|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I see no benefits. The ToE is purely an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness. All it has done is undermine Christianity and the moral absolutes most societies used to depend upon.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 01:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So when a bird flu epidemic hits North America you will refuse the vaccination correct? For the umpteenth time, the ToE has absolutely nothing to do with such practical science. The illusion that it does is one of the saddest things imaginable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Antibiotic rotation Gene Therapy Genetically Engineered Crops Pre-birth screening for various genetic disorders Any medical treatment related to DNA or genetics Any food science related to DNA or genectics Genetics is not dependent on the ToE and could have thrived quite usefully without it. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 03:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Heh. If sidelined were to flesh out his bit about flu vaccination, I'm sure the objection would have something to do with "micro-" vs. "macro"-evolution. Then we would be a bit more on topic with this All he could do is the usual: point out that the way one develops vaccinations is by taking into account the rapid "mutation" of the organism targeted, which is now called speciation with macro implications, but is in fact speciation in the micro sense, business as usual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
For whatever reason, those who hold the creationist perspective never make these types of contributions. Well, here's a thought about why. There aren't many of them, and they are engaged in trying to answer evolutionism. The vast majority of scientists simply accept evolution because that's what they were taught, and they just go about their scientific business without having to get involved in the dispute.
I think a YEC geneticist, were one to exist, would be as capable of contributing to the development of bird flu vaccines as any other geneticist. The genetic processes involved would not violate his belief that change across kind boundaries is impossible. Yes, I agree. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Creationists agree with things that are current and observable.
Only in as much as they have been forced to accept what is scientifically observable. Let's not forget it wasn't long ago they rejected speciation as biologically possible. Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is happening all around us, they have retreated to some higher order taxa ('kind') that is completely undefinable and, ergo, unassailable with evidence. What a cop-out. This is a complete falsification which has been answered many times. All that was rejected was the way the term "speciation" is used by evos, to mean macroevolution. It's a semantic headache and a big one, but that's all it is. The concept itself has never been a problem to creationists, it's the most mundane observation in biology that variations occur all the time and some are rather dramatic. This whole problem is strictly the result of how evolution has co-opted the language of biology to suit its own presuppositions, and forced creationists to sort it all out in order even to discuss their own point of view. The terms have so many meanings it is understandable there has been a lot of confusion, but your way of spinning this is simply wrong and unfair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This thread isn't about whether the theory of evolution is dependent upon genetics. It isn't about your opinion that evolutionists have changed the definition of species. It's about whether the theory of evolution has benefited mankind. Fine, I'll drop out. But actually, all the points I'm making are support for my contention that evolution has not benefitted mankind, in answer to those who claim it has by misappropriating various sciences to the ToE that have nothing to do with it. Having said that, I'm done. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'd like to encourage you to try to rein in your habit of issuing charges of unfairness in so many threads. Please just focus on the topic. It's not personal, Percy, and it's totally on topic as it is an explanation for the historical situation that is so often misinterpreted. It's a statement about how the presuppositions, labels, definitions of the ToE itself spin things against creationists and lead to this kind of accusation that creationists are simply stupidly rejecting concepts such as "speciation" when the point is that the concept has been changed to remove the earlier understanding which creationists had no problem with. I suppose I could try to find less inflammatory language, but the accusations against creationists and the ridicule of creationists are rather inflammatory to begin with, don't you think? Nevertheless I do not want to get into a battle with you about this and unless I continue to get posts to me to answer I'm leaving this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We would like to see some specific examples of how creationist reasoning has been used to advance scientific understanding for human benefit. Please explain how the creationist way of viewing things can be useful for elaborating biological mechanisms or processes. Creationist reasoning is involved elsewhere than the science labs, though there is no reason to think that individual creationists have not made any contributions to science. I agree with what Percy said, that creationist biologists have no problem dealing with the everyday science involving genetics and DNA or anything else on that level. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Wow, I almost missed it. The fact that creationist science is not contributing to everyday science is actually confirmation of my point that the ToE has nothing to do with science per se, the stuff that goes on with DNA etc. That's because the ToE doesn't operate on that level and creation science is aimed at the assumptions of the ToE. All this complaint about how creationists reject the benefits of science is nonsense. Creationists are arguing with the ToE which has nothing whatever to do with science.
Having said that, goodbye for now. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2006 04:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh, and if you are going to criticize science for being purely "an ivory tower speculation with no pragmatic usefulness", I suggest you stop powering your house with electricity, I suggest you stop going to the doctor and stop getting vaccinations, I suggest you start floating to the heavens, I suggest you stop driving your car, and I suggest you stop relying on any technology or science. I already answered all this on this very thread. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-06-2006 01:40 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I believe Faith was speaking in shorthand. She means that the part of the ToE not accepted by creationists, namely macroevolution, has no practical scientific application. That is correct. Thank you. But of course I don't regard microevolution as the ToE at all. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-08-2006 10:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am not posting on science threads because the powers that be don't like my style, but I will answer this just to repeat my usual theme song, which I've certainly said often enough: Genetics is not the ToE. Knowing genetic similarities and differences between the different species is genetics; there need be no idea of descent implied. And this basic reasoning goes for every other accusation that creationists oppose basic science. We do not. Science is not dependent on the ToE.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024