Keep well AL,

John

To this, bentrt might reiterate that science takes a fundamentally limiting assumption, which narrows its explanatory power to such a level where it can only explain things in natural terms. It has no room for the supernatural. This is an intriguing and valid point. There are always starting assumptions. But this is so with any scientific experiment. Basically, you have to assume something somewhere or you can never get started. And while science cannot explain everything, it would simply be asinine to say that science has not gotten us anywhere based on these assumptions. It has explained or at least provided credible natural hypotheses about many worldly phenomena, previously thought to be supernatural. The examples of this are multiplicitous and I won’t provide examples now because I have run out of space on this entry.

My initial comment is directed to bentrt. I really dig a portion of the stance you are taking. I just learned about the difference between macro and microevolution. Equivocation is used all the time with evolution concerning these two distinctions. This meaning-ambiguity obscures the real topic of conversation. That is, in any given argument about evolution/creationism, on what scale are we standing? Are we addressing “goo to you, via the zoo” (as you amusingly put it) or a phenomenon of [mere] speciation? Science is certainly hard-pressed for cold, hard evidence showing that macroevolution is as modern science thinks it is. However, I think that if microevolution sheds any light on the possibility of macroevolution, it would be due to this: Macro. could emulate the process of the micro., simply on a much larger scale. It wouldn’t be quite as simple as this. But when we look at nature systemically, we see that parts come from wholes, or that the larger is built up by the smaller. We see the world in subdivisions. Consider the following series: subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, DNA, genes, alleles, chromosomes, nuclei, organelles, cells, tissues, organs, organ systems, organisms. (To those picky theorists out there, I left out strings on purpose because they are not observable/falsifiable yet) This series may be incomplete. But we can see that each member of the set is roughly a subdivision of the next member. Perhaps we can see micro’s relationship to macro in this way: micro as an extremely tiny subdivision of macro.

P.S. The Video’s ACE’s

I particularly like the reasoning on why we have a moral imperative to act ethically, even if there isn’t a toga clad magical spirit with long hair and a list of who’s naughty and who’s nice living in the sky who tells us what not to do.

I do claim to believe in something unobservable. I just don’t believe in unobservable Evolution defined as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ (Kerkut) I believe that God made us with no observable proof, and you believe (i’m guessing) that molecules managed to form life with no observable proof.

I’m not against selection happening over time. I’m not against natural selection working on the alleles of species. I’m not against speciation or variation in a kind of animal. I just want to know how you know that that selection can create increasing amounts of information that can lead us to believe that one kind of animal can turn into another and how you know they have been millions of years worth of time!

Have you attended a college or even high school biology or math class? You are clearly not a scientist because of your lack in understanding the scientific method and proof. Assumption proofs are commonly known as indirect proofs, furthermore, it appears you are merely picking stuff out of text left and right.

In your arguments I find nothing but a thought process limited by the literal interpertation of “observation.” It’s ironic, because you propose to believe in something unobservable and yet you’re hypocritical in your attempts to apply the same label to evolution as completely lacking observable proof… or are you implicating two different definitions of “observable?”

Here, let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

For you, the scope of “change” and selection appears to span less than a few hundred years. It’s ok though, because I understand the natural human lack of understanding when it comes to the idea that progressive selection occurs over a span of thousands or millions of years… we just don’t view time in that way unfortunately.

And the bone webpage doesn’t prove anything. For one dino to bird evolution is assumed (though there is no know way for this to occur nor a good mechanism is proposed) so when they find a homologous (similar) structure i.e. the bone structure they say it’s evidence for dino to bird evolution. So hang on they ASSUME dino to bird happened with no knowledge of how/no mechanism/no real evidence that it happened and when they find the structures that are similar to dinosaurs and birds they ASSUME that’s because dinosaurs evolved from birds, this isn’t evidence for dino to bird evolution no more than when they say apes look similar to us so we must have evolved from an ape like creature.