|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Science knows the answer to both of those.
It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
CRR writes: Nice fairy story, but that's all it is. Aren't you the one who believes that a supernatural deity spoke the universe into being?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: Why did God make a bunch of primates that are like humans in many ways, yet different? I don't know. It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green? Or even, why did God make Dredge super-duper-intelligent and incredibly handsome? There are many mysteries. If you can't explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not evidence for a Common Designer. You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer. For three additional reasons.
Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : moreby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
The point is not whether life being magically poofed into existence is reasonable or not; rather, whether it's true or not. When did reality become confined to what humans think is reasonable? When did magical proofing become a reasonable explanation? .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I'm gonna tell on you for saying that! Here's a bit of advice. Grow up. Point 1. You have taken Dredge's important statement of fact and - somehow - interpreted it as a vacuous insult. Point 2. If you think any scientific yarns regarding what happened on earth billions of years ago carry any weight, then your appetite for science-fiction rivals that of anyTrekkie. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way of testing any claims made by scientists about what happened so long ago, so such claims add up to nothing more than scientifically-worthless stories. But atheists love to incorporate this sort of pseudo-scientific babble into their canon of theology - it makes them feel intellectually fulfilled. (Evidently, their standards of intellectual and scientific rigour are quite low ... little wonder they find it easy to accept Darwinism.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCatsEye writes:
It's likely that when the serpent "spoke" to Eve, it may not have been in an audible voice, but something telepathic (if that's the right word), as when humans become demonically influenced or possessed - ie, the demon's thoughts reach the victim's mind. 👿 ....😱. When Satan entered Judas Iscariot (during the Last Supper) and compelled him to commit his act of betrayal, do you suppose he heard an audible voice coming from somewhere, or did he "hear" the devil's "voice" in his mind? You don't think that snakes can talk, do you?And as is evident from Mark 5, demons can enter animals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
PaulK writes:
If creation be true, we would expect the fossil record to be characterised sudden appearance and stasis ... 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. "The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182) "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." S. J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes:
I didn't know astronomy can tell us what happened on earth billions of years ago.
Dredge writes:
So you reject astronomy too? Because what astronomers are seeing today is what happened a long time ago.
No one knows what happened billions of years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Agree. But the existence of nested hierarchies doesn't rule out the existence of a Common Designer. How do know the Creator doesn't have a penchant for nested hierarchies? If you can't explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not evidence for a Common Designer. You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer. Why does Porsche, for example, make different models of sports cars? Their models are similar, but different. The answer is: Because they want to. Why did God create many different kinds of eucalyptus trees? Because he wanted to. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
God could make the sky and grass any colour he wants to. Science can't explain why he chose blue and green, respectively.
Dredge writes:
It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green? Science knows the answer to both of those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dredge writes:
If creation be true, we would expect the fossil record to be characterised sudden appearance and stasis ..."The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182) "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." S. J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980. And still they dishonestly quote mine despite it being pointed out over and over that Gould was a confirmed 'evolutionist'.
quote: Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated
Equilibria Quotes Why not read the whole article so that you don't keep making the same mistake? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory. Predictably, many other atheists accepted PE as sound "science" ... any tin-pot idea will do, as long as it isn't creationism! And still they dishonestly quote mine despite it being pointed out over and over that Gould was a confirmed 'evolutionist' ... Why not read the whole article so that you don't keep making the same mistake? ... Which reminds me of another committed atheist, Salvador Dali, who said, "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it." Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dredge writes: The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory. Predictably, many other atheists accepted PE as sound "science" ... any tin-pot idea will do, as long as it isn't creationism! Gould was what he said he was, an 'evolutionist'.
... Which reminds me of another committed atheist, Salvador Dali, who said, "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it." Now you quote a surrealist???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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
I love it when creationists quote-mine Gould. I'll do it, too:
Stephen Jay Gould writes: Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. So, Dredge, did you quote Gould because of your stupidity? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024