|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Taq writes: Because they know that religiously based explanations are inferior to scientific explanations. This is why they try to make evolution look like a religion so that it shares the same flaw as creationism does. There must be something in that, and it's quite a modern thing. The idea that belief needs to be proven objectively would be alien to an 18th century Christian. It smacks of a real deep centred insecurity.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "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: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Tangle writes: There must be something in that, and it's quite a modern thing. The idea that belief needs to be proven objectively would be alien to an 18th century Christian. It smacks of a real deep centred insecurity. The natural world was a much more mysterious place in the 1700's. When modern science found natural and mindless processes for much of nature it left little room for God in some peoples' eyes. There was even those who didn't like Newton because he proposed an indifferent, impersonal, and mechanistic process for the movement of planets. When you fall into the trap of believing in a God of the Gaps, that God disappears when knowledge fills those gaps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 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 102 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 102 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: 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. You have this arse-about-face. Science has accepted the fact of evolution for over a century. There is overwhelming evidence for it and there is no other competing theory. Therefore when a feature like the giraffe's neck is seen the assumption is that the process of evolution produced it. That's generally the end of it because the case is closed for 'proofs' of evolution - there's no money to be wasted in continuing to prove something already proven. But during their day-to-day useless work sometimes scientists discover things that adds to its confirmation. One such pice of evidence is the the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. (To further demonstrate how useless the theory of evolution is, without it we wouldn't have a clue why this nerve is so stupidly built. With it, we know.)
quote: http://scienceblogs.com/...22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-girJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "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 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You seem to have assumed that Dredge is a YEC - Dredge is not a YEC. Dredge is an OEC. My apologies. So you agree that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old and that life on earth has been around for over 3 billion of those years? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, as described in Genesis? Of course not. Genesis 2&3 is a "Just So" story meant to explain why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for humans than the other animals, why we are not still hunter gatherers, why we seem to have a moral based society and why women should be subject to men. Creation is simply a plot device just like the God character in the story. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: You obviously don't know the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory. You asked how the theory of evolution is useful in the field of biology. I did just that. Since you are so enamored with definitions, let's look at the definition for biology: "the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior. "Biology Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com "Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, identification and taxonomy."Biology - Wikipedia Biology includes the history of species, the origin of species, and how species changed over time. The theory of evolution is very useful for figuring those things out.
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. The entire purpose of science is to offer testable explanations for groups of facts. Producing theories is what science is all about.
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. It's a testable explanation for a group of facts which is the entire purpose of science. It is also useful to biology because it explains the origin of giraffes. One of the purposes of biology is to explain why there are giraffes, and this explanation fills that purpose.
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". I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 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 102 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct? Many people say that evolution is fact and that there is a mountain of evidence to prove it. Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth? This episode [Creation magazine Live] examines and refutes key evolution evidences such as:● Embryo similarity ● The Miller/Urey experiment ● Peppered Moths ● Homology ● Horse evolution ● Fossil record ● Dinosaurs ● Archaeopteryx ● Whale evolution ● Tiktaalik ● Vestigial organs ● Ape men ● Natural selection ● Mutations ● Chimp/human DNA 98% similarity ● Junk DNA Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth? Yes, honest Christians should understand that Genesis 1 & Genesis 2&3 are fictional. First, Genesis is not one story but a collections of folk stories. Second, based on the overwhelming evidence found both in reality and in the Bible itself, of course the tales found in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2&3 should be understood as "not factual". That does not mean they have no value or purpose but the fact the there are two entirely different and mutually exclusive creation tales should be the first clue that "creation" is not what is relevant, it is a plot device. When you add in the fact that two entirely different gods are described in the two stories any honest Christian should see clearly that the stories are folk tales, "Just So" stories and then look to see why two mutually exclusive stories were included.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2271 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
CRR writes: Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth? Quote Mining!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago. See Life before 5778 years ago, Message 487 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 as this is off topic for this thread. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024