|
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:
|
Tangle writes:
Moot point. Why did God create spiders with eight legs ... the sky blue ... grass green ... jelly fish ... flies? Why did he give Dredge super-intelligence and movie-star looks? Not understanding why the Creator created as he did is not a persuasive argument against it happening. except to ask why he'd do such a thing Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
aristotle writes:
The dogma, arrogance and indoctrination of Darwinism reminds me of what you find in the worst kind of cults .. and some religions. Darwinism is like the Taliban of science.
Anyone who says different is immediately labelled "ignorant", reminds me a lot of religion.'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record ... According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time. I like the way you think, aristotle! ... most of the time, anyway : ) PE is a joke. It is accepted only by folks whose definition of "science" is wide and loose enough to include pseudo-scientific nonsense and intellectual superstition. 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: |
RAZD writes:
Hence, Darwinists can justify claiming antibiotic resistance is "evolution", which requires no increase in genetic information. Evolution occurs whether information is added or notThis is a different sort of "evolution" to a human descending from a bug, which entails massive increases in functional complexity and therefore massive increases in genetic information. So there are actually two kinds of "evolution" ... but Darwinists will tell you, No, there is only one kind of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
CRR ... "Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site."
dwise1 writes:
I would bet my bottom dollar that 99% of the authors at Talk Origins are atheists.
"atheist"? Wherever do you get that idea from? I cannot recall ever seeing atheism being presented or promoted on it. What are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
aristotle writes:
Good question. Nevertheless, "speciation" is a another of those misleading terms that Darwinists love to employ; it's meant to convey the idea that it is a demonstrable fact that one species evolves from another species, in which case, a whale can evolve from a racoon. How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means? Green Warblers "speciate", for example, but they are all still Green Warblers. What this has to do with enabling a whale to descend from a racoon is something that only the wonderful mind of a Darwinist can comprehend. Accepting such "science" evidently requires a special intellectual talent ... which I fortunately lack. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Nonsense. Catholics aren't "told" to believe anything about evolution. As a Catholic, I am free to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and completely reject ToE. And I said that he could indeed and that was exactly what Catholics are told to believe. You seem to be confusing what Catholics are officially obliged to believe with what Catholics are free to believe. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Evolution claims that since humans and chimps are so genetically similar, they must share a common ancestor. But a Creator could have created these two creatures as close-but-different simply because he wanted to. Choose whichever theory appeals to you.
If creationism is true, why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy? Out of all the trillions of possible combinations of features and DNA, why pick the one pattern that evolution would produce?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
DWise1 writes: I would bet my bottom dollar that 99% of the authors at Talk Origins are atheists. "atheist"? Wherever do you get that idea from? I cannot recall ever seeing atheism being presented or promoted on it. What are you talking about? Dredge, you avoided answering my question by raising a second question: Why would you assume that almost all the authors at TalkOrigins are atheists? What do you base that sweeping assumption on? Another question would be: Why should somebody's religious beliefs have any bearing in the matter? Especially in matters of science. As well as in matters of factual truth. Here's something that you are probably ignorant of: Many opponents of creationism are themselves former creationists. Kind of like the reformed smokers who want to save all the other smokers from themselves. Think about it, why would anybody be so interested in "creation science"? Why would anybody devote so much time and effort into learning "creation science" and discussing it and trying to talk sense into creationists' minds? Maybe because they used to be where you are and creationism destroyed their faith or threatened to destroy it. I have seen far too much of that happening. So, Dredge, the question(s) still stand. Why do you think talkorigins.org is an atheist site? And why would you assume that so many of its authors are atheists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dredge writes: Moot point. Why did God create spiders with eight legs ... the sky blue ... grass green ... jelly fish ... flies? Not understanding why the Creator created as he did is not a persuasive argument against it happening. Except of course the question wasn't why did he do such things, it was why did he do them all at once a few thousand years ago and make them look billions of years old? Is your god a trickster? On the other hand, if he did do it all a few billion years ago and then either let stuff happen on its own or guide it through a process, we have absolutely no way of knowing any different. The outcomes and the evidence would be the same.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dredge writes: As a Catholic, I am free to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and completely reject ToE. Oh sure, the Catholic church is a very pliable organisation - why lose customers by telling them they musn't believe mythologicl nonsences that they taught dogmatically for centuries just because they've been proven to be wrong? But it's a very strange thing for a desciple of the Catholic faith to believe something totally different to its leaders. I guess you know best?
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5—4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, later Pope Benedict XVI, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve. Pope FrancisJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... which requires no increase in genetic information. ... Can you define "genetic information" and then show this to be the case? Or are you just parroting creationist pseudoscience because it conforms to your beliefs and that makes you feel comfortable? In case you missed it, science uses defined terms and metrics that can actually be measured. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Isn't that kind of like a reverse Appeal to Authority? Actually it is an attempt at cognitive dissonance reduction -- what they are saying can't be true ... therefore they must be lying atheists ... yeah, they're lying atheists so I don't have to believe a word they say ... there it's resolved ... Sadly evidence is not dependent on people, it is fact, it is real, and it will still be fact and real years from now. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
No and no. But genetic informaton is a logical concept that I expect science will verify as an irrefutable fact one day. Then you won't be able to dismiss it as creationist pseudoscience. You will then also have to reconcile the existence of two kinds of evolution - one that doesn't require an increase in information and one that does ... which Darwinists have long claimed is one and the same thing. Dredge begs to differ. Can you define "genetic information" and then show this to be the case? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Dredge writes: But genetic informaton is a logical concept that I expect science will verify as an irrefutable fact one day. And that is the difference between Science and Fantasy of Dogma. If that should happen (even though no one has even been able to tell us what genetic information is much less how it is logical, reasonable or relevant) Science would change to reflect reality. Religious Dogma like Creationism though has no connection with reality or factual basis and changes only with the whim of those who market religious dogma. Edited by jar, : apalin spallin
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024