|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... But genetic informaton is a logical concept that I expect science will verify as an irrefutable fact one day. ... When and if that ever occurs, two things will happen:(1) science will be able to measure the amount of such information, and (2) those measurements will show that information increases or decreases or stays the same during different instances of evolution. And then the Creationists will be out of another argument they think refutes evolution. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for additional information ...
quote: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
No and no. But genetic informaton is a logical concept that I expect science will verify as an irrefutable fact one day. Perhaps. Let's accept that to be true.
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 So what if that did happen. The creationist claim is that information cannot be increased. There are already logical arguments that the claim is total BS anyway. I will present one. If a mutation for state A to state B decreases information, then by definition a mutation from state B to state A increases information. I have yet to see a creationist explain why one of those two should be impossible. The idea that increases in information are impossible is just assertion based on a gross misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You have a long way to go to make your argument work. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge 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. Creationists just can't seem to grasp the simple concept that they need positive evidence that God did create something. This isn't about us trying to disprove creationism. This is about creationists needing to put forth evidence for their position. This is called the "burden of proof". If ID/creationism can not explain the facts, then ID/creationism is not accepted. Since ID/creationism can not explain the twin nested hierarchies, then ID/creationism is not accepted. Evolution DOES explain the twin nested hierarchy which is why scientists accept evolution over ID/creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge 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. This is what we call psychological projection. Notice how you have to attack the messenger instead of dealing with the message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: Hence, Darwinists can justify claiming antibiotic resistance is "evolution", which requires no increase in genetic information. You have yet to show that evolution requires an increase in genetic information. For example, compare the human and chimp genomes. Can you show us how those genomes differ in information content? Probably not, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: But genetic informaton is a logical concept that I expect science will verify as an irrefutable fact one day. They have already done that. At the same time, they have also shown that information can evolve.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I didn't say it is an atheist site. Why do you think talkorigins.org is an atheist site? And why would you assume that so many of its authors are atheists?Evolution is an atheist invention, so any non-religious site dedicated to evolution is likely to be dominated by atheists ... just as evolutionary biology is dominated by atheists. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
No, it's no strange at all for Catholics to differ on points of science. And what Church leaders think about any point of science is irrelevant to the faith. If a Pope supports evolution, other Catholics are not obliged to share his opinion. And a Catholic can believe that the Sun revolves around the earth, for example, if he wants to. Getting science wrong is not considered a sin. The bottom line is, a Catholic can believe anything as long as it doesn't compromise the doctrines, teachings and dogmas of the Church. 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? The Bible is not a book of science and the Catholic Church is not a science club. I can't think of any science that a Catholic is obliged to believe. In fact, the dogmas that a Catholic must believe are decidedly un-scientific ... the Resurrection, Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, etc, etc. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Huh? I'm saying anyone who accepts evolution is wrong - theists included. BioLogos and Talk Origins are both wrong. You're reduced to telling yourself that they must be wrong because they're atheists. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
didn't say {TalkOrigins} is an atheist site. In Message 483:
CRR writes: Ah, the ever unreliable Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site. You replied to him in Message 487:
Dredge writes:
So not only are you calling that site "atheist", but "Satanic" to boot! Talk Origins = Talk Atheist Theology = Talk Satanic Fairy Tale Why is it so impossible to expect even the slightest bit of honesty from creationists?
Evolution is an atheist invention, so any site dedicated to evolution is likely to be dominated by atheists. And just where did you get that "Evolution is an atheist invention" from? Show us your reasoning behind that false statement. Of course, I know that it comes straight from "creation science's" "Two Model Approach" (TMA) and its "evolution model", which is a gross misrepresentation of evolution and far, far worse. The TMA falsely splits origins into "two and only two mutually exclusive models: the creation model and the evolution model". There's the "creation model" and everything that's not part of that gets dumped into their "atheist evolution model". While creationists will only speak of their "creation model" in the vaguest of terms to the public, their private presentations identify as being nothing more than strict young-earth creationism. Therefore, most of what got dumped into the "atheist" "evolution model" turns out to be the vast majority of theist creation accounts; as Dr. Henry Morris himself told me, the "evolution model" contains "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." And many of those religions in the "atheistic" "evolution model" are either Judaic, Christian, or Islamic. So apparently you think that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are not only atheists, but also Satanists. Evolution is part of science, just as much as Universal Gravitation. Is gravity also an atheist invention? Do you believe that science is atheistic or even Satanic? Also, talkorigins is not dedicated to evolution, but rather to examination and discussion of creationist claims. Since so many creationist claims (such as yours) are based on misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting evolution and other sciences, then of course some of the articles would need to explain what evolution actually is and what the evidence actually is. Have you ever read their feedbacks? People writing to them with questions or damning them to eternal hell. Read through some of those. A number of those responses were written by Christians. But you still need to support your assertion that "evolution is an atheist invention." A side question would be why you seem to hate atheists so much. More groundless prejudice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
In fact, the dogmas that a Catholic must believe are decidedly un-scientific ... the Resurrection, Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, etc, etc. Yes, that is true. They are things that are part of the supernatural and the supernatural is outside of the realm of science, hence they are decided un-scientific. So what's your point? Science can only deal with the natural universe, which we can observe and measure and against which we can test hypotheses and build theories to explain how it works. We cannot observe the supernatural, nor can we measure it, nor can we test against it any hypotheses we might conjure up to try to explain it. We cannot even determine whether it even exists! Clearly, the supernatural is out of the reach of science and any attempt to use supernaturalistic hypotheses in science would be completely useless. Now, to express this simply, there are different kinds of questions which we can identify roughly with interrogatives. There are the "how" questions, questions of how the natural universe works. Science is extremely good at answering that kind of question, whereas religion has been very poor at it. But then there are the more interesting questions of "why" or even "who" which science is extremely poor at, but which philosophy and theology are much better suited for. The problems for philosophy and theology is the difficulty in testing their conclusion. Science is so good at answering the "how do things work" questions because you have something you can test ideas against. Not so for philosophy and theology (especially theology). They both use logic, most often rigorous and intricate logic, but they both must start with some axioms, "facts" what they take to be givens (such as that particular theology's particular set of religious dogma). Axioms are never proven, but rather assumed to be true. The problem with logic is that it can only test the validity of the logical argument. If an argument is valid and you feed it true premises (the axioms), then the conclusion is true. But if you feed it false premises, then you have no idea whether the conclusion is true or not (most likely not). Of course, any logical construct in science suffers from the same problem, but the difference is that science can test its conclusion whereas philosophy and theology cannot. I've tried to use ship's navigation pre-GPS as an analogy. You start from a known location. You use dead reckoning to predict where you should now be by taking your speed and heading and time elapsed and predicting what your current position should be. Keep in mind that the ship's superstructure acts as a sail to the wind and ocean currents are also working on the hull. So periodically you get a fix: you step outside, observe the sun and stars and planets (depending on time of day) and calculate your actual position from direct observation. Then the next leg of dead reckoning proceeds from that fix. The difference between science and philosophy/theology is that while science can get an actual fix, philosophy/theology cannot, so the latter can just keep wandering farther and farther off course. I have a quote from Carl Sagan that also describes this situation:
quote: Now, we have a movement, Intelligent Design (courtesy of the Discovery Institute), whose stated goal is to change science so that it must include supernaturalistic explanations. Science could not possibly exist under those conditions, as should be plain to you by now. "goddidit" cannot not possibly answer any scientific question, any "how does this work" question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Dredge writes: In fact, the dogmas that a Catholic must believe are decidedly un-scientific ... the Resurrection, Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, So you believe all that nonsense but reject science? What kind of lunacy is that? Transubstantiation - the belief that bread and wine are changed into flesh and blood; not figuratively but quite literally, by a chap in a funny hat lifting it above his head. Really?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: The bottom line is, a Catholic can believe anything as long as it doesn't compromise the doctrines, teachings and dogmas of the Church. That sure sounds like an admission that you reject evolution because of your religious beliefs and not because of any scientific reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: Huh? I'm saying anyone who accepts evolution is wrong - theists included. BioLogos and Talk Origins are both wrong. How can you say they are wrong when you don't even understand the most basic science that undergirds the theory of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024