Re: How can Science for Speciation explain the diversity of life?
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
>Glad to get this confirmation. Strange then that when I asked you what you expected if two rabbits (of appropriately opposite genders) over 6-12 months, you replied you were not sure what to expect.
> Charles P: Please tell Gluadys that I agree
> that rabbits multiply.
However, now I am reassured that you really do know what to expect. So we can continue exploring the second piece of evidence for evolution: in spite of the multiplicative faculty of rabbits and other species, a population very often does not increase in size.
You have already indicated this is something you have observed personally.
What is your theory as to why this situation exists?
- Gluadys: How does ID help us know that a scrabble tile is designed and not
a product of natural process? It is certainly not on the grounds of
complexity, specified or not.
Charles P: Evolution is easily recognized without knowing anything about
"The Evolutioner". Natural selection is easily recognized without knowing
anything about "The Natural Selector". Design is easily recognized without
knowing anything about "The Designer".
Perry Marshall: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/incompleteness/ G�del�s
Incompleteness Theorem says: �Anything you can draw a circle around cannot
explain itself without referring to something outside the circle �
something you have to assume but cannot prove.�
Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
Charles P: Evolution is inside the circle. Natural selection is inside
the circle. Design is inside the circle. All three are easily recognized
by the average reader without having to debate definitions. All three can
can't explain themselves without referring to something outside the circle
-- something we have to assume but can't prove.
James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29849 As
I like to repeat, if Newton could not get it right, what hope is there
for the rest of us? Vannevar Bush wrote that science is an
"endless frontier." We never get final answers. But then, we never run out
of fascinating questions to ask.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]