|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes: so they (creationists/IDists) can keep the parts that work and reject the parts they find objectionable It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer.
we pretty much don't study Darwinian evolution anymore Gee, I wonder why not? - could it have something to with the fact that it's pointless wasting time on a theory that's perfectly useless?
This obsession with Darwin is a creationist phenomenon. Really? In that case,please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world? Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so? It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think? ------------------------------------- As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
And Albert Einstein was a patents clerk, so what could he have possibly have known about physics? Says three persons who do not work in any biological field or have any biological training If you don't like the message ... shoot the messenger. --------------------------------------- Speaking for myself, re my education, I'll have you know it took my a mere twelve years to complete seven years of primary school education. You've got to admit that that's pretty impressive. After primary school I joined the work force and became a patents clerk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: I see what you did there .... That's pretty dishonest' What are you talking about? I merely asked how Darwinism has made facts more useful. My definition of "useful" is useful to applied science. Stop playing evasive word-games and try and answer the question. You, on the other hand, are trying to slip in a new definition of "useful" being practical or applied science Please give me an example of a "useful" scientific fact that is outside the realm of applied science.
For example, the various theories of electromagnetism... More evasion. I asked for an example of how Darwinism has made facts more useful - what does electromagnetism have to do with Darwinism?
Why should we pay any attention to such anti-science nitpicking?
In other words, your waving a white flag - you can't tell me how Darwinism has contributed to science in any practical, real-world sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
bluegenes writes: Darwin's theory is certainly useful n engineering. Really. Engineering technology is always evolving, but to credit any of it to Darwin's theory is nonsense. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I should be more specific:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." If "evolution" means simply, heritable changes in a population (a la Dr Adequate's definition), then yes, the above statement has a lot going for it. If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it - iff the theory of Common Descent is left out of "Darwinism". If "evolution" means the Theory of Common Descent, the above statement has nothing at all going for it if "biology" means applied biology. If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it if "biology"includes atheist bed-time stories about whales evolving from deers, etc. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
It seems to me that what Darwin did, in effect, was take the principals of artificial selection (that animal and plant breeders had been employing for millennia) and apply them to creatures "in the wild" ... thereby coming up with the theory of natural selection to explain heritable changes in a natural ("wild") population. From there he waved the magic wand of wild and uninhibited extrapolation until he arrived at Common Descent.
But if natural selection is just a "feral" version of artificial selection, then I'm wondering what 150 years of Darwinism has actually added to the knowledge of animal and plant breeders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Evolutionists and creationists argue about what was possible or not after the Flood, but both seem to be forgetting one important factor: The God who created all things isn't confined to natural laws and can perform miracles. After the Flood, the Creator could have decided to "hurry things along" by miraculously creating further variations within the kinds of creatures that came off the ark. God could have easily facilitated "accelerated evolution" - no problem at all.
In which case, creation science doesn't have to stick strictly to the Bible script, as God could have performed all sorts of miracles in his creation that aren't mentioned at all in the Scriptures. For example, if there was one kind of giraffe on the ark and there are four species today, so what? God wanted four species to exist, so after the Flood he waved his magic wand and four species eventually emerged from one kind. If he wanted twenty species of giraffe, then twenty would have eventually emerged from one kind. What's the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: I doubt if Darwin was mentioned more than once or twice Maybe so, but I bet there was a lot of gratuitous use of the word "evolution", which are allusions to Darwinism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
What about the Sun, Dj? It's a freakin' nuclear fusion reactor and atheists believe it formed as a result of blind, dumb chance! LOL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: I'm going to write a non-fiction book called "Darwin's Contributions to Applied Science". It will be the shortest book in history.
I've written a number of non-fiction books
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: I demonstrated in multiple posts just how useful the theory is. You obviously don't know the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory. Your mind is so deep in theory that that you've forgotten there's a real world out there. All you've done in your previous posts (4 9 12 13 17) is offer evolutionary explanations for certain observations in nature. And this is your idea of "useful"? All you're doing is theorising! Whether your theorising is correct or not isn't the point; the point is it's just paper-science, and it's no more useful than toilet paper. Here is a simple example of what you're doing: the observation is made that giraffes have long necks; an explanation for the long neck is then proffered - a longer neck confers a survival advantage which natural selection favours; longer necks are a heritable trait so therefore eventally longer necks dominate in the population. Conclusion: Long necks can only be explained by evolution. How is this useful? It's just talk. Here is an example of a useful application of "evolution": A dog breeder wants to produce the biggest Rottweilerso possible, so he chooses only the biggest pups from a litter for future breeding. He repeats this process with each successive generation. Do you see the difference? The first example is just theorising about evolution; the second example is a pracitcal, real- world application of evolution (albeit dog breeders don't use the word, "evolution"). I suspect that like most students of biology, you've been indoctrinated by the cult of Darwinism to consider theoretical arguments for evolution to be proof-positive that Darwinism is "useful" and therefore a "fact". This is how a cult operates - unsuspecting victims are conditioned to think uncritically in a certain way, until it becomes de rigueur. They don't realise their error until someone from outside the cult points it out to them; and even then the penny might not drop because their faulty reasoning is so ingrained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You seem to have assumed that Dredge is a YEC - Dredge is not a YEC. Dredge is an OEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes: I'm a Christian and I accept evolution Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, as described in Genesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
"Evolutionary biology has been severely hampered by a speculative style of argument that records anatomy and ecology and then tries to construct historical or adaptive explanations for why this bone looked like that or why this creature lived here. These speculations have been charitably called "scenarios"; they are often more contemptuously, and rightly, labeled "stories". Scientists know that these tales are stories; unfortunately, they are presented in the professional literature, where they are taken too seriously and literally." - Stephen Jay Gould. I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct? (Richard Ellis, Aquagenesis: The Origin and Evolution of LIfe in the Sea. Penguin Books, 2001, p.204) 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