|
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 (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
That's not a very nice thing to say.
Cut the bullshit!! Why do you consider it atheistic? Be very specific in giving your reasons.
Well, ToE is actually an invention of Satan; but it is transmitted to the world at large by atheists. Out of the Enlightenment came a tsunami of atheism. It's was only a matter of time before a pseudo-scientific creation story came along to make all these atheists feel "intellectually fulfilled". It's so obvious. Why can't you see it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thanks for the tip.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
CRR writes:
Notice how the article says some rats have "evolved" resistance to warfarin. I was involved with rats and their poisoning in a former life, and no one in that sphere uses that terminology - only evolutionary biologists do. Everyone else says the rats "developed" resistance. The purpose of using "evolved" is to promote their cult of evolution's theology that says, if evolution happens in real time, it is an irrefutable fact, and therefore all life on earth shares a common ancestor. Surprise, surprise, one of the authors of the article is Kenneth Miller, a "Catholic" who thinks millions of years of evolution is compatible with the Bible. (Catholics who worship Scientism and give lip service to Holy Scripture aren't true Catholics, imo). ‘ resistance to poisons is rarely a free ride for either insects or other organisms, because the selective trade-offs imposed by pleiotropy often maintain polymorphism either within or between populations of a species. Some populations of Norway rats, for example, have evolved resistance to the rat poison warfarin. Where the poison is in widespread use, homozygotes for the allele that confers resistance are common. But that allele also lowers rats’ ability to synthesize vitamin K, a compound essential in allowing blood to clot, and they bleed more easily. For that reason, in places where warfarin is not used, individuals homozygous for this allele are at as much as a 54 percent selective disadvantage compared to wild-type rats, and the allele is far less common. The same sort of phenomenon has been demonstrated for the alleles that confer resistance to DDT and to dieldrin in mosquitoes.’Levine, J. and Miller, K., Biology: Discovering Life, D.C. Heath, Lexington, p. 257, 1994. Evolution cultists use the same "loaded" terminology when discussing antibiotic resistance: the medical profession says bacteria "develop" resistance, but evolutionary biologists say bacteria "evolve" resistance. In their bizarre cult of voodoo science, natural selection is "evolution". Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I agree. But thinking you understand something when in fact you don't is never useful. Hence, the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science.
Understanding how something works is never useless, whereas ignorance of how it works is never useful. Please note that "goddidit" is an extremely poor answer in science because it does absolutely nothing towards answering the question of how things work Please note that "evolutiondidit" is an extremely poor answer that has contributed absolutely nothing to the advancement of science. Kettle, meet pot.
What about Einsteinian relativity? Pure theory, right? Useless according to you, right? ...Relativity is a theory. You would proclaim it to be useless. What on God's good earth are you talking about? I stated that the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science ... and you have somehow come to the conclusion that I therefore consider ALL scientific theories to be useless! No wonder you find it easy to accept ToE - extrapolating wildly to arrive at an absurd conclusion comes naturally to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: So, genetics actually support evolution. Evolutionary scientists read into the evidence whatever they want to see - this quackery is applied to everything from the the fossil record to geology to embryology to genetics, etc, etc. These snake-oil merchants fool a lot of people, but they don't fool me or millions of other creationists. Even when the inevitable arrives and genetics nails the the lid shut on evolution's coffin, there will be many atheists who won't accept the evidence. Why? Because, as Jack Nicholson's character said in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth!" Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes: Your task in rejecting evolution is to show why a subset of those possibilities would be fixed. For example, if the alphabet is your set of possibilities, you need to show why the combination AB is possible but the combination AC is not. Oh, I get you ... as in, why did AC/DC appear and not AB/AC? Or why ABBA and not BAAB? This is a fascinating subject and I'm glad you brought it up. Here is another thought: If you check the bass tabs of popular songs played by professional bass players, you find that notes are very rarely played higher than the twelfth fret. Yet you cannot find an bass guitar built that has less than twenty frets. Why all these extra frets if they're rarely used? The answer is, the "junk" frets (13-20/24) are vestigial; remants of a bygone era - perhaps billions of years ago - when all frets were used equally (not by humans , of course, but by some kind of musical monkey-man). Evolution is fascinating, n'est-ce pas? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
This is excellent advice that every atheist should consider. "God is not what you imagine, or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed." (Augustine of Hippo) Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
The accumulation of mutations like the one that produced new coloration in moths is exactly the pathway that results in massive biological change.Dredge writes: Thank you for providing this example of you arriving at what you think is a scientific conclusion, but is in fact an absurd extrapolation. Taq writes:
I've used this analogy before, but evidentlyit has been ignored: Your reasoning is no different to claiming that since humans are running the 100m sprint faster than they were twenty years ago, eventually humans will run the 100m in one second. That is too say, since a small change is observed, this means a massive change is possible - this amounts to an absurd extrapolation. In case you haven't noticed, ToE is dependant on an absurd extrapolation. You haven't shown that there is any extrapolation or anything absurd. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Notice that breeders have not managed to produce black or red budgies - and I predict they never will, because there are limits to variation. Due to these genetic limitations, macroevolution is impossible and ToE is nonsense. In the wild, 99.9999% of budgerigars are coloured green and yellow. But breeders have produced budgies in many different colours, including white, blue, green, yellow, grey, violet and Pied. The potential for these "new" colours always existed. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NoNukes writes: Dredge writes:
Seriously Dredge. Haven't you already acknowledged that this is a hypothesis? How about making the same claim about the theory of evolution? I stated that the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science The theory that all life shares a common ancestor is the theory of evolution. I don't understand why one is described as a hypothesis and the other is described as a theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Doctors don't care about theories about origins and tales about rodents turning into whales or apes turning into humans. They care about the science of here and now and what works and what doesn't work. ToE is useless to them, hence their terminilogy is different to that employed by the atheist cult of Darwinism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Please explain how SIFTER makes use of the theory that all life shares a common ancestor.
Dredge writes:
I already showed you that this is false with the example of SIFTER. Why do you keep lying about this?
I agree. But thinking you understand something when in fact you don't is never useful. Hence, the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is useless to applied science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Forget Darwinism for a sec. The general theory of evolution says all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. This is a theory of universal common ancestry, isn't it?
False. Universal Common Ancestry is a conclusion, not a theory. How many times have we gone over this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I would call Darwinism a cult, rather than a religion; but I like to refer to evolution science as "atheist theology", because it is the equivalent of theology to theists.
I have always found it fascinating that creationists try so hard to make evolution look like a religion. Why is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCatsEye writes:
Religion requires faith, but shouldn't science - eg, evolution - be confined to evidence? It's interesting that you seem to think faith has a place in science. Apparently, being a religion is the worst insult they can come up with.Or the whole: "See, evolution takes faith!" arguments, as if they see faith as some kind of bad thing - which makes you wonder... Imagine if engineers relied on faith when building bridges! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024