|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Your straw-man unwittingly raises a pertinent point - believing life on earth is 6000 years old would certainly contradict the science surrounding radioactive decay. But as for the study of disease and stellar movements, I can't see how such a belief would affect them in any way.
Yeh, science would just think it was magic how everything worked without any coherent theory about anything, from radioactive decay, disease to stellar movements. What did surprise me was how many religionists are still YECs.
How many religionists are still YECs? In the Catholic Church (population 1.2 billion), there seems to be relatively few. YECs probably represent only a small (vocal) minority of religionists.
PE is an observation.
Er, no ... you're confused ... PE is a theory that attempts to explain an observation. PE is also an untestable theory, and is therefore nothing more than a pseudo-scientific story.
Well now we have it. H. sapiens did not evolve, he was placed here whole by a (Christian) God. Great, now show your workings.
Too easy! The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago.
And while you're at it, explain why H. Sapiens have been dated at c200,000 yo.
Homo sapiens have been dated as 200, 000 years old? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Deary me ... the delusions and nonsense you evolutionists are forced to come up with!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
The theory of common descent certainly offers me no practical use, but the OP asks if the ToCD offers any practical use to applied science - so far none have come to light.
UCA is not useful to you so it is not useful to you. That makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
The OP concerns only science. By asking me for a practical use for a religious belief you are going beyond the bounds of science.
Then this thread needs to be closed. You admit you are not discussing science. If you want to continue this discussion it needs to move to the faith forums, it does not belong in the science forums because no matter how much science is presented you will just dismiss because of your religious beliefs.
Not true. Scientific evidence of an old earth was presented to me (on another site) and I eventually accepted it ... which forced me to radically reinterpret the Biblical accounts of creation. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
In that case, it's failed. ToE can't explain the Cambrian explosion, for starters. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your atheist belief system (aka evolution) is contradicted by the evidence.
But the modern theory of evolution predicts that there will be explainable gaps in the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Exhibit A: Most (if not all) of the novel organisms that appear during the Cambrian explosion have no fossil ancestors. Sorry to deliver the depressing news.
What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
Dredge writes: The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. It strikes me that you've got the worst of all possible positions here. You tell us that you accept that the earth and the creatures in it are millions of years old and that you accept evolution. Or at least some bits of it that you ad hoc prefer. Then you tell us that man himself is less than 10,000 years old and you know that by adding up mythical bible story characters' ages. The earth and all the organisms on it is old but man is young and presumably did not evolve, but was created. It's hard to unpick this mess but it strikes me that you must therefore think that Adam and Eve were real and Noah and his Flood happened. So all modern animals evolved in the last 4,000 years? And all humans came from Noah's family? And all those human fossils and descendants are imaginary? God knows why you're confusing yourself with niche arguments about what happened in the Cambrian.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 295 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Dredge writes: but the OP asks if the ToCD offers any practical use to applied science - so far none have come to light. Fifth time: "medicine."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
ToE can't explain the Cambrian explosion, for starters.
Prove it. Proving a negative is always good for a laugh. Whoopsie,, we have an explanation. There's a big difference between "have no explanation" and "have an explanation an ignoramus dislikes".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And, given that soft bodies don't fossilize well, so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FLRW Member (Idle past 728 days) Posts: 73 Joined:
|
Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
The genealogies from the first humans are recorded in the Bible (an historical document) - from which it can be calculated that man was created less than 10,000 years ago.
This is a science forum. If you want to make a faith based argument you need to move this to a faith forum. We have plenty of those. BTW- your bible is not a historical document. This is off topic. If you want to discuss, open a thread in the Faith forums. Admin- Really? Is it not obvious that Dredge has no interest in any science based explanation. All he is going to do is hand wave it away with a reference to some book he believes has magical secrets. According to the rules of this site, this thread needs to be shut down. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1958 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The theory of common descent certainly offers me no practical use, but the OP asks if the ToCD offers any practical use to applied science - so far none have come to light.
Fine, common descent is not useful to you, nor in the area of your choosing. Other people find it useful in their areas of interest. Thank you for your opinion. What is going to be your next revelation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1958 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
In that case, it's failed. ToE can't explain the Cambrian explosion, for starters.
Except that even Darwin had an explanation a century and a half ago. That basic explanation still stands.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but your atheist belief system (aka evolution) is contradicted by the evidence.
Another argument by assertion. Your opinion is noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1958 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Homo sapiens have been dated as 200, 000 years old? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Deary me ... the delusions and nonsense you evolutionists are forced to come up with!
Now there's a cogent argument! I'm sure that everyone here is now convinced. Why have you held back such profound reasoning till now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
So all modern animals evolved in the last 4,000 years? No, the YEC model, combined with the evidence, deprives all that extremely rapid evolution of even that much time.
Jean Léopold Nicolas Frédéric, Baron Cuvier (1769 - 1832), AKA "The Founding Father of Paleontology", developed the practice of extrapolating information about an organism based on a few pieces. He was also a staunch opponent of evolution (being before Darwin, evolution in his time was mostly Lamarckian). A young-earther (a default position at the time), his examination of a wide variety of Egyptian mummies brought back by Napoleon, including many animal mummies, revealed no anatomical difference between ancient (c. 1000 BCE) and modern species. He interpreted that to be evidence against evolution, but that would only be the case within a young-earth time framework. You would allow YECs a 4,000-year window for their ridiculously extreme rates of evolution, but Cuvier reduces that down to 1,000 years at most.
And all humans came from Noah's family? Since he's now come out explicitly as a YEC, I'm waiting for him to make that standard bunny-blunder claim. I'm sure that he'll revert to standard YEC behavior and avoid presenting any evidence to support YEC.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024