Actually,
Right.....
Originally posted by lotrfreak
Your "evidence states: “DNA has even been extracted from a well-preserved skeleton of the extinct human creature known as Neanderthal, a member of the genus Homo and often considered either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens or as a separate species. Application of the molecular clock, which makes use of known rates of genetic mutation, suggests that Neanderthal's lineage diverged from that of modern Homo sapiens less than half a million years ago, which is entirely compatible with evidence from the fossil record.”
I have this quote from a book by RALPH O. MUNCASTER it is called Creation Vs. Evolution.
Wow, a citation!
“It was once thought that the Neandertal was a man. But recent genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes do not match those of humans. They do match those of bipedal primates (apes).”
What research? And how does that discount the fact that humans evolved from Neantherdal man? Scientists don't say that the Neantherdal was a man, see the quote you referred to above, merely that we share the same genetic history.
Your evidence also states: “ Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
Well, I have to say this about that: The scientific method is the basic set of procedures scientists use for obtaining knew (what, this guy can't spell?)
knowledge about the universe in which we live. The steps include: observe, form hypothesis, design experiment, collect information, interpret data, form conclusions. Evolution isn’t based on the scientific method, because no one was there to perform the scientific method.
No, but YOU weren't there when God supposedly created the Earth, were you? The evolution theory is the closest thing that science has come up with to explain the Big Unknown. As much as possible, the theory has evolved from years of research in the fields of astronomy, physics, botany, zoology, geology and many more.
Your evidence states this too: “No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education.”
I have to say this: Once again, evolution is not based on the scientific method. Shouldn’t it therefore not be “admissible as science?”
Do you accept that Stars are massive balls of gas? Even though no scientists have ever seen a star close up or experimented on one? Or do you think that God just poked a few holes in a black curtain and put a bright light behind it?? No, as mentioned above, they are limited in our study of evolution. If scientists were to discount it as scientific theory on this basis, they would have to shrug their collective shoulders and say, "Er, we don't have any idea how it all came about."
It is a THEORY for that reason. But it is certainly makes more sense to scientists as it is based largely on emprical evidence and reasonable logic. Creationistic theory is based on circular logic alone, a type of reasoning that does not sit well with the scientic method you mention above.
And that, I think, is enough. Now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing! I don't know what I believe about who created the whole Shebang, I just hate weak arguments!! 
Mum to two little humans, a very vocal 14 year old Ragdoll, and a super energetic and snuggly rescue kitten.
RIP Nibbler, joined the Bridge 12 May 2007.
RIP Pixel, joined the Bridge 24 November 2017.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks