A response to evolutionists

Originally posted by Delshad:Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise.
Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why:The same can be said of gravity as well.Lets say for an example that we are both proffesional archeologists and we both share the same view about evolution ,thus we place each of those fossils we would find into one of the two categories, mammals or reptiles.Archeologists

​

1. An anthropologist who studies prehistoric people and their cultureYou mean a palaeontologist.Then whenever we find a fossil that has its own quite distinct skeletal structure yet resembling one of the categories we have set up(even in a very little way), we hurry to place it under one of the fixed categories or at its peak we would say ,"well it maybe is an ancient subspecie evolving to this or that" and possiblitys that suggest anything else but the theory of evolution is completely out of the question.
That way of thinking isnt so scientific at all because our conclusion will be influenced by the parameters we have set up.That is why there a peer reviewed journals and the like so that a consensus can be reached.Evolution has no conscioussness and between the time a mutation has ocurred and the time needed to by means of natural selection establish a symmetrical form, there is plenty of time for generation after generation to have traits possessing these "abnormal" shapes.
But none exists, I hope youll be able to open your eyes and see things from a different perspective, that is the scientific way of approaching the issue. What I see is that you visit the ICR site too much and they filled you full of their pesudo-science nonsense. You didn't even know the proper title of those who study fossils (In fact you couldn't even spell fossil).[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Okay, Delshad, so we agree on some terms. I am a Muslim too and I understand that Allah planted signs for the faithful to see and contemplate. Now look back to the reptile-mammal sequence and this time, look at the ages of the fossils. See a pattern there? The morphological change fits perfectly with the temporal sequence. Now think. Would Allah create them separately in such a manner, that He created in such a sequence that strongly hints a change? The signs, the ayats in nature, screams for an explanation! There is change and continuity between them. I believe that Allah is not a deceiver, and He tries to sent a scientific message to us.

​

[btw i have suspected that you're a Muslim. Your arguments sound familiar...]

---

Why would you god do this? To test your "faith"? Doesn't he/she/it already know if your faithful or not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
An arrangement made by The All-Knowing and All-Caring, which sustains every creature's life.

---

Even us godless infidels?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bart007:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Delshad:

​

Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise.
Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why:

​

The same can be said of gravity as well.

​

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]

---

​

Your analogy is inadequate. Gravitational effects can be replicated repeatedly and observed and measured. It is operational science. The alleged Evolution (i.e. Common ancestry) effects are unobservable singularities, it is akin to forensic science (e.g. who shot Kennedy). The smaller the the possibility of replicating an experiment, the lesser is its scientific value. Gravity can be measured and examined over and over. Evolution (i.e. common ancestry of all creatures extant and extinct) has never been observed.

​

Newton's Theory of Gravity explained Kepler's laws, Galileo's and Copernicus's observation of planetary motions. Furthermore, Newtons Theory of Gravity is not exactly a Theory, it is a mathematical relationship between masses. In fact Leibnitz took Newton to task on this point, that Newton did not define what Gravity is. Just to say its a force does not cut it. What is the nature of this force?

​

Einstein's work on relativity refined Newton's mathematical relationship between masses to cover high velocity situations.

​

Einstein also rejected Newtons idea that Gravity was a force and instead called it a condition in space time created by masses.

​

Thus Einsteins mathematical formulation of Gravity has replaced Newtons', though we still use Newtons mathematical relationship between masses because it holds for low velocity masses, which covers most day to day situations.

​

However, we still don't know what "gravity" actually is.

​

---

They are still both theories in that we know that they can be observed (Even if some choose to ignore this) yet we still don't know exactly why. The evolutionary process can be accurrately modeled now with artificial life programs.