|
"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 may consider it a phyisical impossiblity, but I say it is ridiculous. I don't know how you can say this. Mathematically, does 2+2=4? Is this not absolutally true?
I guess I am not sure what you are saying.
"Just because it has *some* function does not mean it isn't vestigial."
It has a purpose. It is not vestigal.
"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?"
In most cases. Not in all. My Father has his, I had mine pulled. So what? My Father uses his, I do not. Not a vestigal organ.
"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?"
The tailbone works perfectly for the things it is supposed to. That is why God used it's design in many animals.
"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."
I don't know why God did this. I don't know why God did a lot of things. Does not mean he didn't!
"Why is the Cambrian explosion evidence for creationism?"
Oh come on. You have heard of this, right?
I know you don't like ICR, but get over it.
Read this:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-137.htm
Me: "And I do not believe these to be a fact. There is much debate today over continental drift."
You: "What?! No there's not, and if there is, it is not serious. Continental drift ABSOLUTELY takes place. The crust is floating on magma."
Sorry, should have been more specific. I know we are floating on magma, but the debate is over the drifting of the continents. Pangea and how the continents fit and etc. Not everyone agrees how the continents drifted throughout earth's history.
That is what I meant.
Me: "You have observational evidence. Macroevolution does not."
You: "Yes it does. Again, read my link on transitional fossils."
So you can observe Macroevolution right now? By going into a labrotory you can observe and repeat macroevolution? No. The past can not be scientifically proven.
Me: "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."
You: "Urge to kill..... rising......"
I'm ordering a restraining order right now. :)
Why do you want to kill me? Don't you think your grand theory should be able to at least account for what started it? I mean, why do you think this point is not valid?
"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."
That's peachy keen, but if you believe in evolution then you do believe that the universe had an origin a long time ago and you do believe that life arose from non-living material, right? There is no way around those if you believe in evolution. So you make two assumptions about what happened and base your whole theory on those unproven assumptions. If those assumptions are false, your theory crumbles. Here is what I mean.
If the universe is not old, as in 10,000 years or less, evolution is false. If life did not arise from non-living things, then macroevolution could not happen. Shouldn't you be trying to prove those things? If those are false, the theory is wrong.
Your title: "Naive Views Of What Science, And We As Humans, Are Capable Of"
No offense, but thank you Mario for telling me what science is capable of. Your incredible 19 year old mind just blew my 16 year old mind out of the water. Come on, who are you to say what science is capable of? Who are you to say my idea is naive? You all speak as if you are all the authority on these issues, but be realistic! Mario, you are a smart guy, but could you really have learned what science is capable of in 19 years? I'm only 3 years behind you, and I don't think there is any way I could have gathered that information.
It's nearing 1:00 in the morning, and I am tired.
I'm glad you have found the strengh to hold those kung-fu fists so far Mario. Let's hope this post does not push you over the edge. :)
From a very tired KC2GWX, 73's, and QSY.
|
