- Dear Nathan:
You have some valid points worth considering.
My point on testifiable, and falsifiable.
Reproduce macroevolution in a laboratory, under the
observation of a scientist. Create life from an
inanimate object with a camera on your test tube on
Almost every major point of evolution takes a major
leap of faith on the part of the scientist.
1. All matter came from an explosion of nothing X
billion years ago.
Explode nothing and produce matter in a lab. No one
observes this, mainstream science believes this
without seeing it.
2. One of the balls of matter cooled and just
happened to get exactly all of the right combination
of elements to produce life. A few flashes of
lightning and you have life.
We have years of research on what conditions are
favorable to produce life. We have can chemically
synthesisize the primordial sea. We can produce the
lightning bolts. Creating life ought to be a common
Chemistry 101 lab experiment.
3. The amino acids in the primordial sea become cells
with DNA patterns that replicate themselves.
Show me someone's lab notes that demonstrates the jump
from a brew of organic chemicals to a one celled
4. One celled life evolves into more complex life.
If this is the basis for life we should see millions
of organisms in transition from one celled to more
At every stage of development of evolution the
scientist has to conjecture a hypothetical situation
which could have produced the next stage of
development in the process. Most of these
hypothetical situations are outside of his realm of
his experience, observation, and reproducibility.
Every gap in the process that logic wont bridge his
--- Nathan Shumate <nathanshumate@...> wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2002 at 16:38, Sidney Hagen wrote:__________________________________________________
> > All scientists start with a frame of reference
> > in their personal faith. If you start with the
> > based assumption that the supernatural doesn't
> > Then any theory on origins which references the
> > supernatural is discounted as religious
> > because it disagrees with your faith based
> > that their is no supernatural.
> Incorrect. The problem with most supernatural
> explanations is that
> they are either non-evidentiary (like how most
> miracle-workers can't
> perform under controlled conditions) or they
> pre-suppose a
> suspension of natural laws, which is kind of hard to
> > "Cremo & Thompson's work incorporates the
> > > supernatural realm. The
> > > supernatural is a matter of belief and cannot be
> > > proven correct or
> > > otherwise."
> > Neither creationism or mainstream
> > are testifiable and falsifiable. Both start with
> > faith based assumptions and see science filtered
> > through their frame of references.
> Incorrect. Mainstream paleoanthropology is indeed
> testifiable and
> falsifiable. Check your older textbooks and see the
> which have since been thrown out or revised because
> evidence became available -- a direct application of
> the scientific
> method. "Scientific creationism," on the other
> hand, assumes a
> divine cause which is by definition not subject to
> research; if one
> chooses, one can presuppose that God built the Moon
> with all of the overlapping impact craters intact,
> and implanted the
> memory of its existence into the collective memory
> of humankind for
> His own mysterious purposes. Now THAT's not
> > "Copernicus does not participate in any mainstream
> > > science research, nor
> > > do they produce a comparable amount of results
> > > published in peer-
> > > reviewed journals. In other words, they do not
> > > operate within any
> > > recognized scientific parameters."
> That's a wholly other issue, stemming from the fact
> that there WAS
> no "mainstream science research."
> > Was his theory incorrect because it was out of the
> > mainstream of his day. (Don't beat me up because
> > Church opposed Copernicus)
> > It is an ad Homenium fallacy to say theory is
> > the mainstream and therefore incorrect.
> True, but that's an argument so simplified it bears
> little relation to
> reality. Copernicus' hypothesis was perfectly
> scientific because it fit
> the known set of data better than the standing
> geocentric hypothesis.
> Now that we DO have a scientific research community
> with peer-
> reviewed research dating back a couple of centuries,
> there's plenty
> of data to support the most basic scientific theora,
> and fairly rigorous
> scrutiny and debate of lesser matters. If I wanted
> to propose
> something completely other than the current solar
> system model
> (that the Earth is dumbell-shaped and orbits a huge
> ham sandwich,
> say), I'd have to be able to show how my construct
> better explains a
> massive amount of data better than the generally
> accepted theory.
> (If I were a Creationist, of course, I could just
> say, "God wants it to
> appear as if we're on a sphere, orbiting another
> sphere, for His own
> mysterious reasons. But trust me, it's a dumbell
> going around a
> sandwich. Says so right here in my holy writ which
> I accept as
> undebatable axiomatic Truth.")
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs