Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I thought one of the very basic tenents of science is that it is predictive and testable. Science assumes nothing, but looks at the physical world, makes an educated guess about what is going on, then tests the assumptions. If the test results hold true, the scientists can say, "I think I have evidence that supports my assertion"

The important thing is that other, unbiased trained scientists can objectively reproduce the investigation and verify it. If they reproduce the experiment and come up with different results, they agree they have to reconsider the assumptions. Thats what makes science powerful - every new scientists wants to make his/her name by destroying the cherished assumptions of the current authorities.

In order for science to be science, it has to be predictive. So Darwin saw lizards and birds and said if evolution is true, we should one day discover a fossil that is half way between a lizard and a bird. We did, and thaat discovery helped solidify Darwin's theory.

Creationism is not testable. Creationists look for tid-bits of information that don't easily fit into the existing theories and try to claim these tiny exceptions somehow over throw the great body of evidence that supports evolution. They don't actually offer any testable evidence for creation, just pretend to find exceptions to the theory of creation. Most, if not all, of these "exceptions" are eventually explained as our understanding grows - and scientists welcome the clarification.

Creationism is not predictive because it is not based on real world observation. You can't say "God created the animals of the field and the birds of the air and therefore..." Creationism is one particular creation myth among thousands - every culture has their own because a significant percentage of humaans are uncomfortable living without an easy to understand myth about where we came from and where we're going.

Its just plain silly to say, "wow, things are so complex there must be a god" - that assertion just reflects humans inability to understand and be at ease with things they don't understand - it is not evidence for a god, and even if it was, it wouldn't be evidence for a Christian God anymore than it would be evidence for Ganesh or Gilgamelsh or any other God.

There is science and there is religion. They are not related. Its curious to me that people of faith can not be comfortable with that reality. Why do they have to try to re-make their faith into a science? There efforts speak to me of a lack of faith.

Bill

I would speculate that for the common man, religion to a large extend is a balance to their fear of death. It gives them comfort to have a great Father figure that they can go to to tell their troubles to-and that will forgive them their mistakes. It enforces 'moral' scruples-fear of punishment after death.

They do fear Science/Evolution because they see it as an attack on everything they have been taught to believe in. It means to them that (if it were true)then if they die-there is nothing and that they have been made fools of all their lives by the priests that run their faith. Because their churches will not admit the possibility that Evolution might not be in conflict with Genisis, it has been reduced to a either "all-right or-all wrong" debate.

That is why (when the churhes had more power) they openly persecuted scientists. When for example, scientists discovered that the Earth rotated around the Sun the scientists who discovered this were hauled before the Inquisition. This was blashemy, as the bible makes the reference to a centraly placed earth.

Creationism is the churches way of dealing with questions and evidence their faith cannot answer. Eventually those who control the business of religion will find a way to take the overwhelming evidence of Evolution and pervert it so that it still will allow them to sell their (religion) product. Because to them that run it, this is exactly that-a business.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

See link for my veiws.
My veiws

-----
Thane

>>That is why (when the churhes had more power) they openly persecuted scientists. When for example, scientists discovered that the Earth rotated around the Sun the scientists who discovered this were hauled before the Inquisition. This was blashemy, as the bible makes the reference to a centraly placed earth.

Although, the main reason they hit the roof with Galileo was that in his published work, (from what I understand) he had a foolish cariacture that seemed suspiciously similar to the pope of the time with a name translated as "Imbecile". And Galileo refused to change it...
They also hit the roof for the reason you described of course.
-----
0.1 chickens (Condor)
0.2 dog mutts (half ownership, only mine when they misbehave, Lucy & Amy)
0.1 Halflinger horse (Crissy)
0.1 Normal phase California Kingsnake (Sophia)
1.1 parents
Still searching for 1.0 WC human

So called science how the world was created is not science but silly guess infact a guess based on non science.
Gasses explode the explosion CREATES life?
Life with the ability to reproduce,organs and diverse forms tho simple forms.
This LIFE is created by an EXPLOSION? lol ok well why not say martians created life than flew away. Martians are as valid as an explosion that creates life with the ability to reproduce.

Ok that post lacked any ryhme or reason...How did we get into Martians?

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The Martian part means if you believe in the big bang theory why not than believe that martians created the earth. There is as much proof-zero.
Life doesnt create itself. If we evolved from apes why arent they still evolving,why didnt they disapear as Dawrin said once a species evolves it changes yet we evolved from apes and apes still apes?.

People who believe in science contradict themselves with these theories. If you subscribe to Science atleast be consistent with science. They seem to take what they like about science and leave out the rest.

Once again, you need to research before making innaccuate sweeping statements.

Nowhere in Darwin's ORIGION OF THE SPECIES does it say that Man evolved from an Ape...or any of his other papers. What it said was that Man evolved possibly from an off shoot of the same line as old World Monkeys. Those ancestors are indeed extinct.

Anyone who has the slightest familiarity with Darwin knows that.

That piece of mis-information is promoted by religeous people who never bothered to read Darwin's own words before claiming he was a liar.

So your extinction premise is based upon a wrong quote and proves Darwin was right. Man's ancestor is extinct.

Did you know that we share 99% of the same DNA as chimps?

As to the big Bang. The universe is expanding measurably. This outward movement from a central location is only one piece of evidence that supports the concept. Again, read about things before you deny them.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Oh...and for the record, There are two processes. Evolution and Extinction.

The great Apes are becoming Extinct.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The great apes are becoming extinct ONLY because they are losing land,being poached not because of nature.
Anyone who hasnt been bitten by a large mangrove snake knows that.

Since when is predation Not a natural process. Humans have hunted many animals to extinction...But so have other animals.

Habitat destruction? Put carp in a new enviroment. They will eat the plants, increasing bank errosion-resulting in other fish being wiped out by habitat destruction.

Both processes are completely natural tools of Evolution. Man is as much a cause of evolution as a result.

And I have three mangrove snakes.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Lol I know you have mangrove snakes as we go way back. Human destruction of wild areas is no way at all natural anything come on now.

Difer friend, the result is the same whether it is a mole or a bulldozer.

Unless you are claiming that man is not part of the natural world....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Only a person bitten several times by coral snakes would make such a statement lol.
One thing is nature another is not. Mans machines destroying natural habitats and extinction of a species caused by that is no way natural .
No one knows how the world was created not even scientist whose scientific theories arent scientific at all when it comes to creation.
Those that subscribe to the big bang theory or we evolved from apes which for some reason have stopped evolving now not to mention some stayed as apes are the same as those that say God created it all.
Both groups pure theory ,belief based on NON science.
I do know that 98% of our chromosomes are like chimps not 99 .
That however means nothing in the big picture it a HUGE world of difference.

It's 99% the source....My wife's college biology professor.

And again, No one said Man evolved from apes except the Christians who can't seem to get what Darwin wrote correctly.

(refer to earlier post)

You really need to come up with facts to back your statements. My friend you are hopelessly innacurate.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The 'Big Bang' as some call it, did not create life. The theory is concerned only with the creation of stars and galaxies.

The creation of life is a much more subtle matter. In fact, the process we call Evolution, is not necessarily in conflict with the idea of the existance of a supreme being. The arguement is, whether Genesis should be taken literaly, or whether it was a metaphor to explain a much more prolonged process.

Even Genesis says that man was preceeded on this earth by the "beasts of the field'.

There is no evidence to deny that Evolution might be the process a creator used to make us. Unless of course you think putting some clay together and saying "let there be man" sounds more reasonable.

But before you wade into a debate like this, I would suggest that you read BOTH sides of what this is about (not just church literature's interpretation). Then you will understand what this whole thing is about.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The first life form was created how?

Good question....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Who made God?
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

No one made God. God was here and he made the earth,life,etc.
I am not saying I believe in this because no one knows but the evolution theory and big bang theory which are based on science and not beleif are not scientific at all but actually based on non science just like God.
Both theories are rooted in non facts non science atleast those that believe in God dont deny it.

How do you figure the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are not based in scienctific thought with evidence. A theory must have EVIDENCE to be a scientific THEORY. These ideas were not pulled out of someone's righteous a$$. Why is it so easy to believe God just showed up and created everything but the idea that life was created over billions of years (if not more!) in a slow progression seems too far fetched? Trust me when I say, you might want to read up on your science before making foolish statements, at least read the posts below on this subject.
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

How do you know God is a "He"? You should have read the other posts...you would've seen this question coming!
-----
www.hullabalooherps.com

Gender to a supreme being is anthropomorphic.....

Cupcake....What is Non-science? You really shouldn't be inventing words that make no sense.

I am guessing you mean like anti-matter?

Before you can call something nonsense, you need to know what you are talking about. If you want your opinion to bear weight then address the subject involved with more than just proclamations. Seriously, you are not looking too bright here.

Supply evidence to back your statments.

From your posts (no insult intended) you have a rather poor background in science.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."