|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
CRR writes:
It was just a random mutation.
You're pretty obsessed about a one letter typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
That makes no more sense than adding blast furnaces to the definition of "automobile".
Now I know that some people will object to including abiogenesis in the definition but I think it is an essential part of the thinking of most evolutionary biologists and inseparable from evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Davidjay writes:
Can you name two or three hundred of those "real" scientists who don't accept evolution?
Meanwhile real scientists are working and studying and finding principles and laws and marveling at how all things fit together perfectly and EXACTLY.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Davidjay writes:
First, I asked for two or three hundred. You're short by 189. Sure... I can name real Christian Scientists who discovered the laws of our Creator.. Second, I asked for real scientists who don't accept evolution. The first five on your list died before evolution was ever explained so they clearly don't follow. Did anybody on your list actually reject evolution? You could have just said, no, you can't name real scientists who reject evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Davidjay writes:
The proper question is: Name anybody who has discovered any law who rejects evolution.
Name any evolutionists that has discovered any law or new law, or anything that has helped mankind. Davidjay writes:
None of whom rejected evolution.
Mine were great famous Christian Scientists....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
It's like a parakeet fighting with his own reflection in the mirror.
Dredge has a different approach to these things than I do but I understand what he's saying and agree with him even if I have my own different angle on it and some terminology needs to be sorted out to show our agreement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
Name 300.
There are Young Earth Creationists who are competent in all fields of science including biology and geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Why single out "applied" biology? How can you "apply" biology without a solid understanding of the foundations of biology? Nothing in applied biology depends on your useless atheist theology - that all life evolved from a common ancestor - or will ever depend on it. What Dobzhansky said is the equivalent of, "Nothing in aviation makes sense except in the light of aerodynamics." You seem to be implying that you can build and fly aircraft without understanding aerodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
The foundations of biology may not "require" that all life evolved from a common ancestor - but the evidence shows that all life DID evolve from a common ancestor. If you're not understanding that part of the foundation, what else are you missing? This might come as a shock to you, but a solid understanding of the foundations of biology doesn't require the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Consider the analogy again: If you don't understand that aerodynamics requires air, how can you be trusted to build an aircraft?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
CRR writes:
Yes, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a difference between the definition word Evolution as used in Biology and the definition of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is what happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it happens. If there was another explanation - say special creation - that wouldn't change the fact that it does happen. But of course, special creation doesn't explain anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
How are those "instructions" written on the DNA molecule? What is the ink?
DNA provides the instructions for building biological machines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
A lazy Creator. And an unimaginative one.
wikipedia writes:
... which makes perfect sense if all life was created by the same Creator. All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
We're not talking about form or strategies for survival here. We're talking about biochemical organization. Why would a designer use only one possibility? Why use DNA at all? For that matter, why use chemistry at all?
Regardless of the method or technology involved, life on earth shows a huge amount of variation both in form and in strategies for survival and reproduction. NoNukes writes:
Three sentences:
And just what is the level of effort required to create life on an entire planet?quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
There's nothing unimaginative about using it ONCE. What's unimaginative is doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.
What is unimaginative or lazy about using chemistry or DNA? NoNukes writes:
Well, of course real designers DO develop those things using different methods: flight can be lighter-than-air, heavier-than air, fixed-wing, rotary-wing, etc. Echolocation can be by sound, by radio waves, by lasers, etc. Show me a biological zeppelin.
How does your argument compare to the argument that a designer would not develop vision, flight, or echolocation using different methods? NoNukes writes:
That designer would be a redundancy duct-taped onto an already satisfactory explanation.
And why couldn't a designer build some basic prototypes and then allow evolution to fill in the rest? Wouldn't that explain some of the similarities we see?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
So why wouldn't a brilliant designer come up with TWO brilliant designs to do the same thing in totally different ways? Or twenty?
It's brilliant design to come up with an information coding system that can be used in all life from amoeba to whale.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024