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
Naive Views Of What Science, And We As Humans, Are Capable Of

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on June 4, 2002 23:53:52 UTC

Sam, please realize that verifiable absolute truth is something that mankind, nor any organic system in the universe, will ever have. I consider it to be a physical impossibility. You're splitting the debate into two absolute sides, which is silly. "YES! EVOLUTION 100% ABSOLUTELY HAPPENED!" versus "NO! IT 100% ABSOLUTELY DIDN'T!" Harv said it well, you have unrealistic views of what science is capable of. The best we can do, especially in the case of unobservables, is to make inferences based on indirect evidence. But this does not mean that conclusions reached based on those inferences are based on faith, especially since, as I said before, science makes no absolute statements, only probabilistic ones. To say that evolution absolutely happened no matter what, yes, that is a faith based statement. Saying that it did happen based on all evidence accumulated thus far is NOT faith based. And this is the best we, as those inside the box, can hope for. Now, if you reinterpret the evidence, fine, but do it on a scientific basis, not a faithful one. And don't displace your own naive views on the goals of science onto science as a field. It does NOT operate the way you think it does (or should). So, let's deal with the evidence you presented:

"The appendix is in the lymphatic system, the wisdom teeth help if you don't have to have them pulled out, the tailbone has many uses including sitting, bowel and labor movments, ans supporting internal organs. And male nipples are a source of sexual stimuli."

The appendix is in the lymphatic system, granted, but its function is unneccesary, not crucial in any way, often detrimental, and far less functional than in other animals. Just because it has *some* function does not mean it isn't vestigial. It's on the way out.

Wisdom teeth are in most cases too big for the jaw to hold. Older apes that are predeccesors to us in the fossil record have larger jaws. Get the picture?

The tailbone has a purpose, sure, but the structure of it is identical to those of other animals. This suggests relation. Would you say that there is no more effecient bone that could exist there that would aid in all the functions you mentioned?

Male nipples are a source of sexual stimulation, granted. But do you mean to suggest that that is their primary function? That God decided to give man another erogenous zone, then, as a second thought, said to himself "Boy, those would make great orifices!" Silly, silly, silly. Why do the males have a design similar to that needed to feed an infant? Why the nipple? Why not just one big sensitive aureole? Because the sexual aspect to it is a secondary characteristic.

"Not really. Remember that Cambrian explosion? The fossil record has much evidence for creation, and many evolutionist are abandoning it."

Why is the Cambrian explosion evidence for creationism?

"And I do not believe these to be a fact. There is much debate today over continental drift."

What?! No there's not, and if there is, it is not serious. Continental drift ABSOLUTELY takes place. The crust is floating on magma.

"You have observational evidence. Macroevolution does not."

Yes it does. Again, read my link on transitional fossils.

"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."

Urge to kill..... rising......

Look, you're equating evolution to a philosophical theory on life, the universe, and everything. It's NOT! It's a scientific theory describing the change in species. That's IT. The origin of life and the origin of the universe are two different issues entirely. You can't just ball up everything that old earth folks think and call the whole thing 'evolution.' There are many parts to my opinions, and evolution is just ONE specific part of it.

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 1994-2024 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