Evolution? How?

Science needs to evolve... there is a wall in science it is called the unknown. When it comes to the unknown science is as blind as a bat?

Quote:

Science needs to evolve... there is a wall in science it is called the unknown. When it comes to the unknown science is as blind as a bat?

What you fail to see is it is 'science' (which broken down means all reliable information/methods of aquiring said information) and only science which constantly pushes back those walls of the unknown further into the cosmos, despite religionists ongoing attempts to fix them into a set and immovable position.

Please demonstrate how the fossil record supports creationism.

This I gotta see!

Science has nothing to say about whether or not there exists a god. If a scientist ventures an opinion on it, that is the person, not science speaking. There is no evidence that a god does or does not exist. Which is the reason it is not scientific, which is why ID cannot be accepted. Simple.

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

humankind possesses the ability to interact with and to act upon the environment in manner other than that attributable only to natural process

Hi timber,

You're a very naughty backsliding evolutionist if you believe this.

Have you considered going to an evolutionary seminar to recover your faith?

You are seriously off the reservation, pal.

Your persistence at nonsense would be astounding but for its foundational source, which happenstance permits no alternative. Humankind, a product of nature, has, through natural process, achieved some considerable, and unique-to-our-experience, ability to artifice, to discover, understand, affect, and thereby to effect, by human will, processes, natural and otherwise. All critters known to us other than ourselves are bound to and by the natural, we alone, so far as yet we know, have available to us the means to transcend the natural through the artificial. We have evolved this capability, naturally, without magic and despite religion. what effect this development may have, if any, on our continued evolution, if any, remains to be seen, though as a species we are trending toward longer, healthier lives than were the lot of our progenitors, and science, a natural consequence of our evolution of intellect and dexterity, not religion, has brought about this alteration in the course of the human life cycle.

other than that attributable only to natural process

Humankind, a product of nature, has, through natural process, achieved some considerable, and unique-to-our-experience, ability to artifice, to discover, understand, affect, and thereby to effect,

by human will, processes, natural and otherwise

supernatural 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

All critters known to us other than ourselves are bound to and by the natural, we alone, so far as yet we know, have available to us the means to transcend the natural through the artificial.

Because it is not proveable if a god exists, therefore does not belong in a science class room.

there is a wall in science it is called the unknown.

When it comes to the unknown science is as blind as a bat?

So all science can do is speculate like anybody else.

Science has speculated God out of the picture and where is their PROOF to justify this???

They have none but they are adamite to the point of disgust.

They talk about easter bunnies and santa clause, why?

Because they are afraid we will notice the little tiny box that they live in.

They are afraid of what is outside of the box so they figure if they close their eyes and deny the unknown it will go away...

Not everyone wants to swallow whole their lifeless, dumbed down, unscrupulous, godless, unconscionable, perception of life.

There is a solid body of evidence pointing to evolution, zilch to a god. You do the math, Rex.

RexRed wrote:

there is a wall in science it is called the unknown.

Bullshit - what to the religionist manifests as a wal is to science but a horizon to be reached, crossed, and provided the base for the exploration of the next horison.

Quote:

When it comes to the unknown science is as blind as a bat?

Bats rely mostly on mammalian echolocation to guide them through the night. Science has the flashlight of discovery and the sonar of accumulated knowledge to guide it into and through the unknown.

Quote:

So all science can do is speculate like anybody else.

Science, in contrast to the religionist, speculates from an informed perspective, postulating hypotheses through logical development, not wild, afoundational assumption, testing, refining, revising, or rejecting each hypothesis as the evidence demands, not denying or rejecting evidence inconvenient to the hypthesis, as does the religionist.

Quote:

Science has speculated God out of the picture and where is their PROOF to justify this???

Scince has not "speculated God out of the picture", science merely points out there is no proof there is a god in the picture.

Quote:

They have none but they are adamite to the point of disgust.

Again, science takes no position pertaining to any religionist proposition, beyond that there is no proof for any such proposition. Science does not argue there be no god, it merely describes the natural processes which have brought about the universe we observe and know. What may lie beyond that universe expressly and by definition is beyond the purview of science. Scinec does not meddle with, or deny religion, religion recoils from science - why might that be?

Quote:

They talk about easter bunnies and santa clause, why?

Because they are afraid we will notice the little tiny box that they live in.

Wrong again, mon frere - it is the religionist who walls himself into a box of his own making, a compound bounded on all sides by dead ends, beyond which lies not the unknown but fear of the unknown.

Quote:

They are afraid of what is outside of the box so they figure if they close their eyes and deny the unknown it will go away...

Science is afraid of nothing, least of all the unknown, which by function and definition science embraces, seeks, and explores; but for the unknown there could be no science, no discovery, no horizons, no new frontiers, no advances, no achievements, not future to conceptualize and bring to fruition.

Quote:

Not everyone wants to swallow whole their lifeless, dumbed down, unscrupulous, godless, unconscionable, perception of life.

Again, it is the religionist who denies the reality of life and existence as opposed to celebrating and exploring them. It is the religionist who perpetrates the canard that science entails an unscrupulous, immoral, unethical lifestyle and worldview, it is the religionist that recoils from the truth, finding myth and ritual more comforting than adventure, discovery, advancement, and the actual, lasting betterment of the condition of existence.