Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evolution and Religion
Collapse
X
-
There are no anatomical correlations between a horse and a car. Of course every scientific theory is open to revision. Evolution is pretty damn soundproof, but still, it is not completely certain. Nothing is. What exactly is it that you're expecting here?
-
Originally posted by loseyourname There is no reason to question it, unless, as I said, you have some better explanation as to why the fossil record somehow deceives us into thinking that evolution took place. At some point, you're going to follow this reasoning into saying that the existence of the sun is a tautology. It appears to be there and so it must be there.
The fact that Darwin himself stated that the lack of intermediate forms presented a counter argument to his theory, is telling. Like I said, there are no intermediate forms. To couch this embarrassing fact, we have punctuated equilibria. And those that babble about "saltationism" well, that in itself contains another problem since it appears to be nothing more than a silly middle ground between evolution and special creation. In terms of fossil evidence saltation just means that we have a new form appearing out of no where and we havent the faintest idea how.
I believe there are enough questions to raise in every aspect of evolutionary thought, to keep doubt alive, to question it and not regurgitate like mindless sheep. Essentially you are in the field of science, thus you must atune to the establish academia or kiss your ass goodbye for dissent is not tolerated. Science becomes no more than an arena of politics and mass mindedness, since everyone believes it, it must be so.
The Emperors New Clothes is something that needs to be re-read by many.
So in the end, you insist one cannot question the fossil record, simply because it cannot be questioned, because it is assumed there is a progression. So what? There is a progression from a horse, to the automobile, yet one wouldn't assume the automobile evolved from the horse. I am left without a reason as to why I cannot question it.
Leave a comment:
-
There is no reason to question it, unless, as I said, you have some better explanation as to why the fossil record somehow deceives us into thinking that evolution took place. At some point, you're going to follow this reasoning into saying that the existence of the sun is a tautology. It appears to be there and so it must be there.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Orthodox Jews and Young-Earth Creationists doubt that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. That is not legitimate doubt. Again, you cannot refute the fossil record. There is a very obvious progression of closely related species leading to those that currently exist today. Unless you are suggesting they were separately created by some unknown means, and the fact that they appear to have evolved is simply coincidence, you must admit evolution. Any reasonable person will.
Leave a comment:
-
Orthodox Jews and Young-Earth Creationists doubt that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. That is not legitimate doubt. Again, you cannot refute the fossil record. There is a very obvious progression of closely related species leading to those that currently exist today. Unless you are suggesting they were separately created by some unknown means, and the fact that they appear to have evolved is simply coincidence, you must admit evolution. Any reasonable person will.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname There is no doubt that currently existing species came into being through the evolution of previously existing species. Why they evolved or how they evolved - that's where the doubt comes in. You can't refute the fossil record. Gaps in speciation do not place any doubt that evolution took place - hell, it is still observed to be taking place now.
Evolutionists essentially assume ( via faith ) that we evolved. It was never proved. In essence that is unscientific. In fact, evolution makes a logical fallacy in this instance. It is assumed we evolved so that part is non-questionable, how we evolved they say is what we don't know. It is the inverse of deductive reasoning. Sounds flawed to me.
I don't need to refute the fossil record. It refutes itself, and the behavior of evolutionists further confirms it.Last edited by Anonymouse; 01-17-2004, 04:27 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
There is no doubt that currently existing species came into being through the evolution of previously existing species. Why they evolved or how they evolved - that's where the doubt comes in. You can't refute the fossil record. Gaps in speciation do not place any doubt that evolution took place - hell, it is still observed to be taking place now.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname As Arvestaked pointed out to begin with, there can be no doubt that we came into existence through evolution. Why that evolution took place is a completely separate question.
Leave a comment:
-
None of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution and natural selection, which do not even attempt to answer these more esoteric, and essentially metaphysical questions. Those are left to religion. They each have their separate roles. As Arvestaked pointed out to begin with, there can be no doubt that we came into existence through evolution. Why that evolution took place is a completely separate question.
Leave a comment:
-
Me and the mouse agree. Start building a bomb shelter kids, the end is coming....
Science's explanations are all answers working backwords. Science can answer the "how's" well but not the "why's". Why did that first single cell organism that came out of the primortial goup want to live? Why did it seek self preservation? Only a few moments ago it was just a collection of checmicals but now it wants to live and multiply....What for?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: