|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9215 total) |
| |
Cifa.ac | |
Total: 920,289 Year: 611/6,935 Month: 611/275 Week: 0/128 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How can Biologists believe in the ToE? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
In another thread, ICANT wrote the following:
quote: My reply was:
1) As crash writes, people who accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of the ToE do just that. "Belief", like "belief" in gods, is not why people who understand a bit of Biology accept the ToE. 2) Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false? It seems to me that many religious people who oppose the ToE are under the impression that others, including scientists and science-minded people, "believe" in the same way that religious people "believe" in gods. I also have noticed that when religious people make such a claim, they do not realize that they are calling into question the integrity, intelligence, and basic professional competence of generations of scientists. I would like those who reject the ToE to explain how they reconcile their rejection with the logical implications regarding scientists I have listed above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The short versions: Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Put another way, it is descent with modification. The slightly longer, somewhat more comprehensive version: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html The long, quite detailed and very comprehensive version: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html While I am happy to provide you with this information, ICANT, I am not sure why it is relevant to the questions in the OP. If you rejected the Germ Theory of Disease and couldn't understand how anybody could believe in it, would the definition of the GToD really matter to a discussion of the competency of all of the scientists and medical doctors who have been working within the GToD for the last 150 years or so? Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : plelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
crap
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well then your difficulty is with Biochemistry, not Evolutionary Biology. The ToE applies to the first life once it got here. The various therories of Abiogenesis (which is Chemistry) deal with the formation of the first life from non-life. So, you are very much in error to lump Abiogenesis theories into the ToE.
quote: That's crap, as others have explained to you. Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all. God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota.
quote: Because you misunderstand how science in general works and in particular what Evolutionary Biology is.
quote: What are "formas"? That's not a taxonomical term, so I don't understand what you mean.
quote: What is the definition of "kind"? In specific, by what method is it determined that "kind" an organism is? For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"? Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"?
quote: You believe what you do about science out of ignorance. It's a shame that you wish to remain ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Where the first life came from has no bearing on the ToE at all. quote: No, you are completely wrong. Do you disbelieve the Germ Theory of Disease because it doesn't explain where the first bacteria came from? Do you disbelieve the Atomic Theory of Matter because it doesn't explain where the first atom came from? Do you disbelieve the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System because it doesn't explain how stars are formed? ICANT, you don't know nearly enough about science to make an informed opinion. Therefore, you are making error upon error about very basic scientific things. You have an opinion, but it is based upon nothing but your religious prejudice and ignorance.
God could have poofed the first life into existence and it would not change the ToE one iota. quote: If you believe that this happened, then you don't accept modern science. You reject Biology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Cosmology, Genetics, etc. Your links concerning "formas" didn't work. The bit of a quote you provided mentions "forams", which are single-celled organisms. Their fossils are used to date geological layers. But anyway, this is just another empty argument about supposed barriers to evolution that people like you claim exist but never show. I noticed that you ignored my request for a definition of "kind". What is the definition of "kind", ICANT? What is it? I've asked that question to dozens of Creationists over the years, and not a single one of them have given me an answer. Maybe you will be the first, but I don't think so. Furthermore, when I asked you to explain the method used to determine what "kind" an organism is...:
For example, is my housecat and a Bengal Tiger the same "kind"? Are homo Sapiens and Bonobo Chimpanzees the same "kind"? You inadequately answered:
quote: How did you come to that conclusion? What method did you use? Clearly, you reject the notion that genes are the basis for heredity. Again, more evidence that you reject modern science.
quote: [rant]If you agree that you are ignorant of science, then where do you get off making such bold claims about it? For the last 150 years, there have been hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of life on this planet. There's a reason not every Joe Schmoe can get a PhD in the sciences, ICANT. That's because it's bloody difficult. It takes enormous commitment and not a small amount of intelligence to make it through the years and years of work required. Scientists are low-paid relative to other professionals with similar levels of education and expertise like MD's, MBA's and attorneys, so none of them do it for the big bucks but because they like what they do. Can't you imagine how you might come off as insulting when, even while admitting ignorance about science, you express incredulity about how anybody (which includes scientists in the field) could possibly believe the Theory of Evolution? Don't cry to me about sarcasm and snide remarks regarding your entirely willful ignorance if you are also going to criticise others who are far more informed than you are. THAT, my friend, is real arrogance.[/rant] If you are ignorant of science, then why haven't you been asking questions so you can become less ignorant? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to try to learn what you don't know rather than defend your ignorance? There are professional scientists and educated laypeople on this board who could help you to correct your misconceptions and errors and lack of information regarding any number of scientific subjects. Just ask, and many of us would be happy to explain anything you have questions about. But I predict that you won't. It's too dangerous for your faith, apparently, for you to become too educated about science. You have to realize, ICANT, that we've seen many people just like you come and go from these boards. They have the same wrong ideas about science and evolution, and come with the same arrogant attitude of, "Gee, I don't know anything about Biology, and I don't believe in the ToE, and anybody who does believe in it must be pretty crazy!" We've even seen some who come here with lots of honest questions about science becasue they realize thay are ignorant and want to fix that. Most of the time, they get almost to the point of understanding but then run away right when they would have to admit that the ToE is valid. It is truly a trajedy when people must suppress their intellects and avoid learning about the natural world to protect their clearly fragile faith. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I know I am not good as staying on topic but I am motivated to keep this one from straying.
StevieBoy, thanks for your reply, but it doesn't address the OP. I'd like to know your thoughts on the OP, so please give it a read and let me know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Are you going to define "kind", or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Are you going to define "kind", or not? quote: I was going to suggest that we take this discussion of "kind" to another thread, but it would be a waste of bandwidth. I'll put this to rest right now. "Kind" is not a scientific term. It is one that is used only by Creationists. If there actually was a definition, you would have provided it by now. There is no definion. If there actually was a method that any believer or non-believer could use to determine one "kind" from another, you would have been able to explain it to me. There isn't. It is a sad little attempt by Creationists to make the bible into a science text. They tried to mimic scientific taxonomy and, as you can see, fail miserably. You have been lied to, my friend.
quote: I'm going to ask this as plainly as I can. Do you think that people with PhD's in Biology are stupid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Just trying to keep this thread near the top of the list as we await ICANT's return.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
sending it up there again
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Oh, no, I meant "criticize".
And, FYI, I do hope you aren't planning on following me around the board to correct my spelling, as you won't have time for anything else. Welcome back, Born2. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
bump de bump
do the bump de bump
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
'nutha BUMP!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Clearly, if you don't know enough about ToE to believe in it, you can't possible believe in something as out there as gravity. quote: Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2473 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, what predictions of your theory, if found, would falsify it? Does it explain ALL the evidence found in nature better than any other theory? These are a couple of hallmarks of a scientific theory. The layman's use of the word "theory" is not at all like the way scientists use the word. Some scientific theories you might recognize: The Germ Theory of DiseaseThe Atomic Theory of Matter The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System Gravitational Theory The Theory of Relativity Evolutionary Theory
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025