i thank you for responding. I have been pretty much ignored up until now. I dont see what your point is. everything we do comes down to observations. Mathmatics, cooking, music, etc.. if a observation does change then It is potentionally wrong (depending on the change). those wrong observations are weeded out rather quickly. evolution has been around for about 150 years now. and even today we continue to find evidence that reenforces it. Am I understanding what you are saying? If my response seems off of your point please elaborate.
Time isn't always the best authority for truth. My point is simply this: observing something happening is quite different from theorizing about something that happened yet cannot be observed. We can observation that there is some degree of evolution going on in the form of natural selection. However, we've taken this and literally run with it to explain processes which are many times more complex.For example you cited a few common things such as cooking, mathematics, and music. What element is present in each of these things when they are created? A cook, a mathematician of some degree, and a composer; in other words, a designer. Number two, all of these things are done at the time and can easily be observed. For example, I can take two pencils in front of me, and add two more pencils and observe that I now have four. If I were to cook, I take a recipe or create my own to cook and so on.Science is derived from the Latin "scientia" literally meaning knowledge; ie: to know something. You can theorize, hypothesize, and postulate, but that doesn't mean you know it no matter how you change it around.I realize people will argue until they're blue in the face on that one, but it won't change me and won't change the way it is.
evolution is a biological explanation and in no way tries to explain the orgin of life. once life is created then evolution takes over. prior to the existance of life comes down to "Abiogenisis" which i dont know much about. as far as i understand there isnt an explanation for it.
Right, no one's discounting that thing's don't evolve to a degree. That's been observed and we know it. Abiogenesis and the related terms are a whole new ballgame and that's what this thread is about. Regardless of the scientific term or not - which seems to change every so often - the idea is that man and the entire biodiverse world that we have evolved from nonliving matter entirely on its own.That takes a whole lot more faith than just believing in God.As for the Woo-Suk (S. Korean scientist) it's just one of many that goes to show you what's going on. Follow the money trail for just a minute. There were several other scientists indicted and overall the case involved hundreds of millions of embezzled money. The fiasco was marked by government involvement and there were still supporters years later holding rallies saying he was right. The guy himself continues to maintain that it wasn't his fault and that someone else messed up his work.Good article through Wikipedia in this case for a little list:[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct[/url]What gets me is that, just like journalists, they're supposed to regulate themselves yet when it comes to government we clatter on about how we need watchdog groups and checks and balances.
Time isn't always the best authority for truth. My point is simply this: observing something happening is quite different from theorizing about something that happened yet cannot be observed. We can observation that there is some degree of evolution going on in the form of natural selection. However, we've taken this and literally run with it to explain processes which are many times more complex.For example you cited a few common things such as cooking, mathematics, and music. What element is present in each of these things when they are created? A cook, a mathematician of some degree, and a composer; in other words, a designer. Number two, all of these things are done at the time and can easily be observed. For example, I can take two pencils in front of me, and add two more pencils and observe that I now have four. If I were to cook, I take a recipe or create my own to cook and so on.Science is derived from the Latin "scientia" literally meaning knowledge; ie: to know something. You can theorize, hypothesize, and postulate, but that doesn't mean you know it no matter how you change it around.I realize people will argue until they're blue in the face on that one, but it won't change me and won't change the way it is.
evolution is a biological explanation and in no way tries to explain the orgin of life. once life is created then evolution takes over. prior to the existance of life comes down to "Abiogenisis" which i dont know much about. as far as i understand there isnt an explanation for it.
Right, no one's discounting that thing's don't evolve to a degree. That's been observed and we know it. Abiogenesis and the related terms are a whole new ballgame and that's what this thread is about. Regardless of the scientific term or not - which seems to change every so often - the idea is that man and the entire biodiverse world that we have evolved from nonliving matter entirely on its own.That takes a whole lot more faith than just believing in God.As for the Woo-Suk (S. Korean scientist) it's just one of many that goes to show you what's going on. Follow the money trail for just a minute. There were several other scientists indicted and overall the case involved hundreds of millions of embezzled money. The fiasco was marked by government involvement and there were still supporters years later holding rallies saying he was right. The guy himself continues to maintain that it wasn't his fault and that someone else messed up his work.Good article through Wikipedia in this case for a little list:[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct[/url]What gets me is that, just like journalists, they're supposed to regulate themselves yet when it comes to government we clatter on about how we need watchdog groups and checks and balances.