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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
More Misunderstanding Of Science

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on June 4, 2002 16:43:29 UTC

***"If it isn't observable and verifiable, it isn't scientific, by definition." This is my whole point. Macroevolution isn't observable and verifiable, it isn't scientific, by definition.***

As I mentioned to Mario (whom I think very well understands this issue, but you do not), a belief in an unobservable is not 'unscientific'. If that were the case, then we would have to admit to being stupified by the operation of the sun. No one has ventured into the core of the sun to observe the nuclear fusion supposedly taking place inside.

***"We have direct evidence showing microevolution. (white/black moths, adapting bacteria)" I know. As we have gone through many time, MICROevolution has nothing to do with MACROevolution.***

The whole problem here is that you haven't defined on what cannot change. We have evolution of bacteria speciation, but you reject this evidence as macroevolution. I have horrendous amounts of evidence of evolution in the fossil record, but you only want to see more evidence as the fossil record is 'filled in' by finding more and more fossils. At the time of Darwin, we had relatively few fossils connecting lifeforms. Not so today. [Of course, this issue is not about science it is about your belief in the bible, so I don't even know why I bother having this scientific discussion. We should be talking about biblical interpretation.]

***"We have evidence to show that we are related to other life in a fundamental way (suggesting relation.)" Suggesting? Is that scientific evidence?***

Of course. The fact that you don't know that strong inferences is part of science demonstrates your gross misunderstanding of science.

***The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe? Wouldn't that be a HUGE piece of the puzzle missing? I mean, you are making this huge theory, but it has no begining? And I think evolution should be able to acount for where life came from. Come on, you are obviously showing your pre-bias right now. 'We don't know how the universe started, but it did. And we don't know how life arose, but it did.' See what I am saying! It is based on faith!***

This is entirely a misunderstanding of science. The theory of biological evolution does not include cosmology. There is some possibility that stellar evolution might contribute to our understanding on how life arose on earth, but for now it is entirely speculative on the origin of life.

This is not disconcerting to evolutionary theory since it deals with one segment at a time. For example, we don't need to know how the universe formed to understand recent star formation in nebulas. We don't need to understand the origin of mammalian evolution to understand the origin of primate evolution, and we don't necessarily need to understand primate evolution to understand the evolution of humans. These are non-related issues. By the mere fact that you don't understand these issues demonstrates to me that you are not qualified to discuss evolutionary science since you don't even understand the basics of science.

Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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