|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
You can DO things without them making sense. A cat can start a fire by knocking over a heater but does fire make sense to the cat? Fire only makes sense in the light of chemistry and physics.
Please state your position. Are you trying to make the case thata) NOTHING in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. b) SOME things in biology only make sense in the light of evolution. c) for some things in biology evolution provides a plausible but not exclusive explanation. d) Everything in biology makes sense without invoking evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Nobody denies that there "could" be another explanation. But the plain fact is that there ISN'T another explanation. Biology makes sense in the light of the only explanation we have.
... ignoring the possibility that there could be another explanation, known or as yet unknown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You're not being scientific. You can't be scientific all by yourself. It's a collective endeavour. STOP TELLING ME I'M NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC WHEN I KNOW I AM. If all creationists could get together and provide an alternative explanation for what is observed in biology, that could conceivably be called science. Your individual wild guesses can not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Of course there's always a beginning. What followed AFTER Hutton et al. was what made it science - the testing and confirmation. Was Hutton doing science before anyone accepted his theories? Or any other pioneer? There is nothing following after your mad speculations. You propose no testing. Nobody is trying to test creationism. THAT is why it is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Correction: creationism CAN'T produce its own science because there's nothing scientific about it. Creationism can't make sense of biology because it ignores reality. it's based entirely on myth. Creationism doesn't need to "produce its own science". If creationism could produce its own science, it might be taken seriously by science; it might be possible to teach it in schools. But as it is, all creationism can say is that science is wrong, which isn't much of a basis for education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Davidjay writes:
Creationism doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It only asserts that God created; it doesn't explain HOW. Religionists even agree that Gods ways and means are unknowable by mere mortals.
... creationism is the sane logical rational other explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Davidjay writes:
"Ultimate power" and "ultimate wisdom" don't explain anything.
But it involves ultimate power and ultimate wisdom as well. Davidjay writes:
You still have forty pages of unanswered posts.
There I answered another one of your questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Exactly. So why do you even bring up pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution?
Of course not - creation is a miracle; miracles can't be explained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Shouldn't YOU be the one looking for evidence of creation? What would YOU consider to be evidence of creation? Since 1981 you've been looking for evidence of creation and you've not yet found any? What would that evidence look like? Or are you just anti-evolution/anti-science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
What about ugly women then? What about parasitic worms?
I see anecdotal evidence of creation every day - a beautiful woman, for example! Dredge writes:
Irreducible complexity is not scientific.
But scientifically speaking, there is irreducible complexity, for starters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
CRR writes:
Discredited by creationists? That's kinda like saying the FBI was discredited by Dillinger.
I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
aristotle writes:
You can't predict what evolution coulda/woulda/shoulda done.
If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now. Aristotle writes:
It isn't an "advancement". It's a change.
If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
So you have no real arguments against TalkOrigins. You're reduced to telling yourself that they must be wrong because they're atheists. Isn't that kind of like a reverse Appeal to Authority?
I would bet my bottom dollar that 99% of the authors at Talk Origins are atheists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Then why mention atheists at all? Why not just argue against evolution from a scientific point of view? Huh? I'm saying anyone who accepts evolution is wrong - theists included. BioLogos and Talk Origins are both wrong. Practically every Christian who knows anything about evolution accepts it. Why don't you try to figure out why YOU'RE wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Not inherently retarded, maybe, but you are definitely being held back by your religious views.
Do you I might be retarded? Dredge writes:
Belial is creationism. Creationism is bad science and worse theology. "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?" - 2Corinthians 6:15 Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024