Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 1152 of 1311 (816171)
07-31-2017 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1141 by Rrhain
07-29-2017 5:10 PM


Rrhain writes:
life only comes from non-life.
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.
In the meantime, I'll just suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.
Humans present their ideas and God laughs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1141 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2017 5:10 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 1153 of 1311 (816172)
07-31-2017 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1111 by Tangle
07-28-2017 4:01 AM


Tangle writes:
Evolution is a branch of biology.
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."
Even better would be to understand this: Evolution needs biology, but biology doesn't need evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1111 by Tangle, posted 07-28-2017 4:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1157 by Tangle, posted 07-31-2017 2:44 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1155 of 1311 (816174)
07-31-2017 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1138 by Rrhain
07-29-2017 4:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1138 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2017 4:27 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1156 of 1311 (816175)
07-31-2017 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1134 by Faith
07-29-2017 3:56 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
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:
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.
"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
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 3:56 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1162 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:48 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1165 of 1311 (816270)
08-02-2017 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Tanypteryx
07-30-2017 3:04 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Tanypteryx writes:
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.
I don't recall stating that PE is the "opposite" of Darwin's theory.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2017 3:04 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1166 of 1311 (816271)
08-02-2017 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1160 by dwise1
07-31-2017 10:43 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1160 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2017 10:43 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1168 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2017 6:21 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1170 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2017 9:56 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1176 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 7:18 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1167 of 1311 (816273)
08-02-2017 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1159 by Taq
07-31-2017 10:41 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Taq writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1159 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:41 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1169 by JonF, posted 08-02-2017 8:48 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1171 by Taq, posted 08-02-2017 10:48 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1177 of 1311 (816337)
08-03-2017 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2017 12:09 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2017 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1184 by JonF, posted 08-03-2017 8:23 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1185 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2017 8:40 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2017 10:18 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1192 by ringo, posted 08-03-2017 11:53 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1178 of 1311 (816338)
08-03-2017 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1163 by dwise1
08-01-2017 5:22 PM


dwise1 writes:
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 %
My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from
= 100 99,990,000 / 10,000
to
= 100 9999

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1163 by dwise1, posted 08-01-2017 5:22 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1181 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2017 6:54 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1182 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2017 7:48 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1196 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 3:53 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 1200 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 5:26 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1179 of 1311 (816339)
08-03-2017 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1114 by Percy
07-28-2017 8:45 AM


Percy writes:
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.
Ok, thanks for that; I'll have my researcher look into it.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1114 by Percy, posted 07-28-2017 8:45 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1180 of 1311 (816340)
08-03-2017 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1160 by dwise1
07-31-2017 10:43 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
dwise1 writes:
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?
I got that Raup quote from Darwin on Trial (2nd edition) by Phillip E. Johnson, p.187.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1160 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2017 10:43 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1183 by Pressie, posted 08-03-2017 8:07 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1189 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 10:44 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1201 of 1311 (816394)
08-04-2017 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1176 by dwise1
08-02-2017 7:18 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 7:18 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1202 of 1311 (816395)
08-04-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1171 by Taq
08-02-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Taq writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1171 by Taq, posted 08-02-2017 10:48 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by herebedragons, posted 08-04-2017 8:11 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1225 by Taq, posted 08-04-2017 10:54 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1203 of 1311 (816396)
08-04-2017 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1174 by dwise1
08-02-2017 3:52 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
dwise1 writes:
These creationists are basically honest (or at least start put that way)
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1174 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 3:52 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1204 of 1311 (816397)
08-04-2017 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1170 by herebedragons
08-02-2017 9:56 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
HBD writes:
Do you really consider Kent Hovind to be an honest, truthful advocate for creationism? Ken Ham?
I've heard of Ken Ham but never read or heard him; never heard of Kent Hovind.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2017 9:56 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1215 by herebedragons, posted 08-04-2017 8:41 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1224 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2017 9:45 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1244 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2017 7:17 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024