Originally posted by KellyJayYes I have. Of course you are now going to start a whole discusion on the meaning of 'witness'.
Let me ask you, have you witnessed major evolutionary change?
Has any major evolutionary change every been recorded anywhere,
outside of someone connecting dots on what they 'think' might
be the right way to look at fossils?
Yes they have. And in addition to that connecting the dots is what science is all about.
Has anyone seen in a lab or the wild anything outside of small changes within living systems?
Please make a definition of 'small changes' as the usual creationist game is to move such goal posts every time a proof is provided until the definition becomes something like this: A small change is anything that can be seen in the lab".
I believe you will see that the only thing supporting the belief system that is evolution, is how people connect the dots within the fossil record, which may or may not be true, when it comes to major changes in life.
I was not convinced of the validity of evolution by looking at the fosil record. I do not consider the fosil record to be essential to the Theory but it is certainly evidence of its validity. Predictions are made by the theory about what sort of fosils should be found and where (age/strata) they should be expected to be found and discoveries are then made which match these predictions. This is a hallmark of a good scientific Theory.
It is a belief, a matter of faith, it is not anything that can be shown as true to that degree only believed.
Kelly
Shown as true to what degree? Evolution is neither true nor false. It is a scientific Theory. Again I will say, you clearly do not understand what science is.
The only belief or faith involved in my case is my belief and faith that the scientific method is the best way to seek the answers to my questions about the universe.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWe can to this day see the echo of the Big Bang in the form of background electromagnetic radiation, it was exactly where (in the spectrum) it was predicted to be.
Creation is not science it is a singlar supernatual event, it can only
be taken on faith. I got news for you, if you believe in the the big
bang or some steady state universe, you are in the murky depths
of creationism resides in.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is the bloody problem?!
Let me ask you, have you witnessed major evolutionary change?
Has any major evolutionary change every been recorded anywhere,
outside of someone connecting dots on what they 'think' might
be the right way to look at fossils? Has anyone seen in a lab or the
wild anything outside of small changes within living systems? I
believe you will see that the onl ...[text shortened]... r of faith, it is not anything that can be
shown as true to that degree only believed.
Kelly
Why is it so hard to accept evolution? It does not in any way conflict with religious faith.
It's a non issue ...
Originally posted by amannionUnless, like Kelly, you believe the world was created in the last 5000 years and that the account of Genesis in the Bible is literal fact. It is this fanatical adherence to the word of the scripture which causes YECs to rebuke a theory which has been worked on for decades by hundreds of thousands of people around the world, the weight of evidence for which is staggering and which the majority of the population of the Western world take as true. As far as they're concerned, just that small decision to take someone else's word at a literal interpretation is more sensible than all the work by all the scientists in the field for all those years. You could say their scales are somewhat imbalanced, it makes me nauseous just thinking of the lack of sense required to make such a judgement.
What is the bloody problem?!
Why is it so hard to accept evolution? It does not in any way conflict with religious faith.
It's a non issue ...
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat of course depends on your definition of the word observed. Yes science requires evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as see with your own eyes. However observed may mean the existance of evidence. For example I have observed that you have a negative attitude towards evolution. I did not physically see your attitude, but there is plenty of evidence in these forums.
Science is based on what can be observed and reproduced.
Do you have any other definition?
[edit]If the words observed and reproduced were taken so narowly as to exclude evolution then it would also exclude almost all fields of what is accepted as science. An popular denial of evolution is that it has not been seen in a test tube. If all scientific study had to happen in test tubes then only a little bit of Chemistry might survive.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's utterly beside the point.
No. But a piano has to be built by someone... Unless you wish to play an imaginary one...😀
All you require is a piano, then you can play a piano.
All you require is life, then you can form a theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis is immaterial to the theory of evolution in the same way as piano building is to piano playing; sufficient, but not necessary.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAll you require is a piano, then you can play a piano.
That's utterly beside the point.
All you require is a piano, then you can play a piano.
All you require is life, then you can form a theory of evolution.
Abiogenesis is immaterial to the theory of evolution in the same way as piano building is to piano playing; sufficient, but not necessary.
And what a racket you'll hear if you don't have the necessary skills...
All you require is life, then you can form a theory of evolution.
This would be true for microevolution, yes.
What mechanism would you suggest for the creation of life? Why would evolution suddenly take over from whatever created life? How can you prove that the mechanism which created life was not responsible for what you think was done by the evolutionary process?
Abiogenesis is immaterial to the theory of evolution in the same way as piano building is to piano playing; sufficient, but not necessary.
Again applicable for microevolution. Macroevolution begs the point. It would be based on the premise, "In the beginning was life." This is based on a logical fallacy as you and I both know that life was created. You cannot play the piano before it was built.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course you can define a word to make it mean what you want it to mean.
That of course depends on your definition of the word observed. Yes science requires evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as see with your own eyes. However observed may mean the existance of evidence. For example I have observed that you have a negative attitude towards evolution. I did not physically see your attitude, but there is plenty of evi ...[text shortened]... scientific study had to happen in test tubes then only a little bit of Chemistry might survive.
Originally posted by dj2becker
And what a racket you'll hear if you don't have the necessary skills...
Irelevant
This would be true for microevolution, yes. Not for macroevolution...
Please back up this baseless assumption. The difference between the two terms is not in any way impacted on by abiogenisis. This is more of your ridiculous spewing of falsities.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanPlease back up this baseless assumption. The difference between the two terms is not in any way impacted on by abiogenisis. This is more of your ridiculous spewing of falsities.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]And what a racket you'll hear if you don't have the necessary skills...
Irelevant
This would be true for microevolution, yes. Not for macroevolution...
Please back up this baseless assumption. The difference between the two terms is not in any way impacted on by abiogenisis. This is more of your ridiculous spewing of falsities.[/b]
Macroevolution is based on the baseless assumption, "In the beginning was life..."
Now it is your turn to back up that baseless assumption.