Re: Official Divorce Agreement
In one breath you say evolution is fact, yet in another you say this? More evidence for the equivocation of evolution.
Proving evolution has produced a new species has yet to be done in an empirical manner and if your criticism is that it can't be done in a lab,
A fairly strong basis on which to remain skeptical, no?
Proving evolution has produced a new species has yet to be done in an empirical manner and if your criticism is that it can't be done in a lab, then you will probably always be a creationist.
As profound as that seems to allude, it is only so when the presupposition that man came from apes is present.
what we see as precursers to what makes a hominid a Homo Sapian is vast and much more convincing than a fossil record showing Homo Sapian as static and an original form.
No, in other words, scientists prefer to point to the few ambiguous examples as evidence of mans origin, rather than the lacking transitionals required to link synapsids to homonids and everything in between necessary, to even allows for the comparison to be made between homo Sapien and homonid. That is why accomplished paleontologists Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge came up with the theory punctuated equilibrium, because it is not a matter of insufficiency in the fossil record, it is a matter of counter-instances. Of course punctuated equilibrium is rejected by science because it acknowledges macromutations, which would not align with the dogma of Darwinist evolution, the current paradigm scientists strictly adhere to.
In other words, there is more evidence of man as an organism evolving from a lower species than man just being created.
American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould and Paleontologist Niles Eldrige:
"When Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution, we did so to grant stasis in phylogenetic lineages the status of 'worth reporting'- for stasis had previously been ignored as nonevidence of evolution, though all paleontologists knew its high relative frequency."
Gould described his position as, "the not-unreasonable relegation to the lunatic fringe that some paleontologists in the past had suffered when they too saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other." (Time Frames, Niles Eldredge, (Heinemann: London 1986),
"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence."
I'm sure you'll use the same tired argument that this is in opposition to "scientific consensus," so it is absurd, but consider not only how logically unappealing that argument is, but also how it is a direct misrepresentation of how major scientific break through historically occurs. The father of modern astronomy Copernicus, the father of modern physics Einstein, the father of modern chemistry Lavoisier, all went against, although some more than others, what was then considered as scientific fact. It's amusing, thought of how the structure of this debate would be identical hundred of years ago if you were arguing in favor of say, the phlogiston theory. The only notable difference here being their is an added element because of the origin of life issue. The dogma you pontificate is science in reverse; the origin of man from apes is the secular version of Adam and Eve, period.
While scientists can conveniently continue to hide there with us.
Creationists can conveniently hide behind the difficulties in collecting fossils millions of years old.
Considering how ambiguous all those are, I would imagine you would. I also imagine you would have been a huge 'Piltdown Man' flag waver as well.
Yet, the fossil record is quite rich with million year old samples of brain capacities, thumb positioning, pelvic angles and so on. Truthfully I like that record more than yours.
It is a matter of what is and will always be unexplainable that some of the worlds most brilliant men have been led to look to the heavens. You mocked me in my previous post about those who believe science will explain everything, but how else can you accept what transcends comprehension, other than a hope that it will one day be comprehensible?
So we should throw in the towel and look to the heavens? Religion is easy and it is made conveniently easier with the ambiguity of your only source; a 2000+ year old tome.
Einstein was as irreligious as a scientist as there was, and mocked in similar fashion the idea of a personal God. But he was adamant in his belief in a creator.
"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man"
To assume God "screwed a lot of things up," is to suggest that we know the absolutes that implicate perfection and purpose.
I do know though that if this god is as powerful as you claim he is he certainly did screw a lot of things up in his work.
Last edited by Sirdowski; 03-06-2012 at 03:20 PM.
“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”