|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
i certainly do believe it is a literal account. God created each species directly, thats my literal understanding. He didnt leave it all to chance, he didnt start the ball rolling then let it all go its own wild way. No, "According to their Kinds, he created them"
That's a religious belief. It has no necessary relationship to the real world. In fact, most such religious beliefs are contradicted by real world evidence. "Kinds," for example, is a religious belief that has failed the test against empirical evidence. Believe what you want, but don't call it science, and don't confuse it with what real world evidence has shown to have happened. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Those here who are suggesting that Sagan supports creationism or intelligent design would do well to read his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
And what assumption do we go with? If it's a biblical one, ALL creatures would have been there at the start, "owph", "flying things". So there's the problem of assuming a progression rather than an initial variety.
All you have to do to support the idea that "all creatures would have been there at the start" is find discrete fossil layers with all creatures represented. Give it a try and see what you find. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
i wouldnt put australopithecus as a transitional link either. It has a skull that differs from humans with a much smaller brain capacity
Everything you point out argues that Lucy was a transitional, rather than the opposite.Some say that its skull is simiannot human. They are more like liviing living monkeys and apes then us. and that goes for Lucy too. Robert Jastrow in the 1981 book The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Unverse, says: This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain. even New Scientist said that Lucys skull was very similar to a chimpanzees. (Except the "monkey" comment--monkeys split off many million years before the time period under discussion.) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Peg, you really should stop offering opinions on science. You have neither the education nor the inclination to do an adequate job, and your a priori belief system leads you consistently to the wrong answers.
Science is really divided. They are holding firm to the belief and teaching of evolution, yet from what i've read , every field of science produces evidence that discounts it. Geology for instance shows sudden appearances in the fossil record rather then a continual and progressive change from one species to another. Geology shows both. You should remember that geological time is measured in millions of years, and "sudden appearances" might have taken several million years.
Mutations fail evolution. Yes mutations do cause changes in the genetic material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. But the vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They contribute to the degeneration of animal and are responsible for many diseases and malformations. And after years of expriementation with mutations, scientists have not been able to change one species into another....the evidence shows that mutation doesnt drive evolution. False in several ways. The harmful mutations go away! They are eliminated from the gene pool. What do you think natural selection does, anyway? It eliminates those harmful mutations immediately. They do not "contribute to the degeneration of animal" because the animals that have them either are not born or die soon after. It is a creationist religious belief that the genome is deteriorating, and a false one that is not supported by scientific evidence. Secondly, scientists have been able to produce new species in the laboratory. You are behind the times in your research. Given this, the evidence shows that mutation does drive evolution, when coupled with natural selection.
Environmental changes dont cause species to change into new species. Just think of humans living in extremely cold areas, they havnt begun to produce children with fur...you would think that for a creature to adapt to very cold climates, they would need good coverage, yet humans are still hairless in those areas. And other animals choose to migrate when the climate changes rather then adapt. Humans adapt to very cold temperatures mostly by wearing clothes. There are some physical adaptations, among Eskimos and the folks living in Tierra del Fuego, for example, that are pretty interesting but I don't suppose you're aware of them. It works like this: if humans (going back hundreds of thousands of years) could adapt through culture to different environmental conditions, the selection pressure was greatly reduced, and they didn't have to adapt physically to as great a degree as otherwise would be the case. So, no. We wouldn't think that humans in very cold areas would begin to develop fur. Humans can only live in those areas through the benefits of our culture and technology, and those obviate the need to adapt physically.
In australia, our warming climate is killing frog populations in the tropical regions so some zoos are trying to breed frogs to save them from extinction. This goes to show that enviroment doesnt cause species to change hence evolution is not the result of environment. Absolute nonsense. As I suggested before, you really shouldn't bother to comment on science. Being so consistently wrong does no credit either to you or your cause. Take the advice of St. Augustine:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Peg, I'm not going to bother pointing out all the errors in your post.
Just accept that you are not the best person to be posting opinions on science. You do your cause no credit by being consistently wrong, and refusing to actually study the fields you are posting on. Creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science, and it would be best if you can't learn this to at least take my word for it and stick to subjects of which you might actually know something. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Are you aware that Wells is a member of Rev. Moon's Unification church, and only studied for his Ph.D. because he was asked to do so by Rev. Moon--for the purpose of combating the theory of evolution?
Jonathan Wells - Wikipedia(intelligent_design_advocate) I don't think I would trust the Rev. Moon or Wells for an accurate opinion on anything pertaining to science. Nor should you. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
so what you are saying is that a person who believes in God and chooses to study science, will never be a real scientist?
Many creationists put scripture and "divine" revelation above the scientific method. For example, the Creation Research Society has the following in its Statement of Belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. Would you say that their members, who ascribe to this statement of belief, would be able to do actual science? What if scientific evidence came into conflict with scripture or revelation? Which would they follow? It would seem to me that they have chosen a path that is the exact opposite of science, and in fact is anti-science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
So in line with this thread, there are reasons to doubt evolution. If you want to start a new thread refuting such evidence then do so.
Those contentions have already been refuted. And you prove the point of my post: you should not even bother to comment on science for the reasons I gave in my previous post. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Creationist quote mines do not constitute empirical evidence.
I looked up that quote; about the top ten hits on google were all creationist sites. And all seem to have engaged in the same kind of quote mining. When will you learn that when creationists trumpet quotations by evolutionary scientists as supporting their creationist beliefs that they are almost certainly lies--quote mines that make a scientist appear to say something exactly opposite to what he really said? If creationists really had evidence to support their position they wouldn't have to engage in this deceptive practice. But what they have is belief, not evidence, and they envy the reputation science has for accuracy so much that they steal the results of science and then distort or misrepresent those results to make them appear to support the creationist position when they generally say the opposite. That's pretty sad. And that's lying. And you fell for it (again). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Or do you think its wrong of us to question them because we dont do the field study ourselves? When it comes to science you don't do any study. You just accept the lies and misinformation of those creationist sources. That's why creationists posting here and elsewhere on the internet can come up with "the second law of thermal documents" and "the odds against evolution are 1720" and other such gems. You've come up with such gems yourself. Why should those of us who know something about science in general, and a lot about a particular field of science, take anything a creationist says about science seriously? They have no real interest in science, and the last thing they really want to do is spend the time and effort to acquire some understanding of it. Creationists have far more than "doubts" about the theory of evolution. Creationists can't tolerate any science that contradicts their religious beliefs and are seeking to destroy those sciences. They can't combat the reputation science has achieved for accuracy, and the evidence, and so are willing to lie and misrepresent in their fight against science. And they want to teach these lies and misrepresentations in public schools. They don't care if they send us back to the Dark Ages to eliminate what they see as a threat to their beliefs from real world evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
One minor problem with your post:
"...a scientist qualified by years of graft and experince?" Perhaps an edit would be in order. Otherwise, excellent! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Evolution is not a science. ...It isn't even close.
More creationist misinformation/disinformation. Seems like this is the latest effort to discredit the theory of evolution--to claim (dishonestly) that it is a philosophy rather than a science. This false claim follows closely on the heels of "teach the controversy" and other creationist nonsense.
I rejected it on the basis of scientific evidence against it.
Probably just after you got religion, else why would you turn your back on established science for such fringe nonsense? See, the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution and contradicts the type of fringe nonsense you have been posting here for days now. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I suppose we use colloquialism so unthinkingly it is easy to see why readers half way across the globe get at cross-purposes. I hope you didn't think I meant that scientists 'graft' their work from efforts of others etc....I think we'll leave that to our Creationist friends to do....in case they think I am unduly mean here - grafting in the non-Yorkshire sense is precisely what the practice of quote-mining is all about - and we know who does those don't we? No, I just assumed you made a typo and meant "craft." But you learn something new here every day. Thanks for the explanation!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There are advantages, the migrating populations who moved to cooler temperate regions like northern Europe would not recieve the same benefit of the melanin in terms of sun protection, and might in fact suffer due to a reduced production of vitamin D in the weaker light. Darker skinned children in cooler temperate climates are consequently at higher risk of suffering rickets although diet or supplementation can address this. Therefore the loss of high melanin levels is beneficial in the cooler temperate environment.
This is exactly what I was taught in a Human Races class in graduate school. Your point about heat absorption is arguable since in more Arctic regions populations like the Inuit do indeed have darker skin, the most current explanation I have seen of this phenomenon however is again related to vitamin D, namely that the Inuit diet is high in oily fish which naturally contain high levels of vitamin D. The only addition I would make is that the northernmost peoples do not rely on the sun for vitamin D because they would freeze to death before they would get any appreciable benefit; the sun is too weak during the summer and nonexistent during the winter. There is no selection pressure for lighter skin in those areas, and the fish oils are the primary source of vitamin D. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024