Summations Only

Of all the nonsense served up by evolutionists, whale evolution is the most hilarious yarn yet - I love it!

The whale tale is one of the funniest yarns concocted by evolutionists: Some land-lubbing, vegetarian deer-like creature supposedly developed a taste for swimming in the ocean and devouring seafood. Its nose somehow ends up on top of its head and its legs somehow turn into flippers. I love it! ... except is reduces the noble pursuit of science to embarrassing quackery. Isn't it interesting what some people are willing to believe?

It never ceases to amaze me that the scientific community invests so much time and effort (and more than a little arrogance and dogma) in a subject that is nothing more than an historical curiosity and is as irrelevant and useless as a fairy tale. It seems to have never occurred to evolutionists that 150 years of research into how one species supposedly gave rise to another species has produced absolutely nothing of any practical use - zilch. It also seems that it has never occurred to evolutionists that perfect uselessness is the hallmark of a theory that is false. I wonder how many more decades will go by before the penny drops.Furthermore, which part of the whale tale can be put to the test in order to establish its veracity? The embarrassing answer is, none of it. There is no way of knowing whether any of it is factual.
"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." - Dr. Colin Patterson.So your much-vaunted morphology, genetics, embryology and fossil records amount to an exercise in futility that contributes nothing to science.

You mentioned paleontology. There are so many grey areas, ambiguities and uncertainties associated with paleontology that the whole flaky mess hardly deserves to be called a science. It should come as no surprise that evolutionists love it so much, since it offers their vivid imaginations a lot of room for expression.

I don't know what happened there; as far as I know I only posted it once ... and it is only one sentence from my original post. A bit weird.

In my post I said (or at least, meant to say) that species-to-species research has produced nothing of any practical use. Which medical treatment involves one species evolving from another species?The point I was trying to make is, if speciation is a "fact", why hasn't it produced a practical use? Evolution is often touted as the greatest discovery in science, yet there is not one, single use for the mechanism that it critically depends on - speciation.Unlike speciation, natural selection is a demonstrable scientific fact that no one can deny. There are many, many practical uses for natural selection. Speciation, in stark contrast, is not a demonstrable scientific fact, and has not a single practical use. Do you see a pattern here? Could it be that speciation is perfectly useless because it's nonsense? That would make a lot of sense.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dr. Patterson's words still stand and will always stand - ie, there is no place in science for ideas that can't be tested.
However, ideas that can't be tested might find a home in the realms of pseudo-science and atheist theolgy; evolution being a prime example.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Ok, well thank you for that information. There must be at least some aspects of paleotology that are true and subsequently, useful. Even the theory of evolution contains some truth that is also useful - natural selection, for example.

Someone who loves their whale-tale soup has pointed out that that I've gone off topic, which is a fair complaint, so I'll keep this short and just say that it's difficult to know exactly what this paleoenvironmental analysis in the Gulf of Mexico involves, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that it isn't dependent on whether speciation has occurred or not.

You say that "evolution is the most important unifying concept in natural history" and that is "essential to our understanding in a myriad of ways".If you could wave a magic wand and remove from human consciousness the notion that species evolve from other species - evolution's core doctrine - it wouldn't make an iota of difference to anything pertaining to the real world. So the theory of evoltion isn't "essential" in ANY way, let alone "a myriad" of ways. It's as irrelevant as a fairy tale.The only "use" the theory of evolution has in atheist theology, where it may well be "essential" as a means to become, as Dawkins put it, "intellectually fulfilled".Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Can you point out where I said Creationism is science, please. And I've never mentioned Intelligent Design. -------------------------
You have not taken into account the fact that many Christian denominations have become spiritually corrupt, so it's to be expected that many will fall away from the truth - it's actually a prophesy (which you would no doubt be aware of, since you are a Bible expert).And as that old saying goes ... You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Despite much googling I've been unable to find a practical use for the theory of evolution. So maybe you can help me out by citing an example.-------------------
Contrary to your claim, I never said it's useless to study how things are. It seems that you are talking nonsense.---------------------
Thinking you know how the universe works doesn't mean you are correct. That is to say, the theory of evolution could be wrong, just as the theory of a flat earth was wrong. Star Trek has contributed more to science than the theory of evolution, which, in my opinion, is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific creation story for atheists - not to mention, the greatest hoax in history. The theory of evolution doesn't even belong in science, since it can't be put to the test.------------------------"... you pompous ignoramus" - wow, you are obviously head-over-heels in love with your atheist theology ... so protective!Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

You seem to saying that the theory of evolution is useful because certain things pertaining to human existence, like technology, evolve. If this is your argument, it's a very poor one.

Technology evolves because humans think of new and better ideas - this process is not depedent whatsoever on the theory of evolution, which is dependent on one species of organism evolving from an existing species. Human technology has been evolving for as long as human have existed - ie, long before the theory of evolution came along.
--------------------------------
Contrary to your claim, evolution is not the "central unifying concept of biology" - rather, evolution is the central unifying concept of evolutionary biology.Biology would continue to progress and not suffer in any way if the theory of evolution didn't exist, because nothing that is practicaly useful in biology depends on speciation.
In short, the theory of evolution needs biology, but biology doesn't need the theory of evolution.
----------------------------------
Mutations within a species is not speciation. Flu vaccines are not dependant speciation, so are not dependant on the theory of evolution. Human migration patterns are not dependant on speciation, so are not dependant on the theory of evolution.

Every claim of "speciation" make by evolutions that I've investigated has turned out to be decidedly unconvincing - dare I say, bogus.
(Ditto for the examples of real-time "evolution" that Darwinist myth-makers peddle - such as antibiotic resistance. What mendacious nonsense. I've learnt that evolutionary "science" can't be trusted to tell the truth.)Can you please provide me with an example of observed speciation ... please note that the new species will have been assigned a different biological (binomial) name to the species that it (supposedly) evolved from. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Please provide an example of how the removal of belief in speciation will change something useful in the real world.