism, not only because of his interest in strange phenomena, but because of his "modern" attitude towards religion, 19th century spiritualism, and scientific dogma. As a writer Fort was highly stylistic, blending passion and poetry, and his books are littered with quotes full of humor and insight. My favorite quote of his is "If there is a universal mind, must it be sane?" I understand his work just fine, Mehitable...
#54. To: Feynman Lives! (#35)
Whenever I run into someone such as yourself that attempts to bowl me over with lots of volume in the debate over Evolution, I find it worthwhile to parse their post. You are being so honored. Your post is in italics. I never stated that the scientific theory of evolution has answered 100% of the questions in the universe. Nor did I characterize your position as such. Evolution is also one of the most misunderstood and controversial concepts in the eyes of the general public. So you assert. I don’t think so. This situation is unfortunate, because the controversy surrounding evolution is unnecessary. No, it’s not; i.e. the controversy is absolutely necessary. Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Does it? Maybe. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations. By definition, science is unable to confirm or deny the existence or work of a Creator; such questions are beyond the realm of science. As a scientific concept, evolution therefore can make no reference to a Creator. To be clear, my quarrel with Evolution is that its hypotheses are unsupported, are in fact contradicted, by the evidence. It does not stem from my knowledge of (not belief in) a Creator. Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. So what? I would say they’re misled and, again, my position does not rely on the authority of the Bible or any Christian denomination. Science and religion need not conflict. Evolution and Christianity are in inherent conflict to the extent that Evolution is Materialist, which is by definition Atheist. Numerous lines of evidence show that life has changed through time. “Change” is extremely vague and is not adequate to show the evolution of one species into another. And what is the mechanism of change? Where is the evidence that ANY specific species has evolved into another. Among million (s) of species, where are the transitional forms? Science explains, it doesn’t speculate. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for this change. WHAT change and WHAT explanation? Individuals change throughout their lifetimes; they grow, receive injuries, color their hair, or pierce their eyebrows. These changes are not evolutionary, because they cannot be inherited by the next generation. The changes are lost when the individual possessing them dies. Individuals do not evolve, only populations evolve. If it’s not evolution, why discuss it? Species evolve over successive generations as their local populations interbreed and change. You are asserting it. You have not shown it. The biological definition of a species embodies this concept: a species is a group of naturally occurring populations that can interbreed and produce offspring that can interbreed. This point is very important: species always consist of changing and interbreeding populations. There never was a [f] irst ‘saber-toothed cat,’ ‘first mastodon,’ or ‘first dinosaur.’ Instead, there was a first population of interbreeding individuals that we call ‘saber- toothed cats,’ or ‘mastodons,’ or ‘dinosaurs.’ A “first population”? So, did you will them into being? That is not science, that’s supposition. At any given time in the past, members of populations of a species were capable of interbreeding. In Darwin’s time, the nature of inheritance and the cause of variation were very poorly understood. The scientific understanding of heredity began with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 1860s in Brno, Czech Republic. This understanding accelerated throughout the 20th century and now includes knowledge of chromosomes, genes, and DNA with its double helix. Evolution could not occur without genetic variation. Well, OK, but so what? The ultimate source of variation can now be understood as changes or mutations in the sequence of the building blocks of the genetic material carried on the chromosomes in eggs and sperm. Ah, the crux of the matter -- it is a fact that mutation has not been shown to result in new species. That is pure conjecture on your part, speculation. The evidence is that mutations are destructive of genetic information, not creative. I am not sure if you are unaware but there have been MANY studies thatsshow how evolution has occurred in lab conditions. For example: -Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli. -Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas. -Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas. -Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast. -Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. -Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. It is well-known that species exhibit genetic variation within sometime broad boundaries (dogs) while maintaining their species integrity. It has NEVER been shown that one species evolves into another, either in nature or in the lab. The operative word is shown And so on … You have not established anything but that Evolution succeeds in explaining nothing.
#55. To: Phaedrus (#54)
"So what? I would say they’re misled and, again, my position does not rely on the authority of the Bible or any Christian denomination." So, you disagree with Christine? Interesting.
Many people of faith, including scientists, find no conflict between evolution and their religion; in fact, many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution.
#56. To: Feynman Lives! (#55)
Interesting. Try to stay with the debate instead of changing the subject, unless of course you are aware that you're losing it.
So, you disagree with Christine?
#57. To: Feynman Lives! (#53)
Apparently you don't. What Fort did was collect VAST amounts of data of extremely unusual or bizarre anomalies, such as rains of unusual substances or creatures, that did not fit into what was then (and now) thought of as scientifically possible. Science usually focuses on (or accepts) only phenomena that occur (or re-occur) in a regular pattern, thus anomalies usually remain scientific orphans, although they may be perfectly valid phenomena. They just don't fit into observable patterns. Sometimes a phenomena may be a one time event or something that happens every 50,000 years - but it's still valid. Fort was not a satirist although he frequently had a wry tone. To call him a satirist is to belittle his work, and to imply that he did not believe in what he was doing and was creating a work of fiction. He was ultimately a collector of inconvenient facts that developers of "theories" ignore as the actual "facts" don't fit into their theories. He didn't know what the explanations of these pheneomona were (just as I don't), nor did he pretend to. What he knew was that the existence of these phenomena were either derided, just as you've done, or ignored, BECAUSE they didn't fit into current ideas, theories or methods of scientists. Fort was not a satirist - he was just anti-DOGMA - a condition that can afflict science as easily as religion.
#58. To: Phaedrus, all (#54)
This assertion is correct. It has never - unless someone can show me now - been shown that one species evolves into another. What evolutionists proffer as proof of evolution consists of changes - however dramatic - within ONE species. A dog is a dog is a dog. A flower is a flower is a flower. I don't think dogs will ever mutate into flowers or vice versa. To the best my knowledge it has NEVER been shown that one species has ever evolved into another. So how did everything come into being - through what mechanism? Something I believe God created, but exactly how? I have no idea and neither does any one else.
It is well-known that species exhibit genetic variation within sometime broad boundaries (dogs) while maintaining their species integrity. It has NEVER been shown that one species evolves into another, either in nature or in the lab.
.
.
.
Comments (59 - 382) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest