|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Thank you for this information. I need to study it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You claimed that I said that Creationism is science and that I mentioned Intelligent Design. I asked you to show where I said these things, but you can't. Is it your habit to fabricate lies about what people say, or is this an isolated aberration?
----------------------- Once creation is rejected, one has no choice but to believe in evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for this information. I will study it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
jar,
I'm sorry for claiming that you fabricated a lie. It appears I've made a big dumb mistake, so I retract my accusation. I must have forgotten my medication or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
As you would already have noticed, Faith, evolutionists have a penchant for calling something "evolution" when it really isn't. Evidently, deception via semantics is accepted as part and parcel of the culture of evolutionary "science". When asked for a practical use for macroevolution, they can't give you one. Instead they'll proffer an example of microevolution - eg, genetic variation within a species, or an example of natural selection (such as antibiotic resistance).
Microevolution is a undeniable, demonstrable scientific fact that has a multitude of uses in applied science - in stark contrast, macroevolution is a untestable theory of atheist theology that has zero applied uses. So on the scale of irrelevance, macro'theology is right up there with Little Green Men on Mars and the Tooth Fairy. Atheists get most upset if anyone disrespects their useless but dearly loved theory - to them it's the "greatest discovery in the history of science" and they have a deep-seated psychological need to believe in it. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Your claim isn't even close to being correct: The Catholic Church officially does not oppose Creationism in any way, as Catholics are free to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Catholics are also free to believe in a evolutionary version of creation, which is called theistic evolution. Catholics are not bound in any way to believe in the theory of evolution and they are free to reject it in its entirety.
And Catholics are perfectly free to believe in Intelligent Design (in fact, I wonder what sort of Christian doesn't believe in ID - probably the fake kind). Personally, I reject theistic evolution and I think eventually the Catholic Church will realize that evolution is not only fake science, but utterly incompatible with Scripture as well. My tip is, the Church will one fine day declare that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are literally six days of 24 hours duration each (as per the Scriptures) - thereby killing off any possibility that evolution can be squeezed into the Christian picture ("Catholics" like Kenneth Miller might then need to find another religion).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Only some aspects of ToE explain how life on earth works. Which aspects? Precisely those aspects which have a use in applied science.
The parts of ToE that have no use in applied science just so happen to explain nothing about life works, rather they attempt to explain how life arose. But history, per se, is useless to applied science and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. --------------------------------- I disagree with your claim that the theory of evolution debunks biblical creation - an untestable theory can't debunk anything. The untestable theory of evolution can do no more than provide an alternative belief system. The only raison d'etre for the theory of evoluton is to provide a godless creation story for atheists; it serves to reinforce their perception of reality. But as a tool for applied (real) science, it's as useless as science fiction. Applied science is the only true science, because if a theory can be applied to produce a practical use, you know that that theory is more or less correct. Theoretical science has it's place but unfortunately is also serves a medium for space cadets, bs-artists and useless talkers. Even if evolution could be proven to be a fact, it still wouldn't debunk the existence of a supernatural Creator God, because a supernatural creator God could be responsible for starting and directing evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for this information. It was brought to my attention by a couple of other posters that my understanding of the definition of "speciation" was wrong, so some of my previous posts may have come across as a tad nonsensical. I was aware that a species can split into groups that end up not being able to interbreed, but I didn't realise that this phenomenon is called"speciation".
"Speciation" strikes me as rather misleading term, which is hardly surprising, knowing that the only purpose of ToE is to mislead (it's purpose is obviously not to serve science, since ToE is useless to science). One reason I indulge in forums like this is that my mistakes and misconceptions are exposed by other posters, which I can take on board and then make the necessary corrections. However, I am not at all convinced that speciation means macroevolution is possible, as claimed by Darwinists. Greenish Warblers undergo speciation, but they are still Greenish Warblers; fruit flies undergo speciation, but they are still fruit flies. Evolutionists love to take certain facts and apply wild extrapolation to them until the desired effect is achieved (apparently this is what passes for sound scientific procedure in Darwin World). Some creation scientists have suggested that genetics, as you allude to, will eventually prove that macroevolution is impossible. Fascinating!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Actually, "speciation" is the wrong word to use here. Turns out it's not what I meant to say. I need to change my demand to:
"Please provide an example of how the removal of the belief that all life on earth evolved from a single-cell organism will change something useful in the real world." -----------------------------In answer to your question, religion is not science. My religion relies on faith and reason; science relies on just reason - unless it's Origins science, which required faith as well, which means it's not science, but pseudo-science or pseudo-religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Talk is cheap and I'll call your bluff - please give me an example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has, as you say, "enormous scientific value"?
-------------------------- "Knowledge needs no justification"? Really? Ok then, I have no need to justify believing in the Tooth Fairy or that a fleet of UFOs is parked on the darkmside of the moon - these will pass as knowledge. Imagine what would happen to mathematics if knowledge didn't need to be justified - someone could claim 1+1= 3. Clearly, knowledge needs be justified, otherwise every conceivable belief and idiotic idea qualifies as knowledge, which would result in a world infinitely more insane than it already is. So in short, you are talking patent nonsense. ----------------------------- You claim that ToE has "overturned" what is written in the Bible. As I pointed out in my previous post, it is impossible to overturn a belief with another belief that cannot be establshed as a fact. Otherwise, it comes down to nothing more than a matter of one opinion verses another opinon. So what you need to do is stop talking rubbish and demonstrate how an untestable theory canbe established as a fact - which even the village knows is impossible, so I wish you luck. If you can't demonstrate how the aforementioned impossiblity can be made possible, then I will have no choice but to conclude that your aptitude for talking nonsense is very impressive and your aptitude for thinking logically is not so impressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
"Evolutionists ... get to make the definition of evolution".
Unfortunately, evolution science can't be trusted to tell the truth. The definition of evolution includes both micro- and macro-evolution, which permits evolutionists to get away with calling antibiotic resistance an example or evolution, for example. The process that allegedly allowed all life to evolve from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) requires much more than what is going on in antibiotic resistance (which is merely natural selection). In other words, the term "evolution" is very misleading. ------------------------- "And I suppose dripping water into a cup never fills it either". We know from observation that a certain amount of change can occur in a species, but to extrapolate this to potentially unlimited change is another matter. Let me ask you this: Since the human beings are running the 100 meters sprint much faster than they were, say, 60 years ago, does this mean that they can run it still faster? Based on the available evidence, can the prediction be made that the current world record will be broken?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Perhaps I choose the wrong words and didn't express myself properlly previously. What I need isan example of how the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism (macroevolution) is useful. You've given someexamples of microevoluton, which is not what I'm after. I already know that microevolution has many uses.
----------------------------- I never claimed that something has to be of practical use to be true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The theory of that all life evolved from a single-cell organism cannot be put to the test, so this means that this theory lies outside the realm of the scientific method.
So if, as you say, "Science is defined by following the scientific method", then said theory isn't science. Said theory is known as the theory of evolution. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Actually, you are technicaly correct when you say that there are no creation scientists, since creation lies outside the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science. Instead of using the term, "creation scientist", in future I shall endeavour to use something like, "scientists who believe in creation".
But the belief that all life evolved from a single-cell organism also lies beyond the realm of the scientific method and is therefore not science, so if there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" there is also no such thing as a "evolution scientist" either. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I didn't mention abiogenesis, did I?
-------------------------------- How do you apply the scientific method to confirm the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024