|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
We seem to be forgetting that this thread's topic is evidence for whale evolution.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
As you would already have noticed, Faith, evolutionists have a penchant for calling something "evolution" when it really isn't. Evidently, deception via semantics is accepted as part and parcel of the culture of evolutionary "science". When asked for a practical use for macroevolution, they can't give you one. Instead they'll proffer an example of microevolution - eg, genetic variation within a species, or an example of natural selection (such as antibiotic resistance).
Microevolution is a undeniable, demonstrable scientific fact that has a multitude of uses in applied science - in stark contrast, macroevolution is a untestable theory of atheist theology that has zero applied uses. So on the scale of irrelevance, macro'theology is right up there with Little Green Men on Mars and the Tooth Fairy. Atheists get most upset if anyone disrespects their useless but dearly loved theory - to them it's the "greatest discovery in the history of science" and they have a deep-seated psychological need to believe in it. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9517 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Theists get most upset if anyone disrespects their useless but dearly loved theory - to them it's the "greatest discovery in history" and they have a deep-seated psychological need to believe in it. Do you see how easy and how pointless saying stuff like that is?
As you would already have noticed, Faith, evolutionists have a penchant for calling something "evolution" when it really isn't. Evolutionists, or where I come from biologists, get to make the definition of evolution. Not you or your friends in the god-bothering business. There are several standard definitions - use them, stop imaging stuff and then lying about it.
Microevolution is a undeniable, demonstrable scientific fact that has a multitude of uses in applied science - in stark contrast, macroevolution is a untestable theory of atheist theology that has zero applied uses. So on the scale of irrelevance, macro'theology is right up there with Little Green Men on Mars and the Tooth Fairy. And I suppose dripping water into a cup never fills it either? Look, it wouldn't matter if there was no practical value whatsoever in knowing how species became what they are now. The acquisition of knowledge for its own sake has enormous value in our society. Your only complaint is that it accidentally trashes your book of myths. At least be honest about it. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Your claim isn't even close to being correct: The Catholic Church officially does not oppose Creationism in any way, as Catholics are free to believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Catholics are also free to believe in a evolutionary version of creation, which is called theistic evolution. Catholics are not bound in any way to believe in the theory of evolution and they are free to reject it in its entirety.
And Catholics are perfectly free to believe in Intelligent Design (in fact, I wonder what sort of Christian doesn't believe in ID - probably the fake kind). Personally, I reject theistic evolution and I think eventually the Catholic Church will realize that evolution is not only fake science, but utterly incompatible with Scripture as well. My tip is, the Church will one fine day declare that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are literally six days of 24 hours duration each (as per the Scriptures) - thereby killing off any possibility that evolution can be squeezed into the Christian picture ("Catholics" like Kenneth Miller might then need to find another religion).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Only some aspects of ToE explain how life on earth works. Which aspects? Precisely those aspects which have a use in applied science.
The parts of ToE that have no use in applied science just so happen to explain nothing about life works, rather they attempt to explain how life arose. But history, per se, is useless to applied science and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. --------------------------------- I disagree with your claim that the theory of evolution debunks biblical creation - an untestable theory can't debunk anything. The untestable theory of evolution can do no more than provide an alternative belief system. The only raison d'etre for the theory of evoluton is to provide a godless creation story for atheists; it serves to reinforce their perception of reality. But as a tool for applied (real) science, it's as useless as science fiction. Applied science is the only true science, because if a theory can be applied to produce a practical use, you know that that theory is more or less correct. Theoretical science has it's place but unfortunately is also serves a medium for space cadets, bs-artists and useless talkers. Even if evolution could be proven to be a fact, it still wouldn't debunk the existence of a supernatural Creator God, because a supernatural creator God could be responsible for starting and directing evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9517 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: The parts of ToE that have no use in applied science just so happen to explain nothing about life works, rather they attempt to explain how life arose. But history, per se, is useless to applied science and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. This is just drivel. There is nothing irrelevant to science except stupidity. Explaining how life 'arose' has enormous scientific value. How could it be otherwise, it's information about our world.
Applied science is the only true science, because if a theory can be applied to produce a practical use, you know that that theory is more or less correct. Theoretical science has it's place but unfortunately is also serves a medium for space cadets, bs-artists and useless talkers. More drivel. Knowledge needs no justification.
Even if evolution could be proven to be a fact, it still wouldn't debunk the existence of a supernatural Creator God, because a supernatural creator God could be responsible for starting and directing evolution. So here is your real objection at last. Well at least you're correct on all those points so what on earth are you wailing at? All the discovery of evolution has done is overturn the primitive mythology in your book. That's all. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, you are free to remain ignorant. Yet the fact remains that the Roman Catholic church is another of the major denominations that stands against the nonsense of Creationism or Intelligent design being included in science education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
As you would already have noticed, Faith, evolutionists have a penchant for calling something "evolution" when it really isn't. Evidently, deception via semantics is accepted as part and parcel of the culture of evolutionary "science". When asked for a practical use for macroevolution, they can't give you one. Instead they'll proffer an example of microevolution - eg, genetic variation within a species, or an example of natural selection (such as antibiotic resistance). What strange, stupid, muddled lies you tell, to be sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Even if evolution could be proven to be a fact, it still wouldn't debunk the existence of a supernatural Creator God, because a supernatural creator God could be responsible for starting and directing evolution. I'm enjoying your contributions here, hope you'll stick around. I didn't know how far you get into the science questions but I'm glad to see you are up on them. But I don't agree with what you say above, because the ToE contradicts the Bible if you believe that death did not occur until the Fall of man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When asked for a practical use for macroevolution, they can't give you one. Instead they'll proffer an example of microevolution - eg, genetic variation within a species, or an example of natural selection (such as antibiotic resistance). What strange, stupid, muddled lies you tell, to be sure. He's quite right. Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution, and every time someone gives what is supposed to be an example besides that, it's always microevolution which has been recognized since forever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I disagree with your claim that the theory of evolution debunks biblical creation - an untestable theory can't debunk anything. The untestable theory of evolution can do no more than provide an alternative belief system. The only raison d'etre for the theory of evoluton is to provide a godless creation story for atheists; it serves to reinforce their perception of reality. How do you reconcile your insane fantasy with (a) the fact that many evolutionists are theists, and (b) your own admission that evolution "wouldn't debunk the existence of a supernatural Creator God"?
Applied science is the only true science ... Interesting. So according to you it is not true science to know that Saturn has rings, or that daffodils are yellow, or that giraffes have long necks, because we have as yet found no practical use for these facts. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
He's quite right. Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution ... Please do amuse us all by attempting to argue for that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution, and every time someone gives what is supposed to be an example besides that, it's always microevolution which has been recognized since forever. Take a look at your sentence. You start it by indicating that antibiotic resistance is not an example of 'evolution' and you end it by stating that it is actually a form of 'microevolution'. A word which has the word 'evolution' in it. Now THAT'S funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't know what to call changes in bacteria so I don't mean to call it microevolution, which I think of as describing sexually reproducing creatures that have built-in genetic variability. So I meant to say "besides" antibiotic resistance. Neither is evolution as the ToE leads us to think of it, however. Microevolution is normal variation that we see all the time, there is no evidence whatever that it does anything other than vary the Species into varieties and races. Darwin made a huge unevidenced leap to the idea that the changes seen all the time continue on to create a completely new species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
In other words you reject the facts because they contradict the inventions of your "fallen human mind".
Antibiotic resistance is a simple and clear example of a beneficial mutation spread by natural selection. That is evolution by any sane standard.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024