|
mcp -> RE: Evolution is WRONG, scientific PROOFS! (4/16/2008 11:04:13 PM)
|
quote:
Was it the lack of lunar dust? . I did read some of the studies around the lunar landing predictions a long while ago, but can't remember all the predictions/modelling that occurred on the issue before we landed on the moon. Scientists' concern was reduced on the matter before 69. AIG rightly addressed this was not a universal prediction at that time (deep/fluffy moon dust). I haven't posted on this site in a long time. But I have read some recent threads including this one. I too believe that many conclusions on evolution are suspect, but I haven't been on the forefront of many of the arguements in quite a while; even with occasionally browsing talkorigins, AIG, ICR, etc. IMO, it is hard even for a biologist or physicist to get too involved on the arguments of other disciplines. Actually, having known plenty of people in their respective fields, they seem to struggle with their own discipline because they tend to specialize. But all in all, we have to base our world view on limited understanding (limited knowledge of the evidence and the proper interpretations of this evidence) or shape our arguments/understanding on an accepted worldview. quote:
These lectures incorrectly attribute arguments from astronomy and astrophysics to biology & evolution. Assuming I am addressing the same Kennedy discussion you were- As to using cosmological or geological points to reflect on biological theory (or vice versa), there are relevant connections. The evol. model has to coordinate dating of both; empirical evid is used for fine-tuning/corrections as it were (dated strata/dated fossils or earth cooled enough/life starts). The model has to unify; that cross discussion is why the concern for circular reasoning may play too big a role in evolution. Not to get off topic, but who would know of a spritsail skiff and its tie to the promised land?[:)]
|
|
|
|