This is the greatest failure of an attempt at logical commentary I have witnessed on digg. We can observe where babies come from because it happens every day. We cannot see where the universe originated at the dawn of time.
Charles Darwin confided his own doubts in a letter to a colleague in 1858, the year before publication of the Origin of Species:Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but you will be greatly disappointed; it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service then collating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.If Darwin himself called it "grievously too hypothetical," why are we teaching it as proven fact today?Page 74 The Case against Darwin
There is also the THEORY of gravity. Now I'll give you two options:#1 Wake up and read what a "THEORY" is in scienceOR#2 Help me test this "THEORY". I have this really tall bridge, now all you have to do is hold this brick and ...
Hmmm. It is true that many intelligent people believe in God. But I don't think that society would be any less moral if people didn't. If morality comes from religion, why is it so similar in places with different religions? Most of ethics is human nature. As far as what you say: "Those truly ignorant are those who do not concede to the fact that they do not know everything;" That is certainly true. But in religion, you are making assumptions based on no evidence, which to me is worse than making assumptions based on evidence and closer to thinking one knows everything. Ask any scientist if they know everything about their subject, and they will say no. Anyways, although you have some good points, I think you are missing the point. There is a big difference between believing in God and not believing in evolution, and people who think scientifically may often do the former, while they will very rarely do the latter. Why? There is no real evidence either for or against the existence of God, but there is strong evidence for evolution.
Inner ear? Are you serious? We see more primitive forms of the inner ear everywhere in nature (simple example, non-mammals have ears which don't actively generate an endolymphatic potential and thus do not respond well to higher frequencies). We also see parallels to auditory transduction in other systems: vestibular, visual, etc; and see the proteins that are expressed in the inner ear also expressed elsewhere in the mammalian body. To deny that there could be an evolutionary lineage of the development of the inner ear is an order of magnitude more absurd than claim about the eye being similarly "irreducibly complex."
Search for some published articles on the matter, you'll find that evolution has been observed. Start by looking into the works of Richard Lenski and Michael Travisano.
adizm55Sep 24, 2007
This is the greatest failure of an attempt at logical commentary I have witnessed on digg. We can observe where babies come from because it happens every day. We cannot see where the universe originated at the dawn of time.
robodoonSep 24, 2007
Charles Darwin confided his own doubts in a letter to a colleague in 1858, the year before publication of the Origin of Species:Thank you heartily for what you say about my book; but you will be greatly disappointed; it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service then collating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.If Darwin himself called it "grievously too hypothetical," why are we teaching it as proven fact today?Page 74 The Case against Darwin
acolyte357Sep 24, 2007
There is also the THEORY of gravity. Now I'll give you two options:#1 Wake up and read what a "THEORY" is in scienceOR#2 Help me test this "THEORY". I have this really tall bridge, now all you have to do is hold this brick and ...
thewatchmanSep 24, 2007
nor is the theory of evolution as the way inanimate matter became living organisms "TESTABLE", the scientific method doesn't work in reverse.
pureeviljesterOct 3, 2007
i didn't vote for Bush. don't be an ass
gnurduxNov 10, 2007
Hmmm. It is true that many intelligent people believe in God. But I don't think that society would be any less moral if people didn't. If morality comes from religion, why is it so similar in places with different religions? Most of ethics is human nature. As far as what you say: "Those truly ignorant are those who do not concede to the fact that they do not know everything;" That is certainly true. But in religion, you are making assumptions based on no evidence, which to me is worse than making assumptions based on evidence and closer to thinking one knows everything. Ask any scientist if they know everything about their subject, and they will say no. Anyways, although you have some good points, I think you are missing the point. There is a big difference between believing in God and not believing in evolution, and people who think scientifically may often do the former, while they will very rarely do the latter. Why? There is no real evidence either for or against the existence of God, but there is strong evidence for evolution.
isitolianNov 11, 2007
Well, yes. I agree that intelligent design is stupid and baseless. But people who belive in God without believing in intelligent design can be smart.
ozydingoJan 9, 2008
Inner ear? Are you serious? We see more primitive forms of the inner ear everywhere in nature (simple example, non-mammals have ears which don't actively generate an endolymphatic potential and thus do not respond well to higher frequencies). We also see parallels to auditory transduction in other systems: vestibular, visual, etc; and see the proteins that are expressed in the inner ear also expressed elsewhere in the mammalian body. To deny that there could be an evolutionary lineage of the development of the inner ear is an order of magnitude more absurd than claim about the eye being similarly "irreducibly complex."
ozydingoJan 9, 2008
Search for some published articles on the matter, you'll find that evolution has been observed. Start by looking into the works of Richard Lenski and Michael Travisano.
ozydingoJan 9, 2008
Why should Earth be comparable to the moon or the sun?