|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago. It is hubris that causes humans to believe that reality must conform to their beliefs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: You could have fooled me. You do appear to be easily fooled by creationist websites.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: I think most scientists would agree that applying a theory to produce a practical use is more important to science than mere theorising. That would be engineering, not science. Do you know what the scientific method is? Can you describe it?
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. I already gave you a list of my posts where the theory of evolution was applied and proved to be useful. You can't even reply to them. Also, you know nothing of what I do. I think you would be a bit embarrassed if you realized how much science I do apply in my work.
The bottom line is, biology doesn't need Darwinism - only atheists do. Said by someone who knows nothing about biology.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; Your claim is disproved in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17 in this thread alone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: If children are taught that Darwinism is nonsense, they aren't missing out on anything, because biology doesn't need Darwinism; This is rich. Creationists refuse to even look at a single fossil. The last thing they want to do is produce an honest definition for "transitional fossil" because they know the moment they do they will be presented with fossil after fossil that fits that definition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Perhaps you're thinking of Pakicetus? Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction.Bottom left: what he had actually found Top right: more complete skeleton Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction Perhaps you are ignoring the mixture of terrestrial mammal and cetacean features found in the fossil itself, outside of any artistic reconstruction of the species. This is the part creationists always seem to ignore. You don't need a whole, perfectly preserved fossil in order to determine that a fossil species had a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Take Lucy for example. Looking at just the bones in the actual fossil you can find an apelike jaw, upper torso, brow ridge, and other apelike features. You can also find humanlike features such as a broad and squat pelvis and inward angled femurs (adaptations for bipedalism). Like almost everything in science, creationists have to run away from the observations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: 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. Then ignore the depiction. Why are you so afraid to address the bones they did find? The truth of the matter is that Lucy has a mixture of ape-like and human-like features, the very definition of a transitional fossil.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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. Which of these is Piltdown man or Nebraska man?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: Yes they do. According to Laetoli Footprints they are in fact "hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans."Others have said they are indistinguishable from footprints of modern humans from that area who habitually go barefoot. 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. A track of human footprints strongly suggests the trail was made by humans. Well that's the most logical conclusion.
Yet more dishonesty from creationists. Lucy's pelvis and femur were human-like, not ape-like.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Coyote writes: They have to deny, misrepresent, or ignore many other fields as well, particularly dating sciences, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc. "Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf That is a quote from a devout Christian and famous scientist. I would suggest that creationists give that article a read because it feeds right into this thread. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Forgive my ignorance, but how was the age of the footprints estimated? 40Ar/39Ar dating of the volcanic ash that preserved the footprints. 40Ar/39Ar Dating of Laetoli, Tanzania | SpringerLink
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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? I will take that as a tacit admission that those fossils are transitional.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: 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. Given your sudden attempts to change the subject, I will also take this as a tacit admission that you accept Lucy as a transitional fossil.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge 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? Go to posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17. Try to explain those same observations without using evolution. The whole point is that you can't make sense of those observations without using evolution. This point is further supported by your inability to even address those posts, much less explain them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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. Given your pathetic attempts to dismiss radiometric dating, we will conclude that you have nothing to counter the dates given in the peer reviewed literature.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024