|
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: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: It would be pointless because I'm not qualified to understand that level of biology. Chicko's explanation (via psychomosis) failed for the same reason. I would have to spend four years at university getting a degree in biology to understand what you're on about, I suspect.
And yet you think you are qualified to tell hundreds of thousands of scientists who do understand the evidence that they are all wrong. Go figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: The EVIDENCE for a genuine Christian is WHAT GOD SAYS. Then that rules out the Bible since the Bible is what humans say. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Faith writes: IF WE ARE NOT ALLOWED AT EVC MAKE A RULE THAT WE CAN'T BE HERE AT ALL. That only proves that you can't support YEC when using the rules of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: To account for all the non-homologous genes by deletions would require the common ancestor to have had hundreds of surplus genes available for deletion. Unless these genes were nonsense then this is a large loss of information, and if they were nonsense why did the common ancestor have them? If the genes found on the chimp Y chromosome are required for humans to survive, then how are we surviving without them? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Humans survive just fine without those genes, so it appears that they were available for deletion.
However I am heartened to see that you are embracing speciation by loss of genetic information. We are glad to see you admit that macroevolution does not require an increase in information. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Faith writes: Evidence is evidence, truth is truth. Stories in books are not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence must be observable and repeatable. Stories in books are not observable or repeatable. One of the earliest slogans in modern science is found in the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba Nullius in verba - Wikipedia It means, "take no one's word for it". Stories in books need scientific evidence to back them. They are not evidence in and of themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: Then goodbye, who needs it. Obviously, YEC's think they need science in order to justify their belief in creationism. Otherwise, why would they work so hard to claim it is scientific? Why not just say it is unscientific and a faith based religious belief upfront instead of trying so hard to pretend it is scientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
ringo writes: There is nothing following after your mad speculations. You propose no testing. Nobody is trying to test creationism. THAT is why it is not science. More to the point, without a null hypothesis (i.e. potential falsifications) you can't test creationist claims to begin with. For example, no matter what characteristics a geologic formation has they will claim it was put there by a recent global flood. No matter what features a fossil has they will never accept it as being transitional. No matter what genetic markers two species share they will never accept it as evidence for common ancestry. Their claims related to biology and geology are entirely unscientific because their claims are dogmatic. added in edit: apologies to Coyote for the initial misattribution Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: I think there is a serious disconnect between the evidence and the conclusion, but I can't prove it. You don't even understand the evidence or the conclusions, by your own admission. How can you say that there is a disconnect when you don't even understand the material?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: I understand certain aspects of evolutionary science and can see certain flaws in its arguments - as witnessed by my text, #392, for example. You didn't demonstrate any flaws in theory of evolution in that post.
But there are other arguments that evolutionists make that I can't enter into, as I don't have the expertise to understand the argument and hence, make a judgement. But having come to the conclusion that ToE is the greatest fraud in the history of science, I strongly suspect that all their arguments are flawed - but I can't prove it. How can you claim that the theory of evolution is a fraud when you don't even understand the evidence or the conclusions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: Creationism doesn't need to "produce its own science". Why not?
In contrast, Atheism does need to produce its own science, because it needs a Godless creation story to make atheists feel "fulfilled" - as High Priest Dawkins says. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities because there is no evidence for the existence of any deities. Even if we lacked evidence for how life or species came about, there still wouldn't be any evidence for deities. Atheism doesn't need evidence any more than not believing in fairies needs evidence.
Darwinism is a product of the psychological needs of atheists, and certainly not a product of scientific necessity. Darwinism is Scientism, and Scientism is the religion of atheism. 150 years of scientific evidence demonstrate otherwise.
Applied biology doesn't need Creationism or Darwinism. I already showed how the theory of evoution is used in applied biology. You continue to ignore those posts. It seems that all you have to offer is denial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
CRR writes: Actually the Middle East is part of the post flood world. We don't know where the Ark was built in reference to modern geography and we don't know what animals lived there. For all we know kangaroos could have been grazing on the hills watching Noah and his sons at work. After the Ark landed, how in the world did all of the marsupials beat all of those placental mammals to Australia? How did the marsupial mole beat the gazelle to Australia? It would appear that your Ark is full of holes. On top of that, how was post-Ark survival determined by how deep their ancestors were buried in the fossil record? The modern species we see today are found more towards the top of the fossil record while the species at the bottom of the fossil record are not alive today. How do you explain this correlation? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: Is that what I was trying to do? I was trying to demonstrate that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor is irrelevant in the fight against HIV/AIDS and in the development of the swine vaccine. And? The theory that nuclear fusion produces heat in the middle of the Sun is also irrelevant in fighting AIDS/HIV. Does that mean that fusion does not occur in the center of the Sun?
Taq, now is an excellent chance to help deliver Dredge from the darkness of his pathetic ignorance. Please explain how the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor has proven useful in the treatment of HIV/AIDS and in developing swine flu vaccine. This should be a piece'a'cake for someone of your intelligence and learning. I already showed you in multiple posts how evolution and common ancestry is applied in biology. Why don't you address those posts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: Of course not - creation is a miracle; miracles can't be explained. "Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought."--William of Conches,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: In post #392 RAZD claimed that the theory that humans and apes have a common ancestor "was useful in finding vaccines for HIV". It would be a waste of time to find that information because as soon as we supplied it you would shift the goal posts to "bacteria and humans sharing a common ancestor". You have shown that you have no interest in knowledge, facts, or science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: Really. Ok, there are similarities. So what? These similarities exist whether one is an evolutionist, a creationist, a Hindu, a Scientologist or a Freemason. In other words, the existence of the genetic similarities between humans and pigs is independent of the theory that humans and chimps have a common ancestor ... and the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. The evidence for evolution is a nested hierarchy which creationism can't explain. It isn't simply shared characteristics. The useful part of evolution is that it predicts a phylogenetic signal.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024