ID Sockra Tease (Also Known As Watcher's personal project)
The usual tactic I encounter is to just be labelled a "creationist" and then dismissed. Fine. Go for it. Anyone reading this thread can see you are simply running away.
That you would argue that I have never said that natural selection is an important part of Evolution Theory is just ridiculous. I have several times stated that natural selection is an important part of Evolution Theory. I have even used it to provide an "Evolution" explanation for the DNA homology between chimp and man. Of course it is important.
Why is chimp abiogenesis more ridiculous than SCA abiogenesis? Do you have a rational ground to make the distinction? We seem to just disagree as to which species went "poof!". You really don't see the irrationality of your position: that chimp descended from a common ancestor species for which we have absolutely no evidence that it existed? This is rational to you? This is Science for you? Wasn't the reason God was thrown out of science because there was no evidence for that being to exist? Why does this common ancestor get a free pass from you? This is a rational question I ask of you; it is a question about standards of evidence.
No offense intended about cartoons. In their milieu they are great and some reach a level of high Art. But why do they appear in the place of scientific evidence? Is that the role of cartoon work? To show us what a mythical common ancestor would look like while we wait for real evidence?
You can call it ridiculous, but claiming a fossil is an intermediary requires scientific testing. Agreed? How do you scientifically test "intermediariness"? I contend you don't and you can't. You can only assert that a fossil is intermediary. Evolution makes the facts fit the Theory; it should be the other way round. Would you allow me to bring God back into science by merely asserting he does exist? What if I argued, only God could create this universe, so therefore he MUST exist, and if he must exist, it logically follows that he DOES exist; and so, we can scientificially PROVE that God exists. Would you accept that argument? No? Well I hope not. I certainly wouldn't accept it as an argument in science. It is ridiculous, of course. You can't argue that something exists merely because you assert it MUST exist. Now.... have a look at Evolution: these common ancestors, for which there is no scientific evidence, are asserted to exist - they simply MUST exist or the Theory falls down. We can't have the Theory fall down so these ancestors simply MUST exist, therefore they DO exist. There you go! Neat and tidy. A scientific proof that Evolution Theory is right and solid. Again, why do these common ancestors, without evidence, get a free pass from being subjected to the plain rules and tests of science? The "experts", when really put up against the wall on this point finally concede, "well we are very sure that one day the evidence will arise." Well... can't a Christian argue that even though scientific evidence for God doesn't exist, one day, we shall find out and there will be evidence? Why are Evolutionists allowed to put the evidence-discovery into the future, and thereby klet the hypothesis stand, and yet others are not?
And this is what you want to call Science now?
I do not demand an unreasonable anmount of evidence from Evolution Theory. I demand SCIENTIFIC evidence. If you took your Evolution blinders off and looked at Evolution Theory from scratch, you just might begin to see the problems I see.
As for "DNA soil", well really. I put quote marks around that phrase because it should be seen as a metaphor. I don't know where Life comes from. No one does. In place of evidence we use metaphors. Unlike Evolution Theory though, I don't pretend my metaphors are scientific facts. Solve abiogenesis first, and then see if we can bring back Evolution as a viable scientific hypothesis.
Medical advnces have nothing to do with Evolution Theory. They come from the biological sciences. Biological sciences do not come from Evolution Theory. Biology studies the details and facts of Life. Biology studies DNA - something which would have been discovered with or without Darwin, and something that can be studied no matter what religion the scientist adheres to. Come on now, wouldn't you laugh at me if I said that a biological scientist who dioscovered Vaccine X - and a scientist who went to church every Sunday - was a scientist who, through God, discovered the vaccine? Did God help him discover the vaccine? No of course not. The scientist used the truths of biological science to make the vaccine. Whether that scientist believes the myth that chimp and man share a common ancestor has nothing to do with it. These repeated attempts to legitimize the Evolution religion by pretending it is responsible for biology is ludicrous. Issac Newton was a Christian. Theology was not responsible for the Law of Gravity. Christian scientists use science to do their work, not God. Biologists use biology to do their science not Evolution myth.
An engineer building a Boeing 747 can build a plane even if he believes that Elvis is still alive and selling hamburgers in Boise Idaho. His Elvis myth doesn't impact on his work. A biologist can still do gene study even if he believes that certain gene was descended from a mythical Flying Spaghetti Monster from 3 billion years ago, or if it was poofed into life by god, or poofed into life by Elvis. The work of real science will carry on no matter what religion you adhere to. That goes for Evolution too. No vaccine was ever discovered by initially positing mythical common ancestors.
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" -Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky
More evidence of the religious stature of Evolution: Biology makes no sense without Evolution, just as, for some, the Universe makes no sense without God. Good grief.
If you really truly have a distate for religion, look at this quote again, and then look at Evolution again.
I'm not a Creationist trying to bring God back. I am a rationalist inquiring as to how a rational person today can possibly believe that Evolution Theory has met the minimal standards of proper Scientific Inquiry. Evolution Theory really is "just a theory", nothing more. A theory waiting for evidence to arrive.
The Emperor has no clothes.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci