Science, Creation & EvolutionRing SpeciesYes you do, and yes you are.
Again, it is not a matter of faith. Given the current theories; evolution, ID, seed theory, etc. and current evidence, observations, parsimony, etc., evolution is currently the best explanation for variety of life on Earth. Evolutionary theory is the most congruous with current scientific understanding, thus it is currently the best explanation. It relies not on an unsubstantiated creator or alien race. I am open to all competing theories and will evalute each on its own merit. You, however, are not open to any other competing theory, and cannot afford such latitude. Atheists (and scientists) do not feel threatened by faith in an intelligent designer, we feel threatened by christians. Historically they have not been overly nice to us. Appears turn the other cheek applies only to other christians. Speciation, is not proof, it is confirmation of the basic principles involved. It is supportive of evolutionary theory. Not faith, supportive and indicative. Nor is speciation the sole indicator upon which I base my acceptance of evolution, as fossil records clearly demonstate movement from no organisms, to simple organisms, to more complex organisms. Again, not 'proof', but supportive and indicative. There is no attempt on my part to disprove ID, however when compared to evolution, ID has even greater hurdles to overcome before I give ID any scientific merit. No indicator, or support of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Uh,insects ARE animals. Not mammals agreed, but they are animals. Same with fish and birds, all animals, thus all that exist beyond the species level needed to have their own little stalls, cages, and aquariums on the ark. I do admit that he did not mention plants. However, you must recognize that most plants do not enjoy complete submersion in water for 40 days and nights. Besides, any attempt on your part to justify the ark is even more dismal. So there. And I ask you: why is it that the religious have to believe in a lie to explain what they refuse to understand? Agreed, however, it is you who use taxonomic divisions as refuting evolution: "No evolution beyond speciation observed". Odd how you uphold Taxonimic divisions when it suits your needs, but quickly drop it when it becomes problematic to your faith. So, you recognize that evolution does not necessarily require vast amounts of time to occur. Thank you for your support. Wrong. What YOU are ignorant of, or choose to ignore is that not all dating methods rely on "c" for dating methods. Ice Core dating from European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) have samples that date back more than 700,000 years. This is based on counting the accumulated layering of snowfalls. The only isotopic dating occuring in Ice Core samples is done as a check and balance, to confirm and support that their estimates of age are in agreement with isotopic data. Indeed, this actually lends support to isotopic dating as the two measurements are supportive of one another. Good attempt at illusion and sleight of hand, but diversionary tactics will not work here, try again. ......and now for the 'c' decay...... (bold format added for that dramatic effect)
Hmmm, now it seems that seen from the dynamical time-frame, atomic time (and thus the speed of light) has not only stopped decaying, but has actually sped up to match dynamical Time. This speed up is contradictory to the decay of atomic time (and thus the speed of light) that Setterfield's theory relies on. Good, because I need not read them as his theory of 'c' decay and correlative atomic time decay has not been consistently noted since 1999. There, I did that without one iota of character assassination for Mr. Setterfield, who, I am sure is a really nice guy anyway. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame