|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
We DO know that the Flood didn't happen. There may have been a local flood that inspired the long-lost original story, but nothing like the Biblical Flood ever occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Why do you think that the local australopithecines did not make the footprints? All the scientific sources I've looked at agree that they could.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Faith, if you are going to try to suppress evidence that disproves your Flood geology, "I suspect it's an illusion" is pretty weak. Especially when the only reason for that suspicion is that it does disprove your Flood geology.
And I would also add that since there is plenty of other evidence against your Flood geology that you ignore or attempt to explain away your claim to have "proven" the Flood is an obvious falsehood. In fact it should be very obvious even to you. If you can't see that then I rather think that you have no grounds to call anyone else "deluded".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: If you are going to take obviously unscientific or anti-scientific attitudes you will be called on it. Even if you "know" otherwise. You can't put false claims beyond challenge or correction by wrongly calling them "knowledge"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
That isn't a great test, because detailed transitions are very rare and hard for amateurs to research.
There is a much better test, dealing with an obvious large-scale feature of the fossil record. If the fossil record shows the evolution of species over time there should be an order to the fossil record consistent with that. If the fossil record is due to the Flood, it should be ordered by factors related to the Flood (Creationists list hydrological sorting, habitat, differential escape) And these should really be quite distinct. And the result is a clear win for evolution over the Flood. It's not even close.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: That would depend on what it was. If it was an obscure bacterium or something similar then there would likely be no problem for evolutionary theory. If it was a large multicellular animal or plant there would be questions about it's ancestry. For creationists, of course, the problem is that we don't find convincing evidence of separate creations. Such evidence should be quite widespread if creationism were true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Dredge was not making an argument. Dredge was making an assertion about Gould's thoughts which he has no special access to.
quote: And yet the "missing" transitionals are generally those that many creationists believe in - connecting one species to an immediate descendant. While there are many transitionals - as Gould said - which are evidence for evolution at the higher taxonomic levels. Add in the other evidence for evolution and the rational course of action is to look for an explanation.
quote: In fact it seems to have happened in reverse. Gould and Eldridge worked out the consequences of Mayr's theory of speciation for palaeontology and then used the shortage of inter-species intermediates as evidence for it.
quote: Please explain what is laughable about using an idea already widely accepted in evolutionary biology to explain a feature of the fossil record.
quote: And now you are just lying. The transitionals between reptiles and mammals are there and calling them "hallucinations" does not change that. Far from denying the existence of transitionals at higher taxonomic levels Gould asserted that they were plentiful. Well done, making a dumb troll look better by telling an even worse lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: In other words it is not an argument, merely an assertion about another's mental processes - which you endorse without even knowing the relevant facts as you have made very clear.
quote: And yet it happens to be a fact. That you don't like it hardly makes it "crazy".
quote: You aren't being called a liar for refusing to accept PE, you are being called a liar for your lying, such as your attempt to deny the existence of transitional fossils between mammals and reptiles by calling them "hallucinations".
quote: Let us note that you do not deal with my points concerning the origin of PE, that you have offered no valid criticism of PE nor do you deal with the actual evidence.
quote: Ah, the standard creationist inversion of reality. For someone who tries to avoid lies you tell an awful lot of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Your false accusations are as usual counter-productive.
quote: So you have to throw in a misrepresentation of Darwin,too. Every thing you say there is just false assertions.
quote: Calling PE absurd is not an argument. It's just an assertion which you can't support. Your assertions about population genetics are ridiculous. How can a discipline which deals with the mathematics of changes in allele frequency - that only deals with the effects of different alleles in terms of their effect on fitness possibly provide "evidence" for past evolutionary changes ? When you don't even k ow the genetic changes involved ? Surely we should go to the fossil record,or to genetic comparisons of living species - and the evidence is there. Arrogant and ignorant assertions are not going to get you anything but the contempt you deserve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
You should read the criticisms. They aren't rejections of the basic idea, but of Gould's hype. To sum up what your link says:
Dawkins says that PE is just an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory. Dennet says that Gould made more radical claims for PE but tended to retreat to a more Darwinian position. Scott simply criticises Gould's style of argument without - so far as can be told from the article you cite - offering any substantive criticism of the idea. And Lyne and Howe agree that the basic idea of PE is in accord with the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: There is a big gap between "not literal history" and "completely untrue". And of course you are right to doubt the Exodus. The Book of Exodus was obviously written at a time when the story had become legend - whatever it's origins. Its implausibilities (and I don't mean the miracles!) give more cause to doubt, as dies the fact that archaeology finds no trace of it. Even other parts of the Bible call the Exodus into question. 1 Chronicles 7 indicates that Ephraim and his descendants were living in Canaan (verses 20-29) with no indication of ever having gone to Egypt, even though Joshua is listed as a descendant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024