Posted by eman on September 21, 1998 at 14:35:43:
In Reply to: I'm ready to see the experiment: Man, chimp evolve from common ancestor posted by Walker on April 24, 1998 at 11:54:09:
Alan,
I recommend that you contact www.talkorigins.org.
They discuss transitional fossils at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html, explain why evolution is both fact and scientific theory at www.talkorigins.org/evolution-fact.html, explain the laboratory experiments and observations that illustrate speciation and the arise of new species at www.talkorigins.org/faq-speciation.html and at www.talkorigins.org/speciation.html. It is clear to me that you have yet to understand that science CANNOT prove anything absolutely. Scientific theories and laws do not just appear out of someones head. They are formed based on conclusions from an immense amount of research, experimentation, observation, etc. These theories are then submitted to the scientific community at large, where the experiments and observations are repeated to see if the same results occur. The conclusions are tested by seeing if the theories can make accurate predictions. Cold fusion is a good example where the scientific community scrutinized the experiments and results in order to determine if it were good science. I believe it was determined to be faulty and the theories proposed on cold fusion by that scientist has been discarded. Since the studies of the origins of life encompass billions of years, I do not believe that it is feasible to show, to your satisfaction, that man and chimp evolved from a common ancestor, unless you were present millions of years ago to observe this from start to finish. Many are confused when they believe that evolution science claims that man evolved from apes. That is just not so. Man's evolutionary "tree" branched off in another direction far before anything that looked like an ape appeared. They may have had a similar ancestor, but they were on totally separate branches early in their evolution. Why is the Supernatural version of events a more believable one to you? I think that it is because it is a far simpler one for you to understand. Science is complicated and not easy to understand or discuss without a certain degree of sophistication or education in the field (a good high school should be fairly sufficient, but in order to fully comprehend the more involved details requires a more substantial educational background). It is much easier for someone to comprehend a supernatural tale...very ancient civilizations with little scientific advancement can grasp it quite easily. The supernatural explanations are much more comfortable for the individual who seeks easy answers. Afterall, who can trust these scientists with all their scientific "mumbo-jumbo"?
Alan, if you feel comfortable with your religious faith in the inerrant literal Bible, more power to you. However, please do not degrade your faith and your religion in attempting to use the scientific method to support your claims. Just because you may not understand where the theory of evolution came from and why it is so widely accepted in the global scientific community, there is no reason to abuse it towards your own ends. History has already shown early Christians that the Bible was never meant as a scientific text. Galileo, Copernicus, and others, have already convinced most believers that the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, the earth, and even the sun, are not at the center of the universe. Even the majority of Christians who do not hold fundamentalist beliefs, have come to accept that evolution has occurred over billions of years, but that God was involved. If you want to continue to accept the Bible as literal, cover to cover, (which, by the way, most Christians do not), then you will also have to explain away all the contradictions in the Bible when taken literally. One example is the two distinct and differing accounts of creation in Genesis. In one, man came before animals, birds, and plants. In the other version, the animals, birds, and plants came first. If you would like a longer list of contradictions in the literal Bible, just let me know and I'll give them to you. And then you can explain why this book, when taken literally, is more plausible to you then scientific rationale.