|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,907 Year: 4,164/9,624 Month: 1,035/974 Week: 362/286 Day: 5/13 Hour: 0/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Can you give me a Dredge-simple example, please? Dredge writes:
They use a phylogeny based on common ancestry to predict protein function.
Please translate this into English. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box (I think).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
HBD writes:
A trivial sermantic misunderstanding like this is hardly going to alter my views about evolution.
Exactly, when a hypothesis grows up it becomes a conclusion... not a theory.Just goes to show that those that argue so vehemently against scientific fields know so little about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I reiterate ... this is way off topic.
If you disagree and claim that religion does have means to detect and deal with errors, then please present them. IOW, answer the damned question! Stop being so dishonest!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Minnemooseus writes:
Dredge's fragile, egg-shell mind is beginning to over-heat.
I would say that the conclusion becomes part of the theory, the theory of (biological) evolution being the entire collected knowledge of how life came to be as it is. The conclusion is theory, and many smaller theories come together to become a larger theory. The full theory of (biological) evolution is (dare I say) huge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example.
Dredge writes:
If you can't understand that explanation, then you have no place calling evolution a religion, or claiming that it is false.
Can you give me a Dredge-simple example, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Taq writes: Dredge writes: Please translate this into English. They use a phylogeny based on common ancestry to predict protein function. You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption.Here's how it goes: The fact that the DNA system is common to all living things is used by Darwinists as evidence of common ancestry. Cytochrome c performs a similar role in cellular respiration in many different organisms, and this fact is also used as evidence of common ancestry. Fair enough, but such facts can also be used as evidence of a Creator who decided to use the same biological machinery in lots of different creatures. So when an evolutionary biologist says something like "based on common ancestry", what he is really saying is, "it is assumed by the Darwinist paradigm to be based on common ancestry". Furthermore, the assumption of common ancestry is not what is useful in biology - it is the facts that led to the assumption that are useful in biology. Of course, the science of Darwinism - which is inherently dishonest and deceitful - would have us believe that common ancestry is not only an undeniable and demonstrable fact, but that it is eminently useful in applied biology. I'd love a dollar for every biology student who has been brainwashed into believing this mendacious cult nonsense. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
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. Superstition will never die.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I've already told you. Why you no listen to Dredge? The facts that led to to the assumption/conclusion of common ancestry produced the results.
So what's your assumption here? Blind random luck producing those results?Yet more of your deceptive lies.
I was thinking of inviting you to my birthday party, but now I having second thoughts, as you keep calling me bad names and for no good reason.
And yet you continue to behave as if you believed that evolution contradicts the idea of a Creator.
I've stated elsewhere that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of a Creator. However, millions of years of evolution is incompatible with the Bible.
Where do you get such nonsense from? I know where, from your creationist handlers who are feeding you lie after lie.
My "creationist handlers" go by the name of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who speak the truth. You would do well to listen to them. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Minnemooseus writes:
Yes, since I'm a creationist, that's what I meant; sorry I didn't make myself clear.
Dredge writes:
Unless God is involved, I suppose. 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. Might not God have started a very simple form of life from "the dust of the ground"? (Theistic abiogenisis/evolution in action).
Certainly that would be possible, if God is omnipotent ... in which case, anything is possible. However, the Bible clearly indicates it didn't happen that way. For example, consider the quote you supplied:Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." It says God formed "man" from the dust of the ground and the "man" became a living soul; it doesn't say God formed a unicellular bug from the dust of the ground and the unicellular bug became a living soul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes:
Pressie, Pressie, Pressie, you're getting nowhere playing such petty semantic games. Whether it's an assumption or a conclusion, the same argument applies. It's not the assumption/conclusion of common ancestry that produced the results, it's the facts that led to the assumption/conclusion that produced the results. I could offer a creationists assumption/conclusion based on exactly the same facts, but that would prove as irrelevant to producing the results as the Darwinist assumption/conclusion of common ancestry. Try and think outside the box of Darwinist indoctrination you have been living in for the last several decades. Dredge writes:
Nope. The opposite. It's a conclusion. You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption... Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
Er ... no; I can't see the logic error here. This must mean you are much smarter than I am. Dredge writes:
See the logic error there? Of course not. It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
An irrelevant point of semantics, as I've already pointed out in post #991. Dredge writes:
It's a conclusion drawn from evidence.
You forgot to mention the widdle ol' fact that "common ancestry" is an assumption. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Read the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible.
How do you think life came about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Believing that life can come from nothing but dead dirt - without an iota of scientific evidence and when science itself suggests it's impossible - is the very definition of superstition. Such a belief is in fact just as scientifically-retarded the spontaneous generation superstitions of the nineteenth century. A deity creating life from dirt is the very definition of superstition. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
In which case, science is a poor arbiter of truth. Man (read: science) is no more "the measure of all things" than earthworms are. If the Bible, then it's not relevant in a science forum. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024