David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > Please note that the last, about evolution, was a quote. It was > also mentioned that Jastrow said that because AT THE TIME, there was > not enough evidence to support the theory. What evidence was there for creationism? The fossil evidence, at least, was known from *very* early in the history of the idea of evolution (which, remember, goes back well before Darwin; the idea was around for a long time before he assembled all that evidence for it). ******************************************************************************************* <chuckles> Jump Jastrow's case for the quote, hon, I just repeated it.:) You're misunderstanding scientific terminology. Evolution will always and forever be a theory. Science doesn't prove things; it *dis*proves things. A theory that's compatible with the known facts stays around, because it doesn't get disproved. Or stays around for use in special cases where it's adequately precise, the way Newtonian mechanics does, even though we *know* it's wrong in general. ************************************************************************************** In that, science hasn't disproved creationism. So can I talk about the theory of Creationism? Meanwhile, the theory of evolution is the foundation of pretty much everything in biology; you can't do much of anything in modern biology without it. **************************************************************************************** I know four Creationist biological researchers. You don't need to believe in evolution to understand and do WELL in biology. Most biologists aren't interested in how it arrived on this planet, but with how it works and how it can do better. Anybody who's done selective breeding has reproduced evolution in it's simplest form. ******************************************************************************************** Selective breeding is NOT evolution. You can breed both a daschund and a Great Dane, but they are both dogs. They are not going to change into, say, cats...or even coyotes, any million years soon. Besides, the fossil record is still VERY far from complete and still missing those oh-so-necessary transitional fossils. Even the poor horse, most noted of the evolutionary findings, has been blown out of the water when it was discovered that Eohippus is not extinct at all, nor the ancestor of our horses, but it alive and well in the brushlands of Africa. Of course, it didn't help when later findings came about that placed Neohipparion and Pliohippus as living in the same time period. There's no credible alternative to evolution out there. Most of the alleged "creationist" theories are non-falsifiable, so they're not scientific theories at all, let alone ones with any adherants. ***************************************************************************************** Okay, I'll buy that. One must be able to prove or disprove God before one can prove or disprove creationism. Can we call it a draw? I will need proof to believe in evolution, you will need proof to believe in creationism. Niether one of us is going to get a reasonable facsimile of either. Peace, Caliann *Owned and Operated by the Grand Poohbah Cheese of the Universe* David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > Please note that the last, about evolution, was a quote. It was > also mentioned that Jastrow said that because AT THE TIME, there was > not enough evidence to support the theory. What evidence was there for creationism? The fossil evidence, at least, was known from *very* early in the history of the idea of evolution (which, remember, goes back well before Darwin; the idea was around for a long time before he assembled all that evidence for it). ******************************************************************************************* <chuckles> Jump Jastrow's case for the quote, hon, I just repeated it.:) You're misunderstanding scientific terminology. Evolution will always and forever be a theory. Science doesn't prove things; it *dis*proves things. A theory that's compatible with the known facts stays around, because it doesn't get disproved. Or stays around for use in special cases where it's adequately precise, the way Newtonian mechanics does, even though we *know* it's wrong in general. ************************************************************************************** In that, science hasn't disproved creationism. So can I talk about the theory of Creationism? Meanwhile, the theory of evolution is the foundation of pretty much everything in biology; you can't do much of anything in modern biology without it. **************************************************************************************** I know four Creationist biological researchers. You don't need to believe in evolution to understand and do WELL in biology. Most biologists aren't interested in how it arrived on this planet, but with how it works and how it can do better. Anybody who's done selective breeding has reproduced evolution in it's simplest form. ******************************************************************************************** Selective breeding is NOT evolution. You can breed both a daschund and a Great Dane, but they are both dogs. They are not going to change into, say, cats...or even coyotes, any million years soon. Besides, the fossil record is still VERY far from complete and still missing those oh-so-necessary transitional fossils. Even the poor horse, most noted of the evolutionary findings, has been blown out of the water when it was discovered that Eohippus is not extinct at all, nor the ancestor of our horses, but it alive and well in the brushlands of Africa. Of course, it didn't help when later findings came about that placed Neohipparion and Pliohippus as living in the same time period. There's no credible alternative to evolution out there. Most of the alleged "creationist" theories are non-falsifiable, so they're not scientific theories at all, let alone ones with any adherants. ***************************************************************************************** Okay, I'll buy that. One must be able to prove or disprove God before one can prove or disprove creationism. Can we call it a draw? I will need proof to believe in evolution, you will need proof to believe in creationism. Niether one of us is going to get a reasonable facsimile of either. Peace, Caliann *Owned and Operated by the Grand Poohbah Cheese of the Universe* David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > Please note that the last, about evolution, was a quote. It was > also mentioned that Jastrow said that because AT THE TIME, there was > not enough evidence to support the theory. What evidence was there for creationism? The fossil evidence, at least, was known from *very* early in the history of the idea of evolution (which, remember, goes back well before Darwin; the idea was around for a long time before he assembled all that evidence for it). ******************************************************************************************* <chuckles> Jump Jastrow's case for the quote, hon, I just repeated it.:) You're misunderstanding scientific terminology. Evolution will always and forever be a theory. Science doesn't prove things; it *dis*proves things. A theory that's compatible with the known facts stays around, because it doesn't get disproved. Or stays around for use in special cases where it's adequately precise, the way Newtonian mechanics does, even though we *know* it's wrong in general. ************************************************************************************** In that, science hasn't disproved creationism. So can I talk about the theory of Creationism? Meanwhile, the theory of evolution is the foundation of pretty much everything in biology; you can't do much of anything in modern biology without it. **************************************************************************************** I know four Creationist biological researchers. You don't need to believe in evolution to understand and do WELL in biology. Most biologists aren't interested in how it arrived on this planet, but with how it works and how it can do better. Anybody who's done selective breeding has reproduced evolution in it's simplest form. ******************************************************************************************** Selective breeding is NOT evolution. You can breed both a daschund and a Great Dane, but they are both dogs. They are not going to change into, say, cats...or even coyotes, any million years soon. Besides, the fossil record is still VERY far from complete and still missing those oh-so-necessary transitional fossils. Even the poor horse, most noted of the evolutionary findings, has been blown out of the water when it was discovered that Eohippus is not extinct at all, nor the ancestor of our horses, but it alive and well in the brushlands of Africa. Of course, it didn't help when later findings came about that placed Neohipparion and Pliohippus as living in the same time period. There's no credible alternative to evolution out there. Most of the alleged "creationist" theories are non-falsifiable, so they're not scientific theories at all, let alone ones with any adherants. ***************************************************************************************** Okay, I'll buy that. One must be able to prove or disprove God before one can prove or disprove creationism. Can we call it a draw? I will need proof to believe in evolution, you will need proof to believe in creationism. Niether one of us is going to get a reasonable facsimile of either. Peace, Caliann *Owned and Operated by the Grand Poohbah Cheese of the Universe* "Offense theives. -- they take it when it isn't offered." --Tom Digby --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now