|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
As I said at Message 802, We will never know the true history of the flood!
But that's another topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
We DO know that the Flood didn't happen. There may have been a local flood that inspired the long-lost original story, but nothing like the Biblical Flood ever occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
CRR writes: We will never know the true history of the flood! The truth about the 'Flood' is that there has never been one. That's the reason you'll never know how it happened. But again, why try to create impossible scenarios for how the flood story worked in real life when you can simply invoke magic?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
But again, why try to create impossible scenarios for how the flood story worked in real life when you can simply invoke magic? That has always puzzled me too. Of necessity, the flood story includes at least two supernatural acts of magic - God "making" the flood happen; and God "making" all the animals march up to the ark from all over the world in pairs. There is no doubt that those two things are both acts of Godly magic - there's no natural mechanism - God decided to do them, and supernaturally made them happen. Magic is absolutely and unavoidably needed for key parts of the flood story. If you accept the magic there, why not simply say the whole thing was magic ? Edited by vimesey, : TypoCould there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dredge writes: For example, if there was one kind of giraffe on the ark and there are four species today, so what? God wanted four species to exist, so after the Flood he waved his magic wand and four species eventually emerged from one kind. If he wanted twenty species of giraffe, then twenty would have eventually emerged from one kind. What's the problem? There wouldn't be a problem if you understood you're doing religion and not science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But again, why try to create impossible scenarios for how the flood story worked in real life when you can simply invoke magic? That has always puzzled me too. Of necessity, the flood story includes at least two supernatural acts of magic - God "making" the flood happen; and God "making" all the animals march up to the ark from all over the world in pairs. There is no doubt that those two things are both acts of Godly magic - there's no natural mechanism - God decided to do them, and supernaturally made them happen. Magic is absolutely and unavoidably needed for key parts of the flood story. If you accept the magic there, why not simply say the whole thing was magic ? Actually I think the Flood was a natural consequence of the accumulation of sin in the world, which does have physical effects, but I guess if I'm going to say that I might as well say God did it because I'd have to try to make the case for the fundamentally spiritual nature of the universe. I might also suggest that the animals would have a "sixth sense" about their survival, but I do have to agree in that case that since they came two by two or in sevens that God must have guided them. And there's another miraculous event you didn't mention: It was God who shut the door to the Ark after they were all in. There should be evidence if the Flood was real, no matter how it was brought about, and that's the strata the strata the strata. How it occurred is mostly speculative but not really all that miraculous, but it should have had certain effects and I think those can be guessed at to some extent as I keep trying to do. God does do miracles from time to time but for the most part He created this world to run by natural laws, and that's how science can exist at all. But again, the evidence is the strata. I know there is a terrible need to rationalize it in terms of the Geological Time Scale against all logic, and as long as people keep doing that nothing reasonable can ever be said against it that will stick with those who have that frame of mind. But as I keep saying, the strata are clear evidence of a worldwide Flood, and really really difficult to defend as evidence for ancient time periods without turning your mind into a pretzel: Sediments full of dead creatures deposited horizontally across a continent? Really?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Evolutionists and creationists argue about what was possible or not after the Flood, but both seem to be forgetting one important factor: The God who created all things isn't confined to natural laws and can perform miracles. After the Flood, the Creator could have decided to "hurry things along" by miraculously creating further variations within the kinds of creatures that came off the ark. God could have easily facilitated "accelerated evolution" - no problem at all. In which case, creation science doesn't have to stick strictly to the Bible script, as God could have performed all sorts of miracles in his creation that aren't mentioned at all in the Scriptures. For example, if there was one kind of giraffe on the ark and there are four species today, so what? God wanted four species to exist, so after the Flood he waved his magic wand and four species eventually emerged from one kind. If he wanted twenty species of giraffe, then twenty would have eventually emerged from one kind. What's the problem? The problem is that makes God a liar or trickster - or, your god is Loki... The world tells us that giraffes were not magically poofed into existence one day by a god. If your God did actually do that, then he also disguised it, and that is a dirty trick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CRR writes: While there are some who take an extreme view one way or the other I think it has become clear during the discussion that quite a lot in biology makes sense without evolution. Dobzhansky was just using hyperbole for a catchy title for his article; and there's nothing wrong with that. Quite a lot of biology only makes sense in the light of evolution, and I have yet to see any other explanation for the history of life that makes the same sense. Would you agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CRR writes: The Wedge Document: So What?I see the NSCE propaganda continues to equate ID with Creationism. As a YEC I can tell you that the people at the Discovery Institute are not Young Earth Creationists. Since they've had a running disagreement with Biologos they're not theistic evolutionists either. I think you're just using an ad hominem to avoid the scientific issues raised.
The Wedge Document isn't propaganda. It is a memo written by the Discovery Institute for the Discovery Institute. They say themselves that ID is not science and that it is religiously motivated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: I should be more specific:"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." If "evolution" means simply, heritable changes in a population (a la Dr Adequate's definition), then yes, the above statement has a lot going for it. If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it - iff the theory of Common Descent is left out of "Darwinism". If "evolution" means the Theory of Common Descent, the above statement has nothing at all going for it if "biology" means applied biology. If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it if "biology" includes atheist bed-time stories about whales evolving from deers, etc.
We use the theory of evolution to determine if species share a common ancestor. The nested hierarchy only makes sense in the light of common ancestry and evolution. The pattern of orthologous ERVs and their divergence only makes sense in the light of common ancestry and evolution. The correlation of molecular and morphological phylogenies only makes sense in the light of common ancestry and evolution. What we see in biology only makes sense if species share a common ancestry AND if the divergence between them, both at the physical and DNA level, occurred through the mechanisms of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: It seems to me that what Darwin did, in effect, was take the principals of artificial selection (that animal and plant breeders had been employing for millennia) and apply them to creatures "in the wild" ... thereby coming up with the theory of natural selection to explain heritable changes in a natural ("wild") population. From there he waved the magic wand of wild and uninhibited extrapolation until he arrived at Common Descent. Darwin arrived at common descent because of shared features between species, biogeography, and vestigial features, to name a few. Common descent was independent of natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Well finally. It's always puzzled me why creationist don't simply apply magic all the way through the process. Why spend so much time attempting to explain the factual impossibilities of the bible when you can just say 'goddidit'? At that point we'd all shut up - there's nothing we can say about magic. Why do you guys do it? Because they know they are wrong? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If "evolution" means the Theory of Common Descent, the above statement has nothing at all going for it if "biology" means applied biology. It doesn't. This is why "applied biology" is not a tautology.
If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it if "biology" includes atheist bed-time stories about whales evolving from deers, etc. It doesn't. No-one says that whales are descended from deer. P.S: "Deers"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What about the Sun, Dj? It's a freakin' nuclear fusion reactor and atheists believe it formed as a result of blind, dumb chance! No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Tangle writes: But again, why try to create impossible scenarios for how the flood story worked in real life when you can simply invoke magic? Because they know that religiously based explanations are inferior to scientific explanations. This is why they try to make evolution look like a religion so that it shares the same flaw as creationism does.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024