Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
No, It Is Not

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on June 4, 2002 04:48:40 UTC

"Science must be observable and able to test through experimentation."

We have a decent record of transitional fossil history. (Archaeopteryx, for example) We have direct evidence showing microevolution. (white/black moths, adapting bacteria) We have evidence to show that we are related to other life in a fundamental way (suggesting relation.) We have vestigial body parts, that serve little or no purpose, that function well in other animals. (appendix, wisdom teeth, tailbone, male nipples) We see that the fossil record is striated, with more complex animals near the top of the earth, and increasingly simple ones near the bottom. Evolution is the theory that strings all these observations together, and you say it's unscientific? You have unreasonable expectations of what science can accomplish.

I posted a link with an absolute deluge of traits of different transitional fossils several times, but I haven't heard a peep from you (just Aaron) Did you look at it? I can post it again.

"No one has seen macroevolution happen, but you have faith that it does."

Do you believe continental drift takes place, Sam? Do you believe the moon drifts closer and further away from the earth in cyclical patterns throughout the eons? Why? We can't observe it in our lifetimes. The moon won't loom monstrously large in the horizon while we're around. The hill outside my house won't become a mountain in a day. Simply because it goes slowly does not make it impossible to predict and evaluate. What we have is genetic, fossil, and physiological evidence to suggest that such evolution does take place. According to your position, would you be of the opinion that the statement 'black holes exist' to be based more on faith than science? Of course not. No one has ever flown up to a black hole and verified that they really exist. What we have is observational evidence (the bending of light around seemingly empty space) to suggest that they exist. And this is all that science can hope to do: make probabilistic statements based on observational data. This is, by definition, NOT faith.

"You do not know how life arose from non-living material, but you have faith it does.

You do not know how the universe started, but you have faith that it does."

This is another issue entirely. Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Evolution does not exclude God.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins