|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
You could have fooled me.
That doesn't address what I wrote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: Producing theories is what science is all about. I think most scientists would agree that applying a theory to produce a practical use is more important to science than mere theorising. Your problem you live in a dreamworld of evolutionary theory (aka atheist theology). When it comes to the real world and applied science, you've got absolutely nothing to offer and your theories are are useless as fairy tales. All talk and no action - a typical Darwinist space-cadet, in other words. I wonder which strand of theorectical science is more useless - Darwinism, String theory or Parallel Universes? The bottom line is, biology doesn't need Darwinism - only atheists do. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; it's just an irrelevant atheist creation-story. Darwinism doesn't advance any science in any way; and since it is only theorising, it doesn't qualify as true knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
CRR, this is a miserly list - only sixteen suspect areas of evidence!
I like the way some paleontologists take a few bones and construct a entire creature out it - maybe even a "transitional". No doubt about it, evolutionists' devotion to scientific rigour is admirable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
New Cat's Eye writes: scientists will continue to employ the theory of evolution as a working theory that explains biological phenomena. Useless talk amounting to useless science, in other words. Not impressed, but slightly amused.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Taq writes: Take Lucy for example Yes, let's take Lucy ... her feet bones were missing, so she was depicted with human feet ... based solely on the fact that human foot-prints were found nearby! Real scientific, that. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Coyote writes: When you spend your whole career studying bones you can do things like that Yep, and when you get really, really good at it, you can come up with Nebraska Man from a pig's tooth! ... or combine the bones of an orangutan and a human to produce Piltdown Man! That degree of scientific rigour, knowledge and expertise is possessed only by highly qualified Darwinist charlatans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Forgive my ignorance, but how was the age of the footprints estimated?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't know - but E looks like John Lennon and B looks like Charles Darwin. G looks like the Phantom, but is it not true that the Phantom cannot die? Skull A looks like me! Am I dead but don't know it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCat'sEye writes: the usefulness of this science Yeah, right - just like the Theory of Parallel Universes is useful!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: the very definition of a transitional fossil That's what they say about, Archaeopteryx, but there are many scientists who disagree.My personal favorite transitional is the Platypus, extinct for 3.3429087 million years. Some folks in Australia claimed to have seen them (!) but all these so-called witnesses turned out to be loony Jesus-freak creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCat'sEye writes:
Are you saying that I must accept, for example, that humans evolved from a hominid, in order for biology to make sense to me?
Without evolution, biology just doesn't make much sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: 40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash I bought one of those 40Ar/39Ar dating kits from K-mart ($12.95) and found it to be unreliable. Then I read the instructions and tried again - it was worse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
No wonder you're a Darwinist - you have a natural aptitude for taking an observation and applying wild extrapolation to it, thus ending up with an unreasonable conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
A trained philosopher would immediately recognise this statement as some kind of logical fallacy - something to do with ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown. you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution A simple example - I wake up one morning and discover that a dent has appeared in a panel on my car. I can come up with a theory of how it got there that may seem reasonable to me, but there are other possibilities. My theory could be dead wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024