|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 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 100 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 100 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 100 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 100 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 100 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Firstly, the quote you cite doesn't belong to Dredge. Nevertheless, man has as much chance of producing life from dead matter as a snail has of building a Large Hadron Collider.
Dredge writes:
Just out of interest, would anything change for you if science could do that?
Humans can't produce life from dead matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
OK I can live with that criticism. So we can say then that the theory of evolution entails abiogenesis and universal common ancestry; and I can leave it to you as to whether these are necessary or inevitable parts or consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
New Cats Eye writes: Don't cop out. Show me the quote. OK, here it is;"They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (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.) " Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky exactly as quoted in Message 958
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: Firstly, the quote you cite doesn't belong to Dredge. There's the fruitcake third person talk again.
Nevertheless, man has as much chance of producing life from dead matter as a snail has of building a Large Hadron Collider. That's your opinion, but the question was would anything change for you if science did produce life from 'dead matter'?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DWise1 writes:
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. Where do you get such nonsense from? I know where, from your creationist handlers who are feeding you lie after lie. Bullshit! Complete and utter bullshit lies! Is your soul so completely and utterly lost? Have you really damned yourself beyond all possibility of redemption? I would think that your trying to blame the Trinity for "creation science" would classify as blasphemy in the highest degree. The Trinity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that complete travesty known as "creation science". The only Christian deity who could possibly have anything to do with "creation science" is from the Deceiver, Satan. "Creation science" is a completely human invention. Man created it, Man created its claims, Man spreads it. It is not the work of the Trinity, but rather of humans such as Gish, Morris, Hovind. It is a deliberately crafted deception whose initial purpose was to deceive the US courts by hiding the actual reason for creationists' opposition to the teaching of evolution, that actual reason being purely religious. Then it was used to deceive the general public into supporting or at least not opposing their political agenda of passing laws to change school curricula. Finally it came to be used to deceive individuals into converting to their false creationist religion. Thus it leads to destroying Christianity, which would be opposing the Trinity and everything that the Trinity is supposed to stand for. Now, according to actual Christian doctrine (not your creationist bullshit), isn't that what your Satan is supposed to be working towards? Your creationist handlers are the people who are feeding you their nonsense. Isn't it time for you to start listening to the truth? Instead of opposing it. Now, if you truly believe that the Trinity is talking directly to you and feeding you all that creationist nonsense, then here's some advice from personal experience that Reese gave his younger brother, Dewey (quoting from memory):
quote: Edited by dwise1, : Completed the thoughts, cleaned up the qs boxes.{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.Steven Colbert on NPR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 194 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example. See the logic error there? Of course not. Er ... no; I can't see the logic error here. This must mean you are much smarter than I am. Seems likely. Taq wrote: Nothing he said indicates in any way that he can't give you an example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
But if you say it happened without any intelligent input that's science.
A deity creating life from dirt is the very definition of superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2269 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
For Charles Darwin it appears that common ancestry was the assumption for which natural selection provided an explanation.
Erasmus Darwin’s view of evolution comes rather close to his more famous grandson’s. In his 1794 book Zoonomia, Erasmus Darwin appears to suggest it’s possible that all warm-blooded animals have a common origin.* In Charles Darwin’s time, some British scientists, including Robert Edmond Grant and Charles Lyell, while rejecting Lamarckism, began to believe all lifeforms had the capacity to transform into other species. They noted that the geologic record appeared to show a progression of lifeforms. Robert Edmond Grant — who had taught Darwin at the University of Edinburgh — even proposed a common origin for plants and animals, as Darwin’s grandfather had. However, neither Grant nor Lyell could propose a coherent mechanism for the transformation of species.* In 1835 Edward Blyth clearly described how breeders use artificial selection to produce domestic animals to meet specific requirements. He also described how in nature animals appear with slight variations. He identified that the process we now call natural selection would operate on the variations. However, he didn’t notice that this could lead to the formation of new species. In fact, he believed the opposite was true.* By 1839 Charles Darwin had begun to formulate his theory of evolution by natural selection inspired by existing ideas of common ancestry from Lyell and Grant, with the ideas of scarcity from Malthus and natural selection from Blythe.* In 1844 of a book entitled Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation suggested the solar system had formed naturally from a nebula and that life had been spontaneously generated on the earth. The lowly forms of life had then evolved into higher forms, including man.* On July 1, 1858, a joint paper was read to the Linnean Society. The authors were Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The paper told the world of their theory which came to be known as evolution by natural selection.* The following year, Darwin released his historic book On The Origin of Species with large amounts of evidence supporting the new theory.* While the book presents the evidence for natural selection first leading up to common ancestry it is likely the ideas came to Darwin in the opposite order; common ancestry first, then selection as the mechanism. E.g. see Elliot Sober, Did Darwin write the Origin backwards? Just a moment...* Just a moment... Today the idea of common ancestry is widespread and most children know it at least in some form before they go to school, so it is for them a prior assumption even if they are taught natural selection first. However as Dredge says it probably makes little difference since both ideas are integral to the modern version of Darwin's theory. Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
CRR writes: Today the idea of common ancestry is widespread and most children know it at least in some form before they go to school, so it is for them a prior assumption even if they are taught natural selection first. And this obsession about what order things were worked out in is important to you because....?
However as Dredge says it probably makes little difference since both ideas are integral to the modern version of Darwin's theory. Both ideas were integral to the original theory too, but again, so what? Why are you obsessing about the way common ancestry was derived?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "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