You're continuing to ignore the part that said "search for clues": In other words, you go after the cause, empirically. However the empirical search leads you, such a path will provide guidance for the next steps: -and that is the critical distinction between scientific method and matters of faith. There is nothing I know of in science that is born truly sui generis. Not "fairy tales" borne of air, but rather, resting on empirical, previous inquiry; or using empirical testing to move closer to, or away from, proof of a claim.
I'm not ignoring that part. It's irrelavent. All that you have is a dog sitting in the middle of the road. I didn't say there were any clues. You're just making assumptions again. Which is my point entirely. Prove the two lines converge.
Have you ever once heard the big bang theory stated as scientific fact? No? That's why the name is the big bang theory. It's simply a theory based on observation, not on faith and magic. There are actually several theories that explain the creation of the universe. Scientists have come close to showing the state of the universe within milliseconds of the initial proposed singularity, but it's still theory based on observation. Will we ever know how the universe started? Maybe not, but the big bang holds a lot more water than some mystical guy in the clouds with a magicians wand. I'll stick to scientific observations over fairy tales any day.
How have they shown it? Through complex mathematical models based on a plethora of assumptions. They assume the lines converge and have a model which purports to show how the lines would converge assuming they actually do. The ironic statement of the day. Science has not observed the convergence of the lines. They simply assume it does based on observations they assume show that it does. Nobody disputes observable science. The convergence of the lines is not observable science.
. I went with your condition - is this really that problematic? In other words, he would investigate. Use his senses. Sniff. Dig. Be a human being. The only circular reasoning going on here is yours, Kalvin.
Which has nothing to do with where the dog came from. You're just assuming that the evidence you wanted was there but was destroyed. You assume that aliens don't exist therefore there must be a trail leading to somewhere. You find that no trail exists. Therefore the trail must have been destroyed because aliens don't exist. It's a circular argument. Now you've shifted the argument from proving where the dog came from to proving there was a trail. The difference between a Christian and a true believer Evolutionist is that a Christian knows the difference between faith and facts.
Kalvin, when you got up this morning, you assumed there was going to be a floor there when you set your feet down, did you not? When you reached for your door, you assumed it would not be, instead, a molten sea anenome? No dog tracks. How did it happen? And thus is science - moving from the known to the unknown, to make the unknown then known. If something remains unknown, it doesn't mean throw the hands up - it means, keep digging, from known things - be a human being, conscious. And we are back to where we started, and what has been repeated now, ad nauseum. Kalvin, my friend, we will never agree, as our minds are constructed completely different from one another. As with my disagreement with you over whose job it is, from a Christian perspective, to judge others, so my view of life and the pursuit of knowledge. I find it an exercise in futility to engage you in dialogue (as I'm sure you do as well), and leave the field to you. I wish you all the best. Peace.
And there was the floor and there was the door. And it was no longer an assumption. What you fail to admit is that you will never know how the dog got there or if the lines converge and if so how and any attempt to explain it is just a made up story that is not based on facts but assumptions. And that is why evolution outside of the observable is just faith based science that relies on preconceived notions about what is and isn't possible. Closing with a whine about judging others does nothing to boost your case that evolution is anything more than faith based science.
Kalvin, have you any answer to the evidence for macro evolution which I posted earlier in this thread? Also, evolution is a conclusion based on facts. The conclusion was made after facts was found. With creationism, it was the opposite. First, the conclusion was made, then trying to find facts that fit the conclusion. A lawmaker have recently accused Jews being responsible for evolution science. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/us/17texas.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The foundation of evolution is that God does not exist. That is not a fact, but an assumption. First a conclusion and then the story is modified to fit the facts. That's why we have "punctuated" evolution or whatever. It's not a fact (it's never been observed) but an assumption based on the assumption that God does not exist and that evolution is true. Whenever evolution runs into a major roadblock (the evolution of the brain for one), a completely baseless assumption is made to patch the hole. One of my favorite fairy tales that faith based science has given us is the origin of the moon. Nothing that has been observed by science conflicts with Creationism. It's irrelavent if macro evolution occurs now. It's an assumption (faith) that that's how everything came about. It's also just "evidence" not proof. Therefore an assumption that macroevolution is even possible. They've never seen it happen. It's just assumed that God does not exist and for evolution to be true, macro evolution must happen. I'm looking for facts. Not assumptions. That probably was relevant in your mind. I've yet to see anything that Science has observed that Creationism can't deal with. So far no one on the evolution side has presented any facts. It's just assumed that the conclusions of evolution which are based on assumptions are true. Maybe this article will help you understand why "macroevolution" is still just faith based science. http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Microevolution_is_distinct_from_macroevolution
Yes, I see, and I agree. But again, I have yet to see science disprove God, or the Bible disprove the theory of evolution. I know this much, science is something no one in their right senses would want to do without. I also know that every true advance of science is to the Glory of God. It simply brings us closer to Him. I know that mathematics is His truth, His music if you will. And that how many perfect unalterable times three strings reverberate to create a C Major is the collaboration between His unimaginable genius and our infant spirit of creation, a drop in the bucket next to His, and yet totally impossible without His perfect exactitude of truth and mathematics. We know what the heart does now, long after He first conceived of it. We know now where the clouds come from long after He imagined them into being. We know now how the whales of the deep reproduce long after He allowed for it. We know we are but a puny dot among zillions of other puny dots in the multitude of universes, the true number of which only He knows. Faith tells us He knows every single hair on our head, and that our tears are numbered, and days on this earth. Science tells us what hair and tears are made of and what happens to our bodies after our days are over. Science does not address the soul because it cannot prove the soul. But the ozone was not so long ago unknown. The atom but an intuition. I do not understand the war between faith and science. I simply do not and never will. I would not want to live in a world without either.
Incorrect. Try telling that to the Pope and the millions of Christians worldwide who happily marry their faith and an acceptance of evolution.
No, the foundation is not that god does not exist. in fact, when Charles Darwin started to write "Origin of Species", he was convinced in the existence of god. At the most, he considered himself as an agnostic, but never as an atheist. The roadblocks as you say, isn't a problem with the evolution theory at all. They are rather an opportunity for scientists fill in. Explaining it with creationism doesn't solve any problems at all. The roadblock-argument is also used by holocaust deniers. The assumptions, as you say it, is not baseless, they are usually trying to make as good explanation as possible based with the science we have available today. What's the problem with that explanation? I can think of a million things that do. Tree diagrams and big bang for example. But to make it simple, take the mentioning in the bible that the Catolic church interpreted as a sign that the earth was flat. However, by using your imagination and bending the words of the Bible in the way you want to, you can make it to fit the reality. If you can bend the argument about the factoid that the earth is flat, then why can't you bend the creation argument to fit the evolution theory(macro evolution included)? What has made those so called "assumptions"? Physics, mathematic, archeology, astronomy and chemistry for example. Founds of fossils and tree diagrams, big bang, for example, have backed up the "assumption" that the earth is older than 4 years or whatever you believe it is. It's not the first time creationists have been mean to other minorities. Yet, they often claim that the evolution theory is based on racism. Ok, take one controversial example to start with. Faith based? That's what creationism is. Evolution is a result of putting facts together and making as logical explanation as possible. Creationism is locked in a pre-determinated conclusion found in genesis. Locking information isn't the way science works.
Kalvin I simply do not agree. That may well be what many proponents of evolution believe but I have asked here and will ask again: how does evolution discount the divine hand? How does this prove, were evolution to be precisely true, that it is not God's work?
The simple fact is that religions can't just keep changing the words in the bible to suit their needs. A few hundred years ago saying that the days of creation were longer then 24 hours was blasphemy but now its commonly held that these were longer taking thousands of years to mean one day. Now people are saying that creationism means god was merely the spark of life at the start which began evolution. That doesn't sound much like anything in these books of religion.. Many of the stories within the book are just full of holes when you take a look at them. If evolution is true then the garden of eden and noahs ark didn't happen. Think about it..
Amen there! Okay [thinking... tapping fingers...] Okay, no, I don't agree. Oh, and as for your contention that 24 hours can be a thousand years being something new. You really ought to read the thing you are discussing to invoke any credibility: 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Written sometime between A.D. 64 and 67. Nigh two thousand years ago... nothing new there. And then there's: Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night. Written arguably a thousand years again before then.
Similarly as per hinduism, A single day for a demi god is more than several 1000 years, but god as per hinduism is Above Time., Time is controlled by a Demi God Called Kaaladevan, And its a postition., Just like one who rules is called as king, One Who Controls time is called Kaaladevan, And even this post is changed by several Supreme beings (not god, who is still above all the supreme beings and exisit in everything including those supreme beings)