|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've heard that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertebrates. Is this true? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Microevolution might be compared to a merry-go-round - there is motion and change, but it doesn't actually go anywhere. Direct observation tells us something different from the thing you just made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Is the Bible evidence for the virgin birth?
For the resurrection of Christ? For the miracles of Christ? Or in the OT for the parting of the Red Sea? For the miracles of Elijah? For the supernatural preservation of Daniel and his friends? If it is evidence for those things how about for the worldwide Flood? Does it SAY it covered the whole world? Is it evidence for there being no death in the world before the Fall? BY one man death entered... I don't really care if you consider ahy of that evidence for anything. My objection is to this attack on YECs who do take it all as evidence. The BIBLE, GOD'S word, not Ken Ham or anybody else. You have no right to tell YECs we can't base our SCIENTIFIC thinking on the Bible's CLEAR EVIDENCE because it's GOD'S WORD. Believe what you want but don't lecture us with your theistic assumptions. YECs should not have to put up with all this lying crap about how we aren't scientifically minded because we supposedly believe a myth. . That's tiresome and unfair because we do base our scientific thinking on the Bible and we're not going to stop. The Bible is our basic starting point. I hardly ever mention it in my arguments but it's there underneath my arguments for the Flood and against the ToE. So I could not care less what YOU believe, but don't tell US what to believe and accuse us of not addressing evidence that you think should be put before the Bible. I don't and YECs don't and it isn't for you to dictate to us and call us unscientific. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
YECs do not get to use their private definitions unopposed. If they want to take unscientific or anti-scientific views then we may certainly point this out. If they want to try to confuse the issue by using their own private definitions we are not required to submit to them and use their definitions. Especially when the motive is clearly dishonest.
The Bible is not scientific evidence. Your idea of the Bible is - not even Biblical, let alone a dogma that Vhristians must or even should believe. (I would say that no real Christian COULD believe it)
quote: But it is not just that. It is because YECs let that unscientific belief override the scientific evidence. It is that they make excuses to reject the evidence. It is that they engage in misrepresentation and dishonesty. Calling dishonest religious apologetics science is just a way to try to steal the prestige and credibility of science. It is just another part of creationist dishonesty.
quote: You can be as dogmatic and unscientific as you like. Nobody is trying to dictate your beliefs. But if you make false claims we ARE entitled to disagree with you. if you get sickened by the truth that is your problem. You are not entitled to demand that it be silenced. If you start calling the truth "lying crap" then we are quite entitled to draw the obvious conclusions. And I certainly do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You have no right to tell YECs we can't base our SCIENTIFIC thinking on the Bible's CLEAR EVIDENCE because it's GOD'S WORD. We can say that that's not scientific thinking, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
THERE IS NOTHING UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT STARTING FROM A KNOWN FACT.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II. 2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism If fascism comes to America it will be in the form of liberalism -Ronald Reagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
The thing is, you can't demonstrate that it is a known fact to me or anyone else that doesn't share your faith. That's why it's not scientific.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
When your "known fact" is based simply on something someone wrote it is certainly unscientific. Science starts with observation, not dogma. That is WHY science rejected YEC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What is the point of arguinjg this over and over and over? I don't expect to convince unbelievers, and I don't CARE what you believe, but what is the point of repeating your view ad nauseam? But it was HBD who pushed me over the edge, not unbelievers, when he said:
The way creationists could prove they are not anti-science is to follow the evidence where ever it leads. They can't though. They MUST start with a conclusion and shoehorn the evidence to fit. Which is clearly anti-science Why should I have to be assaulted with this opinion I disagree with over and over and over and over? YECs are NOT ANTI-SCIENCE and why do I have to hear this a million times when it's untrue? For one thing no YEC rejects normal science but that's a stupid lie that keeps getting repeated as if it's true. What we reject is the specific historical sciences the ToE and Old Earth Geology. Why can't this simple truth just be accepted? There is nothing wrong with setting out to prove the worldwide Flood from the geological evidence, taking it as a given because God's word says it happened and in a certain time frame. What's the point of hitting us over the head every day with YOUR opinion that it didn't happen? WHAT'S THE POINT? But a supposed "Christian" like HBD should at least spare us the usual condemnation and allow that we aren't any less sscientific in how we go about trying to prove these things for taking the Bible as foundational. Ugh I'm sick sick sick of this. It's a HUGE waste of time and a constant experience of being punched in the face. =====================================And yes Mr. Dragon Bug there is a cure. Why don't you get yourself appointed an Admin so you can suspend me forever. I'm sure it would be a great pleasure for you and a great honor for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. YOUR OPINION IS WORTHLESS. IF WE ARE NOT ALLOWED AT EVC MAKE A RULE THAT WE CAN'T BE HERE AT ALL. THAT WOULD BE A HUGE RELIEF.
I'M TIRED OF BEING PUNCHED IN THE FACE FOR WHAT I SAY. There is nothing unscientific about what YECs do. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: THERE IS NOTHING UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT STARTING FROM A KNOWN FACT. That's true, but first a consensus has to be formed from multiple observation and tests to establish what those facts are. Religion, by definition, does not have any facts, it has beliefs that are not shared by others of even the same demonimation and can't be sustantiated or agreed. What you call a fact, is actually an unevidenced conclusion. You've started with the answer and you're attempting to gather facts to support it. So you have to grasp at ad hoc pieces of information to make them fit whilst - and this is the worst error you make - discarding confirmed facts that don't. Inevitably you fail because nothing hangs together. This is NOT science. Not even close. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That is really a question for you. You don't get to be a censor here. You don't get to suppress facts by calling them "lying crap" So why bother ? You may not like the truth but your behaviour is hardly Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Those are basic facts, not my opinion.
quote: Yawn. Pointing out that your assertion is obviously false is hardly saying that you aren't allowed here. If you can't accept a forum where you aren't worshipped that's your problem.
quote: If the truth is a "punch in the face" then you really ought to reconsider your position.
quote: Even without the (frequent) misrepresentation and dishonesty, putting dogma ahead of empirical evidence is inherently unscientific. That is not just my opinion, that is a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
THERE IS NOTHING UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT STARTING FROM A KNOWN FACT. But there is something unscientific about declaring something to be a known fact when you lack scientific evidence for it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
That difference could be achieved by ~40 deletions on the chimp lineage The problem is much worse than that, bluegenes. To account for all the non-homologous genes by deletions would require the common ancestor to have had hundreds of surplus genes available for deletion. Unless these genes were nonsense then this is a large loss of information, and if they were nonsense why did the common ancestor have them? However I am heartened to see that you are embracing speciation by loss of genetic information.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024