|
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 Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Rrhain writes:
If you show me an organism arising from sterile mud or sea-water I'll have reason to be believe one half of your claim. The other half of your claim involves proving that life can't come from a Creator God. Good luck with both projects. life only comes from non-life.In the meantime, I'll just suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. Humans present their ideas and God laughs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
This statement is at least an improvement on "Evolution is the unifying concept of biology" or "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Evolution is a branch of biology. Even better would be to understand this: Evolution needs biology, but biology doesn't need evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
My dear, poor, dazed and confused fellow,
Please be advised that your comparison between a life-form arising from dead matter and a living organism converting (dead) food into living matter is incompatible with reason, and therefore, science. Your body takes non-living material and through a chemical reaction converts it into a living material. There's no magic involved.
You could have fooled me. Photosynthesis is "just chemistry" too. A cake is the result of "just chemistry" as well, but can a cake make itself? (Speaking of which, do you find yourself strangely attracted to fruit-cakes?)
What do you mean by "life"?
Just off the top of my head, how about "A thing that grows and performs functions such as obtaining, ingesting and digsting food, expelling waste, reproduction and avoidance of predators? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Faith,
In post #1108 I recanted my claim that Gould was an atheist. As far as I ascertain, he was an agnostic. 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. It's interesting that despite professing devotion to reason and science, some minds suffer from a natural predilection for superstition. The farce of PE finds acceptance only because creation is unacceptable. Faith writes:
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." - S.J. Gould there are NO gradations of transitionals evidenced in the fossil record, such as between reptiles and mammals, where they are nevertheless assumed, or as I said, hallucinated. They do not exist. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
I don't recall stating that PE is the "opposite" of Darwin's theory.
You trying to characterize Punctuated Equilibrium as being the opposite Darwin's theory predicts shows that either you don't know what either of them said or thought on the subject or you are dishonestly quote mining both of them. other dimwitted creationists
You might have a point there, because I'm obviously not not intelligent enough to figure out how PE's saltations can be reconciled with Darwin's gradualism. Not that it matters to me - I think they're both wrong. (Does it really matter what colour the Tooth Fairy's dress is?) Dawkins must be as dumb as me - he couldn't come to terms with PE either. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
It's a fact that some creationists have used the odd quote out-of-context. But generally, speaking creationists are honest, since honesty is a very important requirement of their religion. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq 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?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from Now let's assume the creationist case where the expected value is 10,000 years, but the dating method gives us a measured value of 100 million years:% error = 100 abs(100,000,000 - 10,000) / abs (10,000) = 100 abs( 99,990,000 ) / abs (10,000) = 100 99,990,000 / 10,000 = 100 9999 = 999,900 % = 100 99,990,000 / 10,000to = 100 9999
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Ok, thanks for that; I'll have my researcher look into it. The full book review from which you took your quote can be found here: HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION - Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. He's not saying what you think he's saying. But in the meantime ... "In February of 1993, Ruse made some remarkable concessions in a talk at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ... Ruse (spoke) on a topic labelled "Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson" ... Mainly we talked about metaphysics and my position that naturalistic metaphysics underlies Darwinist belief. Ruse admitted to his AAAS audience , "In the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Although he is as much an evolutionist as ever, Ruse now acknowledges "that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law - but I think that in all honesty we should recognize.""- Darwin on Trial, 2nd edition, Phillip E. Johnson, p.163
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I got that Raup quote from Darwin on Trial (2nd edition) by Phillip E. Johnson, p.187.
Did you even quote Raup? Or did you just copy somebody else's quote-mining of that article? That article whose name you didn't even provide. And why the copy errors?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes: One of the reasons is because normals are disgusted by your (pl.) flagrant hypocrisy. Oh, how I yearn to be one of the "normals"! But as hard as I try, I just can't do it. I don't have it in me.--------------------------------- They lied. The pastors of a fundamentalist church lied. Solely because they had been seduced by the lies of "creation science."
In your feverish haste to malign a creationist church, you've overlooked a few obvious considerations:You forgot to mention the possibility that the church in question considered that their creation science was sound and that they considered Carl Drews' opinion to be in error or considered that he wasn't scientifically qualified to make a judgement. Or maybe the church had another reason for not trusting Drews' judgement - like the little ol' fact that he was an evolutionist. So the church ignored him and continued to preach in good conscience what they thought was good science. That's not lying. At worst, it's preaching bad science out of ignorance. Or it could simply be a case of preaching good creation science despite the protestations of an disgruntled evolutionist in the congregation. Preaching good creation science isn't lying; it's preaching the truth. You haven't supplied any details of the scientific material in question, so there's no way of knowing if the church was at fault or of assessing how right or wrong Drews' opinions were. And we haven't heard the church's side of the story. You accuse this creationist church of lying solely on the testimony of one malcontented evolutionist. Is that fair and reasonable? Could it be that your sense of justice has been warped by a pathological hatred of creation and/or of creationists? Should anyone be surprised that you have come down on the side of Drew the evolutionist and condemned a creationist church? I'm not. Even if Drews had good reason to oppose what that church was teaching, he was a theistic evolutionist and therefore a heretic; an enemy of the truth.---------------------------------------------- It has been called "one of the major causes of atheism and materialism."
By whom?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: Dredge writes:
That is not the same thing. You said that Gould thought it was evidence for creationism, not creationists. That is bearing false witness. 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? I can't accept that Gould would not consider "sudden appearance" and "stasis" to be evidence of creation. If not "sudden appearance" and "stasis", then one wonders, what would he consider to be evidence of creation? I should think that without "sudden appearance" and "stasis" in the fossil record, mounting a case for creation would be futile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Yes, I know what you mean: The longer I believe in creation the more dishonest I get. See what I mean? ... I just lied! Sometimes I can't tell if I'm lying or not. These creationists are basically honest (or at least start put that way) Oh, and I'd better come clean on who my "creationist handlers" are. There are two: Chicko - the dog next-door; and Mr. Wong - a mysterious Asian man who comes to my door once a week, says nothing and gives me a brown-paper bag containing instructions. Also in the bag is enough LSD to last me one week, if taken twice a day. Mr. Wong has a large cross tattooed on his forehead and has bad breath that smells like petrol. He drives a blue-and-silver Bugatti Veyron with personalised number-plates that say, "Jesus Freek".--------------------------------- You mentioned that some creationists have become "extremely hostile" with you. Has one of those creationist death-squads (CDS) ever cornered you and tried to stone you to death? ----------------------------- Has anyone ever suggested to you that you may have a pathological obsession with creationists? If a psychiatrist showed you a photo of a gas-chamber and asked you to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind, would you say, "creationists!"? ----------------------------------------- Anyway, I should cut this short now. As I said, these are my draft notes so far.
Well, good on you, because that was fascinating! Have you shown this stuff to your therapist/psychiatrist yet? Maybe you shouldn't; but then again, if you want to get better, maybe you should.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
HBD writes:
I've heard of Ken Ham but never read or heard him; never heard of Kent Hovind.
Do you really consider Kent Hovind to be an honest, truthful advocate for creationism? Ken Ham? What ends up happening is... the average creationist starts out with the belief that the earth is young and was created in 6 literal days... that is the "truth" and that is the starting point. It then is irrelevant how evidence is collected and interpreted as long as the answer is that the earth is young and was created in 6 literal days. If the answer is right... it doesn't matter how you come up with it. I can't speak for YECs. I don't believe the Bible indicates how old the earth is, so it could be billions of years old. But using the "starting point" of a young earth is no worse than using evolution as a starting point, which is what most atheists do.
If I have to lie and manipulate evidence to support my beliefs, they are just not worth having.
I agree. Most evolutionists are honest, I think, but mistaken. Some people can believe in miracles (creationists) and some can't (Darwinists). Trying to explain miracles with science is futile and only produces bad science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024