Posted on 09/05/2011 5:17:21 PM PDT by SJackson
No, science is all about questioning.
Does worshiping the Oracle Gore make you Anti-Science?
no, just ask hugh ross.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
It is reasonable to assume that in addition to Iran, Israel's response would target perceived conventional threats in the region, given Israel's post strike inability to confront a conventional attack
Until it runs into something like globull warming. Then, at best, it separates into blocs of differing faiths.
It depends what you mean by “evolution”. On the one hand, it’s a well-established scientific theory. One the other, it is seen as an attempt to eliminate God from the question of how did life in the world come to be what it is now.
No, science is all about questioning.You are right.
Science is about making testable, refutable hypotheses. The hypotheses don’t have to explain everything (e.g. “how did life begin?”) but if they must be consistent with all known facts in order to be accepted. Any and every hypothesis is just one conflicting discovery away from modification or the trash. Newtonian physics sure seemed pretty good, but the orbit of Mercury just couldn’t be reconciled with it. It took general relativity to get that correct.
There is evidence for evolution, such as weeds acquiring the characteristics of crops they grow among, so as to avoid being picked, or moths getting darker when pollution was worse, to avoid being eaten by birds, but it’s quite hard to come up with testable hypotheses regarding microscopic, highly improbable chemical reactions in the oceans billions of years ago. So some of those questions verge on the unscientific.
Look at the fish that can turn colors to match the background to be able to become stealth to its predators. THAT'S a miracle!
It depends what you mean by “evolution”. On the one hand, it’s a well-established scientific theory. One the other, it is seen as an attempt to eliminate God from the question of how did life in the world come to be what it is now.
Now, was this mechanism entirely responsible for the generation of human beings? That is certainly not a proven theory, and anyone who cares about science will respect those who question the hypothesis.
‘Expelled’ is a great documentary-very ‘accessible’.
‘Signature in the Cell’ by Stephen J. Meyer is fantastic.
Also, look for the movie, ‘Metamorphosis’, Plummer Auditorium, Fullerton, CA. September 17th.
Either way, if we don’t agree on the definition of the term, then the argument is meaningless.
A simple challenge: Please read the following description of the world’s creation.
————
Everything was created. Suddenly and with great violence, but with uncalculable forces in the darkness. From this energy, light condensed a short while later. Then matter was created as the light energy further cooled. A period of time passed.
The earth and solar system was formed from the galactic dust and interstellar plasmas, gathering together and cooling into the individual spheres (the planets and their atmospheres) and the sun we see rotating around our sky today. Another period of time passed.
Down here on the earth itself, one continent was formed surrounded by one single massive sea, later breaking up and re-connecting by continental drift into the continents and seven seas everybody is familiar with today. Once dry, cool (non-volcanic) land appeared, the first plants began growing, changing the original inhospitable and deadly atmosphere of toxic and light-absorbing gasses into the clear and viable combination of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and carbon dioxide we need (the balance of gasses that all life needs on earth!) to survive today. These first plants kept growing for another while longer.
Well, the atmosphere was finally clear enough for visible light to be transmitted through the previously dark atmosphere, and suddenly the available energy on the surface grew large enough to support more life, higher forms of life above simple plants.
So animal life grew – first in the warm tropic seas as fish and amphibians, then on land with dinosaurs (who evolved into birds) and then modern large mammals. Man finally straggled onto the scene, very late behind everything else.
Now, having read that summary (theory) of how the earth was formed, then how life on earth was formed, please tell me where it came from: an obscure word-of-mouth tradition starting some 5000-odd years ago by itinerant shepherds who didn’t even have a “zero” to count upon, much less decimal points to keep track of time; or the latest 20th century particle physics textbooks, archeology, geology and oceanographic references, biology and taxology theories, and astronomical discoveries.
And, if you cannot tell the difference, then how “did” that bunch of wandering professors (er, ignorant shepherds) get all of it so right?
ML/NJ
That’s a lovely piece of writing, but I’m not sure what it has to do with my comments.
Ann Coulter points out that indeed there are some "gaps" in the theory.
And yet two jundred some years into the industrial revolution, the peppered moth has yet to evolve into a different species.
Let’s look at it this way: no person in their right mind could credibly argue that 2+2 always equals 4; that light travels 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum; that a feather and a 100-pound weight will fall at the same rate of speed through a vacuum; and so forth. There is no controversy regarding these because they have been and can be proved time and time again. That is true science.
Not so with evolution. It is a theory (at least at the macro level) fraught with controversy, illogic, unproveable suppositions, and essentially no credible explanation for the current state of life on earth.
So who cares what Paul Krugman - for whom I have no respect when it comes to economics - and the others who believe in the religion of evolution - thinks? I certainly do not. Having a Ph.D. in any discipline only shows you have studied something in detail as presented by your professors. It says nothing about how the tenets of that discipline are applied. And that is why people like Krugman have no credibility with me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.