Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 379 of 443 (804618)
04-11-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Dr Adequate
04-10-2017 2:22 PM


A theist does not need to belong to an organised religion to be a theist. It is true that ToE contradicts the Bible, so a Christian theist cannot believe in both the Bible and evolution. However, ToE doesn't prevent some kind of non-Christian theist from believing in a supernatural Creator God - such a theist can believe that a Creator God created the first simple life-form and then from there developed more complex forms of life through a process of evolution.
Come to think of it, Freemasonry is one organised religion that I'm pretty sure allows a theist to believe both in a Creator God and evolution.
In other words, if you think ToE is going to kill off belief in a Creator God, you are wrong.
----------------------------------------------
As I mentioned, a Christian cannot rightfully believe in both the Bible and evolution. However, there are many so-called Christians who do believe in evolution, but they are either ignorant of the fact that evolution is not compatible with the Bible, or they have chosen to believe that evolution is true and that parts of the Bible are false, in which case, they are not real Christians, but fake Christians who have placed compromise above the truth.
-----------------------------------------
Merely observing the rings of Saturn or that daffodils have yellow flowers or that giraffes have long necks is not science, as they are merely observations. Science involves more than just making observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 2:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:16 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 380 of 443 (804619)
04-11-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by jar
04-09-2017 5:53 PM


Re: Yet the fact remains that Christians oppose Creationism
Having lost your initial argument, you've now moved the goal posts from what the Catholic Church officially teaches to what you think is taught in "science education". Considering your evident ignorance of Catholicism, why would I think you know any more about Catholic education? But having said that, I dread to think what is taught in mainstream "Catholic" education; it is notoriously corrupt and dominated by neo-Marxists.
Regardless, the fact remains that the Catholic Church allows the faithful to completley reject ToE and believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1.
Anyhow, we're way off topic.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 04-09-2017 5:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by jar, posted 04-11-2017 7:00 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 381 of 443 (804621)
04-11-2017 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Dr Adequate
04-10-2017 7:42 PM


Dr. Adequate: "Truth is valuable to some people. I don't expect someone like you to understand."
In other words, you can't give an example of how believing that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has "enormous scientific value".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2017 7:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:10 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 382 of 443 (804623)
04-11-2017 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Tangle
04-10-2017 8:56 PM


I asked you for an example of how the belief (or the theory or the fact) that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has "enormous scientific value" and you can't give me even one! I called your bluff and all you can do in response is repeat your mantra. As I suspected ... all talk and no action.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Tangle, posted 04-10-2017 8:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2017 10:58 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 387 of 443 (804640)
04-11-2017 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
04-10-2017 2:10 PM


Don't get me wrong - I agree that ToE contradicts the Bible. A true Christian cannot believe in both. My point is, ToE doesn't prevent some sort of non-Christian theist from believing that a Creator God created the first life form from which all other life forms evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 2:10 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 388 of 443 (804641)
04-11-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2017 8:16 PM


Dr. Adequate: "You are really going to maintain that these facts are not true science?"
If, as you claim, observing that daffodils have yellow flowers, for example, is true science, then going to the seaside and observing young women wearing teeny weeny polka dot bikinis is also true science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:47 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 390 of 443 (804647)
04-11-2017 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2017 8:47 PM


The only reason I got into this non-discussion with you is because I was bored. It's pointless and off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 9:49 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 393 of 443 (804771)
04-13-2017 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Tanypteryx
04-10-2017 9:59 PM


Tanypteryx: "You do talk funny."
Ur rite, eye shouda saided "chose" insteda "choose", or maybee evin "cheese'.
-----------------------------------
Thanks for the spiel. If the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has no practical use, can you tell me why so many people spend so much of their time and effort studying it, why so much emphasis is placed on it, why it is dogmatically rammed down the throat of anyone who wants to study science?
Since ToE is useless, by not believing in it I am missing out on exactly nothing. One man's treasure is another man's trash. If space-cadet biology interests you, fine, but please stop claiming it's factual. I much prefer real biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-10-2017 9:59 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-13-2017 10:20 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 394 of 443 (804772)
04-13-2017 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Percy
04-11-2017 7:45 AM


Thanks for your "walking" analogy. But I see micro- and macro-evolution like more like this:
Micro' is observing that human beings are running the 100 meter sprint faster and faster.
Macro' is concluding from the evidence that humans are running the 100 meter sprint faster and faster that humans will keep running faster and faster, until the world record will be less than one second.
The fact of the matter is, the evidence that humans are running the 100 meter sprint faster and faster cannot be used to make any prediction at all about how fast humans will run in the future. The evidence cannot even be used to predict that the current world record will one day be broken, let alone that it will one day be less than one second.
In the same way, the evidence that small changes are observed in organisms cannot be used to predict with certainty that massive changes are possible and inevitable.
-------------------------------
Ah, the fossil record ... unfortunately most of us have to depend on the opinions of evolution-obsessed paleontologists, as most of us don"t have Ph.d's in paleontology and spent decades studying fossils for ourselves. This is on top of the fact that paleontology is hardly an exact science and its numerous grey areas allow plenty of room for story telling.
Pierre-P. Grasse: "Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis (is true, paleontologists then) interpret fossil data according to it .... The error in their method is obvious."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Percy, posted 04-11-2017 7:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2017 2:12 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 398 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:20 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 399 by jar, posted 04-13-2017 8:42 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 396 of 443 (804779)
04-13-2017 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Dr Adequate
04-11-2017 8:10 PM


Actually, I was hoping you could help Tangle out and give me an example of how the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from a single-cell organism has "enormous scientific value".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2017 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:08 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 400 of 443 (804868)
04-13-2017 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Percy
04-13-2017 8:08 AM


Percy: "Evolution is the central organising principle of biology".
Firstly, you haven't supplied what I asked for, which is an example of how the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from a single-cell orgaism is useful. A theory, per se, is not a use, it's just ink on paper.
Secondly, you are wrong: Evolution is not the central organising principle of biology. Evolution is the central organising principle of evolutionary biology, which is a different thing. Biology is more than ToE - a lot more.
Biology doesn't need ToE; rather, biology needs only certain components of ToE. The component of ToE that says all life evolved from a single-cell organism has no applied use in biology; it's an irrelevance and just hot air. Remove ToE from biology and the usefulness of biology won't even notice the diiference; it will progress perfectly unaffected.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:08 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2017 9:54 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 401 of 443 (804869)
04-13-2017 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Tangle
04-11-2017 10:58 PM


Tangle: "Your demand is absurd."
You're wrong; it's not the least bit absurd. It's a perfectly reasonable question.
I asked you to give me an example of how the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from a single-cell organism is useful, but all I get from you in response is repetitious and vacuous rhetoric about "enormous scientific value". You huff and puff and bluff, but you can't give me even one example!
Don't know about you, but I reckon that's pretty damned funny (but is it as funny as the whale tale? Yes, I think it is!!)
The truth of the matter is - and sorry to shatter your illusion - you could take take ToE and flush it down the toilet and its absence wouldn't make a scrap of difference to anything tangible and useful in the real world. Even what is normally flushed down toilets is more useful than that!
The only place ToE is useful is in the deluded minds of atheists like you.
Only parts of ToE are useful - natural selection, for example, because natural selection is true. The part of ToE that is useless is the part that says all life evolved from a single-cell organism, so this is the part that is suspect and may be false.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless".
- (the late) Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum,
later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangle: "Now shut the fuck up or prove it wrong."
It seems to me that you are getting a tad uptight ... and over what? a theory that is useless and amounts to nothing more that biology for space cadets. How strange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2017 10:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 4:59 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 405 of 443 (804974)
04-14-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Percy
04-13-2017 8:20 AM


Contrary to your claim, experiments with short-generation organisms such as bacteria have not proved that large changes over many generations are possible. This is a ridiculous Darwinist extrapolation that has no basis in fact - just like the rest of your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Percy, posted 04-13-2017 8:20 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 04-15-2017 7:52 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 406 of 443 (804975)
04-14-2017 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Tangle
04-14-2017 4:59 AM


This is a very impressive list ... of bogus Darwinists claims. If you investigate each of these items you will find that they are either theoretical (with no practical application to living organisms) or are uses that would have been discovered if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution. None of them depend in any way on the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from single-cell organism.
In other words, this list is just more mendacious bs from Darwinists and their irrelevant space-cadet biology (aka atheist theology).
You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2017 4:59 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2017 10:50 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 410 of 443 (805229)
04-16-2017 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Percy
04-15-2017 7:52 AM


If I'm hearing you right, you are claiming that experiments which show changes in bacteria prove that there is "no limit to evolutionary change" and that therefore it is possible that whales evolved from some deer-like land animal. Wow. To you, this sort of reasoning is scientific?
For starters, the changes observed in experiments with bacteria prove only that the observed changes in those bacteria are possible - nothing more. So it is an absurdity to cite such changes as evidence for deer-to-whale evolution.
So what evidence is left for this tale about whale evolution? The fossil record, of course. Or is there more?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 04-15-2017 7:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2017 10:15 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 412 by Percy, posted 04-17-2017 7:41 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024