- Anything Else -

It is absolutely correct... until you begin describing evolution as scientific.

Posted by: Gotch on November 15, 1999 at 21:40:39:

In Reply to: A challenge; no-one's cracked it yet... posted by Gideon Hallett on November 15, 1999 at 17:31:16:

Wow! That's quite an argument, Gideon, and very well put. It is absolutely correct... until you begin describing evolution as scientific. Since science must be observable -- evolution as it pertains to the origin of the earth, universe, life, etc. -- cannot be science. All we can do is observe things as they presently are (or refer to things written before by those who lived and observed in time periods earlier than ours.

Hence, since no human was around at the origin of the earth, a study of it cannot be scientific.

You refer to evolution as being an on-going process. In what way? When is the last time that a cat had anything other than a kitten? When did a bacterium ever divide into something than two bacteria? What evolutionist call evolution today is, in fact, devolution. Can you "prove" that there has ever been the addition of NEW genetic material as a result of a mutation or other "evolutionary" development?

I'm not aware of any. I may be mistaken, but I'm not aware of any time that a mutation has EVER resulted in a benefit to the organism itself.


Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup