|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: You are wrong. The Bible is evidence of the things I listed. It's our only source of the information aboutr those things. Written documents, witness evidence, is evidence. You are only partially right Faith. It is the only evidence for those claims but everything in reality, in real life refutes those claims. As a Christian we can believe such thing but the only basis for those beliefs is faith. There is not actual evidence outside those claims to support them. In addition, the Bible itself is a poor and unreliable witness since it contains so many different versions of the tales, so many contradictory and mutually exclusive versions of the tales and so many incidents that are flatly refuted by reality. To be scientific or even just honest, we MUST recognize and acknowledge those errors in the Bible that are simply factually false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: IF WE ARE NOT ALLOWED AT EVC MAKE A RULE THAT WE CAN'T BE HERE AT ALL. That only proves that you can't support YEC when using the rules of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: 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? If the genes found on the chimp Y chromosome are required for humans to survive, then how are we surviving without them? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Humans survive just fine without those genes, so it appears that they were available for deletion.
However I am heartened to see that you are embracing speciation by loss of genetic information. We are glad to see you admit that macroevolution does not require an increase in information. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Evidence is evidence, truth is truth. Stories in books are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must be observable and repeatable. Stories in books are not observable or repeatable. One of the earliest slogans in modern science is found in the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba Nullius in verba - Wikipedia It means, "take no one's word for it". Stories in books need scientific evidence to back them. They are not evidence in and of themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You're not being scientific. You can't be scientific all by yourself. It's a collective endeavour. STOP TELLING ME I'M NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC WHEN I KNOW I AM. If all creationists could get together and provide an alternative explanation for what is observed in biology, that could conceivably be called science. Your individual wild guesses can not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Scientific theories (and data) must be susceptible to falsification.
If it is claimed that certain theories and data can't be falsified, then that's not science. Its that simple.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Was Hutton doing science before anyone accepted his theories? Or any other pioneer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then goodbye, who needs it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Of course there's always a beginning. What followed AFTER Hutton et al. was what made it science - the testing and confirmation. Was Hutton doing science before anyone accepted his theories? Or any other pioneer? There is nothing following after your mad speculations. You propose no testing. Nobody is trying to test creationism. THAT is why it is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: Then goodbye, who needs it. Obviously, YEC's think they need science in order to justify their belief in creationism. Otherwise, why would they work so hard to claim it is scientific? Why not just say it is unscientific and a faith based religious belief upfront instead of trying so hard to pretend it is scientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
ringo writes: There is nothing following after your mad speculations. You propose no testing. Nobody is trying to test creationism. THAT is why it is not science. More to the point, without a null hypothesis (i.e. potential falsifications) you can't test creationist claims to begin with. For example, no matter what characteristics a geologic formation has they will claim it was put there by a recent global flood. No matter what features a fossil has they will never accept it as being transitional. No matter what genetic markers two species share they will never accept it as evidence for common ancestry. Their claims related to biology and geology are entirely unscientific because their claims are dogmatic. added in edit: apologies to Coyote for the initial misattribution Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Please edit.
That was not my comment.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I think there is a serious disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion, but I can't prove it.
hundreds of thousands of scientists who do understand the evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: think there is a serious disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion, but I can't prove it No you don't, you believe in something that is contradicted by science so you have chosen to ignore it that's all. Creationism as awhole has found it impossible to either produce its own science to confirm its own belief or disprove science's facts that prove ye creationism wrong. You're simply an anachronism - a throwback - in denial.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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024