Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
It's generally wise to be skeptical of "think tanks." There's a reason these people aren't inside of the walls of the academy--and it's generally that they have some kind of axe to grind.
But let's look at the arguments here one by one:
1. There are gaps in the fossil record.
2. Abiogenesis seems unlikely. (though evidence of it is all around us--we know that there is life on earth now, and we know that there wasn't always. Isn't that just as compelling as the "evidence" of gravity? I sure think it is.)
3. There's something out there Science can't explain.
What each of these arguments has in common is that they're all arguments of negation. Why spend the energy negating a theory, if it's, as you claim, "full of holes"? Wouldn't it be better to come up with your own theory and use it to explain the available data?
Think about it: these "scientists" have already accepted the basic premise that the Theory of Evolution should be tested against the data. That means the onus is on them to provide a credible alternate theory. All they've produced, according to the links you've posted, is hand-wringing and weak attempts at debunking. Where's their pro-active theory? Where do they think life came from? How are they planning to TEST their theory?
Those are important questions to ask--I think the answers will tell us a lot.
|
I jsut want to say I enjoy your reading your posts Iowa and I'm ashamed I haven't been able to keep up with your other posts.
Anyways, I understand what you are saying. And perhaps I haven't done a very good job at providing their cases in here. I'll try to provide more convincing data that has helped convince me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Sorry for the novel. And congrats on the new baby!  |
Thanks Iowa!