|
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: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge 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? You, CRR, and Faith are writing posts where you try to ridicule evolution for being a fairy tale, and yet the whole time you three are the ones who believe life was magically poofed into being. That's the point. Also, Faith actually said that it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe and life were magically poofed into being. Take that up with her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: 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 any
We can add the word "fact" to the list of words you don't understand. It is your OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? I am guessing that you don't. Also, the only people telling yarns are your, CRR, and Faith with your myths about magical poofing. The rest of us are discussing science. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge 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? How do you know that he does? The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that life was created.
Why does Porsche, for example, make different models of sports cars? Their models are similar, but different. The answer is: Because they want to. Porsches don't fall into a nested hierarchy. You are making this too easy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. This is called "putting words in other peoples' mouths". This is as dishonest as it gets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Not only was Gould's "science" the result of an atheism-inspired, a priori commitment to evolution, his pathetic PE was just a re-hash of spontaneous generation - superstition, in other words. "That's just like, your opinion, man"--The Dude
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: I don't know that he does - I'm saying it's entirely possible that he does. It is also entirely possible that a designer would not create species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, any pattern of shared features is as likely as another which means that the claims of a common designer does not predict a nested hierarchy.
What is the difference between Porsche making a 'family' of sports cars and a nested hierarchy? If a single 911 shares and engine with a 969 while two 911s have different engines, this violates a nested hierarchy. If a Cayman and 914 have the same tire while two Caymans have different tires, then that is a violation of a nested hierarchy. I could give many examples, if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: The trouble is, not all paleontologists share Gould's view that "transitional forms ... are abundant between larger groups": Science isn't a religion, so it doesn't work through scriptures and proclamations. You need to present evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: It would be more accurate to say evolution = atheist theology. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, so by definition atheism can't have a theology.
Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (National Post, May 13, 2000, pp. B1,B3,B7): "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religiona full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."
And you still can't address the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: What Dredge said is completely true, and Gould's observation of the fossil record does indeed support creationist arguments. Dredge put no words in Gould's mouth, he simply drew a different and very reasonable conclusion from Gould's observations. There is nothing dishonest about that. Let's read what Dredge said again: "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." Where did Gould ever say that what he saw was evidence for creation? He never did, yet Dredge is trying to put those words in his mouth. That is dishonest.
Gould pointed out the obvious: the lack of the gradations of transitional forms that Darwin expected and led others to expect if his theory was correct. That prompted Gould to devise his Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to explain this obvious failure of the ToE. Darwin stated quite clearly that he didn't expect to see those gradations. Now you are putting words in Darwin's mouth. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. "--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species" Darwin spent an entire chapter explaining why we don't see fine gradations of transitional forms in the geologic record.
I was recently making the same observation as Gould's when I pointed out how trilobites and coelecanths show no signs of evolving over hundreds of millions of years beyond the variations built into the genome of the Kind, so when transitionals are available they do not support the ToE. Then show me a fossil representation of the modern coelacanth. Bet you can't do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Evolutionary biology - real biology's wacko little brother - is notorious for it pseudo-scientific ideas. Relying on evolutionary biology to explain the fossil record is like relying on Jehovah's Witnesses to explain the Bible. And yet more name calling. Is that all you have? You can't address the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Nevertheless, it seems to me that he had an a priori commitment to evolution. Why else would he resort to something as contrary as what Darwin himself predicted as PE? New creatures suddenly appearing is reminiscent of the fantasy of Spontaneous Generation. Gould agreed with Darwin. "Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439] Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Are you suggesting that a man of Gould's intelligence and knowledge was not aware that the "sudden appearance" and "stasis" he saw in the fossil record was not used by creationists as evidence of creation? That is not the same thing. You said that Gould thought it was evidence for creationism, not creationists. That is bearing false witness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: What kind of "lesson about God" could one get from a mythicized story? I know, right? Surely no one would ever use stories or parables to teach about God, right? Jesus never did that, did he?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024