It’s the business of science to discover these laws without metaphysical commentary. Any practitioner of science who gives metaphysical commentary is acting as a philosopher and not as a scientist.
**
Wow, there’s a lot in this paragraph. Let me see if I can break it down (just like MC Hammer tried to do all those years ago ;)).
Opposable thumbs go back way further than humanity, but if a human is born with a competitive advantage, it’s not necessary that others stop breeding–the one with the advantage will have more offspring and those genes will spread.
If Sally’s line and Brad’s line don’t interbreed for a long enough time, they will form separate species. But as long as they’re trading genes, they won’t.
We share something like 98% of our DNA with Bonobos. I’m not sure how much closer you could get.
For this and a lot of other information on evolution, I suggest talkorigins.org.
I still think the OP invites a religious response to a scientific question. Why even ask it? I’ve heard speakers that I respect for their biblical knowledge actually make scientific sense, but their arguments are always rooted in religion. I’ll look for some cites to folks who make actual scientific arguments for the nature of God.
I think I’m kinda in the minority on this, but I don’t believe that the existence of God is a scientific question. The main reason is because it’s not falsifiable–because God could’ve made the universe in any way, then no matter what we see, we can’t take it as evidence that God doesn’t exist.
Rather, we should say that the existence of God is a spiritual question, one that can only be answered subjectively. The objective truth is out there, but I don’t think we can ever know it.
Make that a minority of at least two, Ultra. And just to confuse things more the scientific reason of non falsifiability is only one side of my reasons. On the other side of the reasons, the question is . . . well, it’s impertinent at the least. When you meet God, you don’t ask him for His identification, last regular address, place of employment, and phone number. You might refuse to believe, in which case the question of proof is pointless. If you do believe, well, . . . you just shut up, and listen.
After all, He is God.
Tris
" It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching." ~ Saint Francis Of Assisi ~
Indeed, Mangetout specifically qualified her OP to clarify that she didn’t want a scientific answer to debunk the theory of evolution but a creationist one.
I was quite disappointed. I really wanted to hear what scientists thought were weaker points in the theory. I am gathering that macroevolution is more dubitable than microevolution.
Say what? I took the OP to be asking for a scientific answer from a creationist. If you want to ask scientists for weak points in evolutionary theory, you should open up a thread in GQ (with a “this is not an e/c debate” disclaimer).
Macroevolution is harder to observe directly, but it’s as established a scientific fact as any. The mechanisms of macroevolution are less well understood than those of microevolution.
I suggest to lots of people that they go look at talkorigins.org cause it’s got quite a bit of information on the evolution/creationism debate.
Oh, I see it was in the thread title as well. Missed that. Guess that the original ‘two questions’ did not strike me as being both addressed at creationist. Subjectivity strikes again.
I think this particular line of argument is really better refuted in this thread. At any rate, an argument from alleged social consequences is not really an argument against the truth of a statement of fact.
An example of unnecessary attack. I was being ironic.
I am interested in why you find his posts dishonest.
The reason why is that the accusation of lying, particularly in the context of being a ‘liar for Jesus’ confounds me. As a sarcastic jibe [‘soldier/liar for Jesus’], it works, but on purely grammatical grounds or even analogical grounds, I don’t get it.
First problem: I don’t remember any documentation of Jesus telling his proselytizers to lie for him or of any Church doctrine advocating lying.
Second problem:
Person A: “I sincerely believe that blah blah blah”
Person B: “No you don’t. You’re lying!”
Doesn’t work.
It is possible that we are using different definitions of lying.
So I all see is a sarcastic jibe thrown out for the sole purpose of the jibe. Nothing useful said.
That, or unintentional jibing due to hasty writing.