|
Author
|
Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 114 of 1311 (807973)
05-07-2017 3:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by Davidjay
05-07-2017 12:00 PM
|
|
Re: Evolutionists have no time frames
But please, please refraim from always calling me a liar, or saying I am telling a lie. Stop telling stupid lies then.
Just stay objective and stop the subjective. It is an objective fact that you tell stupid lies.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Davidjay, posted 05-07-2017 12:00 PM | | Davidjay has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 117 of 1311 (807993)
05-07-2017 9:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 116 by CRR
05-07-2017 7:32 PM
|
|
Re: Speedy Species Surprise
However what we don't see, or at least I don't know of an example, is mutations adding significant amounts of new genetic information. Have you managed to attach a meaning to that phrase yet? I like how you've hedged it with the word "significant".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by CRR, posted 05-07-2017 7:32 PM | | CRR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by CRR, posted 05-07-2017 9:49 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 119 of 1311 (807997)
05-07-2017 10:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by CRR
05-07-2017 9:49 PM
|
|
Re: Speedy Species Surprise
This is an area of ongoing research but progress is being made. So you can't yet attach meaning to the things you like to say, but you hope to be able to do so at some point in the future. At which point presumably you also hope they'll turn out to be true. Until that glorious day comes, would it not be more integrous to not say this stuff? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by CRR, posted 05-07-2017 9:49 PM | | CRR has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 141 of 1311 (808182)
05-08-2017 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:02 AM
|
|
Really? In that case, please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world? People are taught about common descent because it appears to be true.
Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so? Creationists are ridiculed because they are ridiculous. --- Substitute any other fact for common descent and the thing becomes obvious. Is it scientifically useful to know who won the Civil War? No. But it is taught --- or, as you would say, "dogmatically preached" --- at every educational level, in the US at least. And someone who went around claiming the South won would be ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles, and indeed in wider circles than those.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:02 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 163 of 1311 (808261)
05-09-2017 12:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 144 by Dredge
05-09-2017 1:46 AM
|
|
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"?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 1:46 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 164 of 1311 (808262)
05-09-2017 12:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 148 by Dredge
05-09-2017 2:15 AM
|
|
Re: Definitely Evolution is a cult?
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.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by Dredge, posted 05-09-2017 2:15 AM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 208 of 1311 (809196)
05-16-2017 8:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by Dredge
05-16-2017 6:28 PM
|
|
Re: Bones
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. Scientists made a couple of mistakes a hundred years or so ago, which they corrected. But creationists make many more mistakes all the time, which they don't correct. So you don't get to chide scientists.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by Dredge, posted 05-16-2017 6:28 PM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 215 of 1311 (809231)
05-17-2017 10:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by CRR
05-17-2017 5:54 AM
|
|
Re: Laetoli Footprints
I can remember when Lucy and the Laetoli prints were promoted hand in hand as proof that these were human ancestors. We now know that Australopithecus had apelike feet and almost certainly was not an obligate biped; i.e. Lucy was an ape. As in a modern human’s skeleton, Lucy's bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. Her distal femur shows several traits unique to bipedality. The shaft is angled relative to the condyles (knee joint surfaces), which allows bipeds to balance on one leg at a time during locomotion. There is a prominent patellar lip to keep the patella (knee cap) from dislocating due to this angle. Her condyles are large and are thus adapted to handling the added weight that results from shifting from four limbs to two. The pelvis exhibits a number of adaptations to bipedality. The entire structure has been remodeled to accommodate an upright stance and the need to balance the trunk on only one limb with each stride. The talus, in her ankle, shows evidence for a convergent big toe, sacrificing manipulative abilities for efficiency in bipedal locomotion. The vertebrae show evidence of the spinal curvatures necessitated by a permanent upright stance. Lucy's Story | Institute of Human Origins What would your argument be? Has God been talking to you?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by CRR, posted 05-17-2017 5:54 AM | | CRR has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 245 of 1311 (809340)
05-17-2017 8:54 PM
|
|
|
Dredge appears to have gone mad. ... well, madder.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 264 by Dredge, posted 05-19-2017 8:09 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 272 of 1311 (809748)
05-20-2017 6:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 270 by Dredge
05-20-2017 6:28 PM
|
|
sigh ... Here we go again - another Darwinist mistaking theory for reality. Your kind are so hopelessly brainwashed that you can't even tell the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory. This is Scientismistic delusion. Bizarre stuff. If you have no rebuttal, be advised that this pathetic incoherent little temper tantrum is no substitute for one.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 270 by Dredge, posted 05-20-2017 6:28 PM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 346 of 1311 (810034)
05-23-2017 12:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 329 by Dredge
05-22-2017 8:49 PM
|
|
I've heard that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertebrates. Is this true? No.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 329 by Dredge, posted 05-22-2017 8:49 PM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 347 of 1311 (810035)
05-23-2017 12:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 328 by Dredge
05-22-2017 8:47 PM
|
|
Microevolution might be compared to a merry-go-round - there is motion and change, but it doesn't actually go anywhere. Direct observation tells us something different from the thing you just made up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 328 by Dredge, posted 05-22-2017 8:47 PM | | Dredge has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 350 of 1311 (810039)
05-23-2017 1:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 348 by Faith
05-23-2017 12:50 AM
|
|
Re: You don't get to define science for YECs
You have no right to tell YECs we can't base our SCIENTIFIC thinking on the Bible's CLEAR EVIDENCE because it's GOD'S WORD. We can say that that's not scientific thinking, though.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 348 by Faith, posted 05-23-2017 12:50 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 351 by Faith, posted 05-23-2017 1:49 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 359 of 1311 (810049)
05-23-2017 2:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 351 by Faith
05-23-2017 1:49 AM
|
|
Re: You don't get to define science for YECs
THERE IS NOTHING UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT STARTING FROM A KNOWN FACT. But there is something unscientific about declaring something to be a known fact when you lack scientific evidence for it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 351 by Faith, posted 05-23-2017 1:49 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 367 by Faith, posted 05-23-2017 10:02 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 438 of 1311 (810473)
05-30-2017 3:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 416 by CRR
05-28-2017 5:51 PM
|
|
Fossilization is quite rare, as evolutionists often tell us when explaining the lack of transitional forms. Evolutionists never "explain the lack of transitional forms". Don't tell silly lies. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 416 by CRR, posted 05-28-2017 5:51 PM | | CRR has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2