|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 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"? Truth is valuable to some people. I don't expect someone like you to understand.
"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. Do you think your pathetic attempts at twisting words will convince anyone of anything except that you are deeply, wretchedly dishonest? What do you aim to achieve by degrading yourself in this way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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". Those are indeed other words; and another statement; and a huge honking lie. Truth is valuable in itself, as I explained. And obviously a big truth has a lot of value. But as I say, I don't expect you to understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In other words, if you think ToE is going to kill off belief in a Creator God, you are wrong. I don't. And as you have admitted that you don't either, this destroys your absurd fantasy that "The only raison d'etre for the theory of evoluton is to provide a godless creation story for atheists".
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. You are really going to maintain that these facts are not true science? How amusing. Then when you tell us that evolution is not true science we shall know what to think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The fact that young women exist is as much a scientific fact as are the facts about the color of daffodils.
If you want to claim that it is unscientific to believe in young women, produce your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The only reason I got into this non-discussion with you is because I was bored. It's pointless and off-topic. It relates to your absurd delusions as to what constitutes "true science". But feel free to be wrong about whale evolution instead: I am sure your ignorance has many facets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But I see micro- and macro-evolution like more like this: Then you are completely wrong and should stop. But were you not the one sternly reminding us of the topic? Try being completely wrong about whales.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Curious lies you told there.
I note that they are not about whales.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
For starters, the changes observed in experiments with bacteria prove only that the observed changes in those bacteria are possible - nothing more. What a bizarrely antiscientific statement.
So what evidence is left for this tale about whale evolution? The fossil record, of course. Or is there more? There's also genetics, morphology, and embryology. A great deal has been written on these forums and elsewhere about whale evolution, did it ever occur to you to read it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You accuse me of being "antiscientific", so please explain how the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal. I did not say that "the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal". I said that the fossil record, genetics, morphology, and embryology could be used as evidence for that. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How can you be certain that small observed changes mean unlimited change is possible? An understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Together with the fact that there is no mechanism by which a lineage can keep count of how many mutations it's had and then have no more mutations after it hits a certain number.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But is it not true that scientists cite small observed changes in bacteria as evidence that unlimited change is possible, thus enabling whale evolution to be possible? Those observations are evidence suggesting that it's possible, but they are obviously not evidence that it happened. Those are two different questions. Lots of things are possible and don't happen. Which is why I didn't say that "the changes observed in bacteria can be used as evidence that whales evolved from a deer-like animal".
Embryology. Haeckel's fraudulent embryo charts are still cited in some textbooks to support the theory of evolution. Wow, that's disturbing. Darwinists love their snake-oil science. In which textbooks? Or did you make that up? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Recently I had a bizarre conversation with my chiropractor, who believes in evolution. I asked her, "Considering the fact that humans are running the 100 faster and faster, can the prediction be made that the current world record will be broken?" She said, "Of course it can; there is no limit to how fast humans can run, because there is no limit to evolution.". This was her idea of being scientific. The truth is, despite the fact that humans have been running the 100 meters faster and faster, one cannot predict with certainty that the current world record will be broken. It may happen, it may not. No one knows. To predict that it will certainly be broken is to make an irrational assumption and an unscientific extrapolation ... to further claim that there is no limit to how fast evolution will allow humans to run is something out of La La Land.Irrational assumptions and unscientific extrapolations of this nature are part of the staple diet of the Darwinist mentality. And they call it science! I note that your silly childish ramblings have nothing to do with whales.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024