Thanks for the reply, David.

We share the desire to have the mutable and immutable clearly labelled. You may not share my opinion that context should have been sufficient to that task. It was a documentary presented through an outlet dedicated to science and the semantic wiggle, "It is currently thought," is implicit in the definition of modern science. Besides, if it were used for every statement to which it applies, watching The Discovery Channel would become very tedious business.

Our argument (if we have one) is around the definition of science. Earlier in this thread you mentioned the changes in thoughts about probable Dinosaur behavior. I'm sure you know many similar examples. You recognize the changeable nature of scientific discovery then suggest, "Science should be all about asking questions instead of being cast in stone. Who is to say that we are correct in all of todays assumptions."
Science is about asking questions but also making observations, identifications, descriptions, experimental investigations and theoretical explanations consistent with them. Science is more than asking questions; it is more than simply stating that Dolphins swim.
Scientific theories are always open to falsification; they are judged on the accuracy of their predictions. Science is not like mathematics or logic; it is messy. The scientific method cannot deduce or explain anything about reality beyond the observable -- that is the domain of philosophy and religion.
You were absolutely correct when you wrote "We should have the opportunity to explore all possibilities." Given its nature, we should agree that science is not (yet) the domain of some possibilities. Maybe there is an intelligent designer -- Maybe the universe itself is intelligent -- Maybe the universe was created yesterday -- Maybe we are simulations in some unimaginably powerful computer...
Don't get me wrong - I love the possibilities (and the debates.) But however appealing or comforting those propositions may be, until their truth or falsity would make a practical difference in a scientific theory of the natural world, they are philosophical and religious debates.
With wishes for a happy, healthy and peaceful holiday season,
SC

PS: A theory doesn't have to be easy to believe, obvious or intuitive to be accurate. Aomic theory says my solid, stationary desk is made of mostly empty space and some tiny particle/wave things/energies that are neither solid nor stationary.

Morning Sabbathcorn

Darwins survival of the fittest theory would have a great multitude of Dogs like my Penny decide for an obviously good reason that living in the Sea was a better strategy for survival than living on the land for more than one generation. So in the first pass the Sea is swarming with Cocker Spaniels doggy paddling around trying to catch fish. Now some of those Cocker Spaniels would drown but those Cocker Spaniels with slightly upturned noses whould be slightly less likely to drown and so their Genes are more likely to survive. So in the next pass the Cocker Spaniels with parents with slightly upturned noses are doggy paddling around trying to catch fish and they have inherited their parents good looks and they too have slightly upturned noses. Now some of those Cocker Spaniels would drown but those with the even more upturned noses are more likely to survive and pass their Genes on...........

Don't get me started on Echo Location

Now there are about 80 different species of Whale, Dolphin and Porpoise so that would take this requirement to occur at least 80 times (probably a lot more because those Cocker Spaniel Coats don't half soak up the water probably leading to a number of extinctions along the way ) each time giving rise to remarkably similar creatures at the end (?) of the process

How many dogs would have to drown for this to happen?

This is why even with my scientific outlook on life, I believe in this scientific project for instance, yet having a faith that doesn't require an absolute black and white interpretation of the creation story. It still gives me a great belly laugh each time they trot this idea out as a given.

This is where I'm coming from


Julied

Something needs to be done on the damage to the environment by Christmas celebrations. Just on the subject of packaging alone. How many tonnes of completely inert plastic are disposed of. Just on convenience cooking alone tonnes of plastic is used to cover our food. It also seems we now have little choice but to go headlong down this route.

I wish I could arrange a campaign whereby instead of disposing of all of the wrapping around everything you buy in a supermarket in your own bin. We all take it back and dispose it in the supermarkets bin in the carpark as a protest. 3 or 4 months of that and they would soon change their ways.

The latest absurd invention with no thought for the environment is Microwaveable Vegetable sachets that steam the vegatables inside. These plastic sachets may contain just 100g of diced carrots and then to cap it all they put the plastic sachets in another plastic bag which you carry home in another plastic bag .

To all Supermarkets out there "USE PAPER OR CARDBOARD" at least it can be recycled and if it doesn't and it ends up in landfill it will compost.

The sheer amount of non recyclable rubbish is a 21st Century crime

Right I'm Ok now rant over.

I'm sure in the future Mankind will l go everywhere laughing like drains because you need a great sense of humour to survive in this crazy world.

Happy Christmas to one and all

Dave

Heres an instance where the caption explicitly states that this sequence shown is how evolution might have taken place in the case of the humerus of these fish.

Here they state the interval of time this is occurring in in the range of 350 to 410 million years ago. There is alot of speculation here even though the pictures are real pretty and the fish have scientific names!

The url of the entire article is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4638587/

This article discusses the 'fins to feet' evolution. At some time, more recent or less recent or at another time or even the same time period there's another evolutionary process going on. The 'feet to fins' process. It would be nice if evolution would make up it's mind as to which way it's going!

Hi sabbathcorn,

I'm pretty much a pointless person. I wasn't trying to make a point. I'm guessing what is thought of as evolution is not directed and doesn't have intelligence. I do think whatever entity started the ball rolling did have intelligence and may or may not have direction but that kind of speculation requires faith and while there is nothing wrong with faith it can be as very misleading as science. I use to search for the truth. I never found it. I'd settle for a nice fantasy!

dreplogle

Morning Sabbathcorn and dreplogle

dreplogle I like the fin to legs debate and like you can't get my head around why then go legs to fins but hey who am I?

Sabbathcorn for me it does take a greater leap of faith to go with the drowning Cocker Spaniel scenario. I'm sure some dogs would have to be de-natuarally selected for the survival of the fittest to lead toward a Dolphin. I take on board your non requirement for 80 different species of dogs in the beginning but that leads me to yet further problems as we go from Dolphins up to the size of Blue Whales from the same source creature

I've had my faith under my belt for the last 21 year so it's pretty unshakable it's part of me and yes it does colour my world. So on the one hand I have to think "It's a Dolphin" what a superbly designed animal for it's environment or on the other as espoused by the wonderful Discovery Channel I am expected to believe that it is the decendant of a dog sized land mammal with little supporting evidence.

For me anyway I know which takes the greatest leap of faith