Hi again Barbarian! I know that is your firmly held belief but I have a different point of view.
Comes down to evidence. Science has it. Creationism doesn't.
Barbarian observes:
The notion that we can't know anything we directly see is an old dodge, and one that would rule out things like geology, fire investigation, forensics, and so on. No one really takes that seriously.
I respectfully disagree. Vaccines, drugs, and any other medical procedure are based on what is observable, testable, and repeatable.
No one actually observes vaccines stroking immune systems. We just infer that from increased titers of antibody or other data. Likewise, we directly observe speciation, but there is a huge body data showing speciation in the past. Some of it, like DNA evidence, is checkable by observing results with organisms of known descent.
If a house burns down, I can go in and take a look at the remains and tell you a great deal about what happened, even if I never saw any of it. I had to learn a little about the discipline for a client, and it's quite testable and repeatable.
The same applies to any new technology such as making quantum storage or nanotechnology. They don't move from hypothesis to production, they make sure everything is observable, testable, and repeatable.
This is why evolutionary theory is so widely accepted. It makes testable predictions which can then be checked. One of the best was Darwin's prediction that the fossil record would contain numerous transitional forms.
And we now have them for almost every major group. But even more convincing, there are no transitional forms for things that the theory says should not exist, such as an organism with bird/mammal apomorphic characters. What evidence we don't find is even more convincing than the evidence we do find.
I agree fire investigation and forensics make educated guesses based on other knowns.
No. These are much more than that. You can definitely determine, for example, the location where the fire started, if and often what kind of accelerant was used, and many other things. It's a very good science.
One of the stupid things killers often do is set fire to a house in which the body is located. Fires often preserve many things that would otherwise be lost when the body decays.
Common ancestor differs from those in that it is based on old assumptions that have been proven false. As Dr Moran pointed out genetics correctly debunked evolution.
Ironically, the science of genetics rescued Darwin's theory. One of the big problems with it was "how do new characteristics spread in a population?" Darwin, like all of his contemporaries, thought inheritance was humoral, in the blood. If so, a new trait would disappear like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white. Mendel showed it was more like mixing beads, and Darwin's theory was saved.
"Dr. Moran" seems to be entirely ignorant of biology. Why is that?
Dr Perez pointed out mutations are not aviable source of evolution.
Dr. Barry Hall tested that belief. He took some E. coli bacteria and put them in an environment with a food source they could not use. Over a period of weeks, the bacteria evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system, utilizing random mutations which were acted on by natural selection. "Dr. Perez" seems to also not know much of biology.
Can you give us a source for these guys? I'd like to see what their doctorates are in.
As you see evolution can be rejected based on facts, not just religious objections.
First you need some real facts, not just beliefs. Perez and Moran seem to be using no more than wishful thinking.
There is no such law. Indeed, genetics says that each organism is different than its parents.
I was referring to Mendels laws of inheritance.
Mendel's law doesn't say that. Indeed, Mendel saw his theory as advancing evolutionary theory. And he was right. Unfortunately, his theory was not well accepted, and it was only about 40 years later that scientists realized that he had found the key to Darwinian inheritance. Mendel knew that variations occur in all organisms.
And over time, those differences can accumulate under natural selection, and that leads to speciation, which is an observed fact. Even many creationists, such as the ICR and "Answers in Genesis" have acknowledged the fact. The ICR says that all modern animals evolved since the flood from a few basic "kinds" on the ark.
I respectfully point out your definition of speciation and ICR's are different.
No. In fact, I discussed the issue in e-mail with John Woodmorappe, who wrote the paper for the ICR. He confirmed to me that his paper says that new species, genera, and families (as understood by biologists) evolved after the ark landed.
As you see the issue is not with the facts but how people interpret them.
Sorry, I don't put any faith in postmodernism. The truth isn't just whatever narrative you invent for it.
There is an objective truth, and you can learn what it is, by gathering evidence.
