|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
ringo writes: A theory, specifically one like evolution, is not based on one hypothesis. Precisely. We could look at the Theory of Relativity as an example. From that theory, or model, you could hypothesize that starlight would be bent as it passes by the Sun. You can test that hypothesis by measuring the location of stars during an eclipse as well as when the stars are farther away from the Sun. If their position changes with relation to other stars, then the hypothesis is confirmed. You can conclude that starlight is bent as it passes by the Sun. That conclusion supports the larger theory. The Theory of Relativity also makes many other testable predictions about things such as time dilation. Relativity started as a theory, not as a hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
CRR writes: While Kerkut says "spontaneous generation occurred only once" others such as Dobzhansky say that "It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth" Both result in Universal Common Ancestry. So as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.
If there were one or multiple simple original life forms that were created by a deity, and those simple life forms produced the biodiversity we see over billions of years, what would we need to change in the theory of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: A trivial sermantic misunderstanding like this is hardly going to alter my views about evolution. As already shown, no amount of evidence or facts will change your views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: Can you give me a Dredge-simple example, please? If you can't understand that explanation, then you have no place calling evolution a religion, or claiming that it is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example. There is an example in the paper I already cited for you:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption. It's a conclusion drawn from evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: It never ceases to amaze me that in this day and age there are educated adults who believe that dead matter can somehow produce life. How do you think life came about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Faith writes:
I guess either can be called a superstition if that's your point, but Genesis 2:7 gives the essential difference between life spontaneously coming out of matter and God creating life by using matter, which is that, according to the Bible, the life doesn't come from the matter, God breathes life into the matter after He's formed the material body. Matter can't breathe life into itself, even if it could somehow come up with the material shell, which of course it couldn't without the life in it. In other words life is something entirely different from matter, matter is just the vehicle for life to be able to function in the physical universe. A deity creating life from dirt is the very definition of superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Call it whatever you want but as I said it is NOT about "creating life from dirt," it clearly says that life CANNOT be created from dirt, that the principle of life is something other than dirt that must be added. Then how did life come about, according to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: An irrelevant point of semantics, That is what your entire argument is about, semantics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes:
Read the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. That would be superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: For Charles Darwin it appears that common ancestry was the assumption for which natural selection provided an explanation. For modern scientists it is a conclusion, not an assumption. We have the evidence demonstrating common ancestry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: How can you expect me to understand this? It's written in a foreign language! Regardless, it would no doubt be based on facts that any creation-believing biologist would agree with. Such facts lead to either a conclusion of common descent or a conclusion of a common Creator, depending on which philosophical camp one belongs to. In other words, SIFTER will produce results regardless of how anyone thinks life came to be - because it depends on scientific facts, not on a subjective and irrelevant view of history. Please explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy (i.e. a phylogeny).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Faith writes: Ha ha, so true. Same superstition but without the creative Mind, and they actually believe it! You are the only one who believes that life was magically poofed into being.
It's obviously impossible but "science" has no problem with such an impossibility while calling the reasonable explanation of a Creator a superstition. When did magical poofing become a reasonable explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Dredge writes: Get a grip. No one knows what happened billions of years ago. Scientists who think they do are egotistical bs-artists. Once again, all you have is name calling. You can't counter the scientists, so you call the scientists names. Here's a bit of advice. Grow up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024