reply to post by EnochWasRight
The evidence for design continues to be found by mainstream science.
Normally I would have stopped right there, because that's just an outright lie. But, for some reason, I felt compelled to continue reading...
Evolution continues to provide no answer that can refute intelligent design.
Well of course it can't. Evolution, the theory (someone had to put that in there), is bound by the rules and dictates of the scientific method.
Intelligent design is religion. Religion is bound by no such rules and dictates. Anything and everything is explained in religion.
Yet I kept reading...
Any perceived evolution in life is a result of programming and not a cause of life.
Ahh. Ok, so this isn't one of those spoof troll threads, you are actually being serious.
Well, I will try to address this from a serious perspective then, giving only my opinion and feelings on the matter. I happen to believe in the
theory of evolution as it's all but complete. It's a proven theory, science and data supports it, and we can witness micro-evolution at work all
But see, this is the thing. Evolution isn't trying to tell you why life started or where it came from, it's only trying to explain how it got to what
we see here now. Evolution will never be able to "disprove god" because it's simply beyond it's prerogative to even approach that.
Evolution and a "creator" mix and fit perfectly, and for most people open to the theory of evolution, that's fine. the only people who have an issue
with the two mixing are people like you, coming at this from a purely religious standpoint.
Ok, lets take the salmon for example.
Coming from your point of view, the salmon just blinked into existence with the needed genetic mutations to make it what it is, namely that
Yet, science shows:
Salmonidae are a family of ray-finned fish, the only living family currently placed in the order Salmoniformes. It includes salmon, trout, chars,
freshwater whitefishes and graylings.
The Atlantic salmon and trout of genus Salmo give the family and order their names.
Current salmonids arose from three lineages: whitefish (Coregoninae), graylings (Thymallinae), and the char, trout and salmons (Salmoninae).
Generally, all three lineages are accepted to share a suite of derived traits indicating a monophyletic group.
Salmonidae first appear in the fossil record in the middle Eocene with the fossil Eosalmo driftwoodensis first described from fossils found at
Driftwood Creek, central British Columbia. This genus shares traits found in the Salmoninae, whitefish and grayling lineages. Hence, E. driftwoodensis
is an archaic salmonid, representing an important stage in salmonid evolution.
A gap appears in the salmonine fossil record after E. driftwoodensis until the late Miocene about seven million years ago (mya), when trout-like
fossils appear in Idaho, in the Clarkia Lake beds. Several of these species appear to be Oncorhynchus—the current genus for Pacific salmon and
some trout. The presence of these species so far inland established that Oncorhynchus was not only present in the Pacific drainages before the
beginning of the Pliocene (~5–6 mya), but also that rainbow and cutthroat trout, and Pacific salmon lineages had diverged before the beginning of
the Pliocene. Consequently, the split between Oncorhynchus and Salmo (Atlantic salmon) must have occurred well before the Pliocene. Suggestions have
gone back as far as the early Miocene (~20 mya).
Now see, the fossile record alone shows you that this fish is a evolution from an earlier species. and the part you are missing, or ignoring, is the
fact that evolution doesn't always go from bad to good.
There are countless dead ends on the evolutionary tree, only those that manage to adapt positive traits survive. Sure, we see a salmon with a compass
in it's head, what we don't see are the hundreds or more possible variations that didn't make it.
Evolution is, at the core, a random process. Yes, some things adapt to their environment, but at the core, evolution isn't just that, it's also a
random process of genetic mutation.
Again, science says this is correct, and has data to help persuade people.
It will never address where that first spark came from, it will never address why the laws of physics and the rules of reality are what they are, THAT
my friend, is the territory reserved for religion, and it can happily coexist with science (and reality) if you let it.
Troll away, I really don't care, I said my thing.
edit on 1-8-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)