Originally posted by TheBear
Explain gravity, Shane. Can you fully define it? Does it exist? There is all kinds of evidence that it exists, but up until it was defined by science, it still existed. The apple did not suspend in mid-air until Newton and other scientists fully studied it and clarified what it is.
Likewise, you are saying that evolution does not exist, because the mechanism has not been fully studied and clarified.
Do a little homework before spouting cheap shots at another poster. Okay?
John
A little homework? I have a friend in microbiology, a Phd and devout atheist by the way, who assures me that evolution as the origin of species is only a theory, and not fact. That That the conclusion is based on observation that depends on the assumption that there is no God who might interfere with the scientific axioms involced in the particular theory.
I have quoted here and elsewhere pro-evolution scientists who admit that the one sure method of deciding whether ot not animals are of one species or another, that of interbreedability, is not scientifically possible to address. You amy discover that non interbreeding species do come about, though evidence for this is sketchy at best, but you cannot tell from looking at creatures today what the rates of change were in the past or whether or not that means that all creatures evolced from one parent.
You cannot prove that the 4 polymers common to live on earth indicate a common ancestor, or merely a common chemical pathway that existed at the time multiple lifeforms were created.
You can't use evolutionary teachings reagarding what they predict regarding the phylogenic tree because if they come up with something different, they can simply place it in a new branch of thephylogenic tree.
You can't prove that certain traits that morphologically define the phylogenic tree are consistent with present speciation. For instance, supposed lizards of the past may well have had warm blood. You can't tell for sure where the divergence began between one phylum or another, because obviously it is impossible to be sure whether a specimen of every animal that ever existed witll have been preserved in the fossil record. Indeed, such a thing is highly unlikely.
The differences between evolution and gravity are manifest and obvious. We can test gravity. We know it exists and we test it to see exactly what its qualities are mathematically. With evolution, we don't know it exists, we assume, and then we pretend to be able to piece together the mathematical relationships of a thing we cannot observe. This is patently bad science, from the applied science point of view. It is perfectly legitimate science from the point of view of sciences like psychology, sociaology, and so forth, whcih attempt to measure trends and approximations and proabilities, but to put evolution foreward as a science in the same terms as biology or physics, one must first understand the mathematiacl model of these studies, and the underlying mathematical fact is that even then, there is no way to prove them. Study chaos theory, fractal geometry, and the sensitivity of such thigns to even the slightest error in initial condicions, and how quickly a predictionbased on these types of equations breaks down.
Your comparison to gravity is the very crux of the problem. There IS no comparison between the type of science that limits itself to things that can be consistently seen and tested, and the kind of science one must use to make predictions about things that are not directly observable.