But technically, Darwinism is not science, because it rests on non-empirical assumptions about matter not open to empirical proof or disproof. You cannot hand me a telescope and show me the apeman giving birth to man, or man giving birth to superman. You cannot even breed peas and make them into something other than peas.
10 comments
But you can look at fossils, intermediate species, genetics, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the entire field of epidemiology... but what do I expect from someone who doesn't know what a telescope is used for?
"You cannot hand me a telescope and show me the apeman giving birth to man, or man giving birth to superman"
True but that has nothing to do with evolution so it is a moot point.
Here is a thought. You don't believe evolution is true. Fine. Stop using medicine and vaccinations. They are available and due to evolution they change so they can fight viruses.
You cannot even breed peas and make them into something other than peas. image
You say you can't breed peas and make things other than peas.
You CAN, however, selectively breed wild mustard plants for what is probably millions of successive generations and get the following: horseradish, land cress, Ethiopian mustard, kale, collards, cabbage (regular, Savoy, Napa, and bok choy), Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, broccoli, cauliflower, rapini, turnips, rutabagas or swedes, rapeseed (canola), arugula, watercress, radish, daikon, and wasabi, plus some others I've never even heard of.
Isn't that evolutionary divergence? ;)
You know, I was just reading a book by Ernst Mayr the other day about evolution in which he argued that historically, the one thing that hold the idea of evolution back the most was Platos theory of forms, taken to literally: That there is a realm of "ideal" forms, which are given imperfect substance in reality. This leads to the strange idea that there is something like an "ideal" horse and that a donkey could never have any kind of connection to a horse or be considered as such because there is an imaginary "line" between the two ideals. Sounds familiar? It's the same old thing with the "kinds" of the bible which are often used by creationists to argue that there can only be micro- and never macroevolution. And it's the same here: There is no ideal "pea" to measure whether something is a pea or is not a pea. You could watch the evolution of a pea for millions of years and you could probably never state "Yep, at this point it is no longer a pea" because nature is continuus, not discreet (most of the time at least). But why am I wasting breath on you, you seem to believe that an ape changing into a human is what evolution is all about. You are already a pretty lost cause.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
