|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,535 Year: 857/6,935 Month: 138/719 Week: 130/116 Day: 4/40 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How can Biologists believe in the ToE? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Yes, I will join your silly discussion. Why is it not OT for you to come into my thread and ask me to input my view on something I have no clue, no reference, and in fact no idea of. Please do not respond to this unless you like to argue off topic.
Biologists believe things they think are facts based on evidence. How can they? Easy, how can anyone believe in God? Experience, evidence, data, hypotheses, theory, assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
You wouldn't be treating others with condecention and contempt and trying to belittle their ideas, would you? I assumed the topic was based on the title. I guess I was wrong. "How can biologists believe in the ToE? I think that is self explanatory.
Such a claim has logical consequences. Like, if it is true, then you must believe that all Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geneticists are so dunderheaded and horrible at doing science that they don't realize how wrong they all are about everything they've discovered. Or, you must believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy among professional scientists to delude the public into thinking that the ToE is true when it is really false. More appeal to authority. classic. It only takes a few (or one) bad assumptions to corrupt a scientific study. I'm not attacking their research, only some of their assumptions and conclusions.
So, are you saying that people who believe in God only have a tentative belief in God which could be rejected if new evidence comes to light? "only" is the key word. Limiting it to your thought, very unimpressive. Why do people incite me to write negatively, as if your purpose is to lure me into these little squabbles. Am I to let these just lie?
If you don't think either one of these scenarios is correct, then what is your explanation for why these hundreds of thousands of professional scientists have gone so incredibly wrong in their science over the last 150 years or more? Your question seems to circulate around the idea that all scientists research the same sciences. If a paleontologist suggests through research that birds and dinosaurs have common ancestry then the biologist will study how this could be possible. Not, as I understand it in most cases, to prove something right but more to line up with a certain theory for ill or good. Why do I think these people are wrong?1. age of the earth. I don't think anybody can use an assumption like uniformitarianism and postulate theories that could very well be incorrect. Thus leading into ideas that radiometric dating can work. In geology you need this uniform idea, in biology you need drastic environmental changes, it just doesn't stack up. 2. irreducible complexity - Micheal Behe. The only argument against this that I have read is that this just can't be true. Behe isn't a real scientist. Damage his character so you don't have to face the facts. 3. anomalies in geology. polystrate fossils and objects, out of place artifacts, angular unconformities, dinosaur and man footprints. 4. Living dinosaurs.http://www.livingdinos.com/mokele_mbembe.html 5. The lack of any transitional fossils. and this is hilarious:CC200: Transitional fossils Might as well say that their isn't any. Only a good imagination can fill the "gaps." And anyways what about the invertebrate transitions? 6. Mathematics. The Scientific Evidence for Creation, by Duane Gishnodnc.com is available at DomainMarket.com. Call 888-694-6735 7. Order to disorder, thermodynamics. I think this is probably a weak argument however the talk origins apologetic seems lacking.From: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature? It seems that they are excluding original design and the implications thereof. Lets start here. Edited by Vashgun, : insight to incite
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Vashgun please don't embarrass yourself this way. Same to you, your story is corroborated by no one. Mokele Mbembe is an accepted fact.http://www.mokelembembe.com/ http://www.livingdinos.com/dinosaur.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
So here you feel free to proclaim that an entire field of science - and one which you don't understand - is wrong. Geologists don't use strict uniformitarianism and haven't for some time. The only place you are likely to find it now is in YEC arguments for a young Earth. Biology doesn't need any "drastic environmental changes" that are rejected by geologists - in fact geology is a major source of evidence for the nature of the environment. ANd there are no plausible major environmental changes that could even theoretically disrupt radiometric dating. The only contradiction is in your imagination. Appeal to authority and popularity, don't make me give another example. I Would very much like to see links backing up your views instead of wild assertions.
Behe's argument relies on a simplistic model of evolution. Mueller, using a more realistic model predicted that evolution would produce irreducible complexity, decades before Behe wrote his book. There's at least one experiment where a two-part system has evolved in the laboratory and a theoretical studiy using a computer model (AVIDA) has also demonstrated the evolution of irreducible complexity. What like PE? Produce irriducible complexity? ![]() Polystrate fossils - those that actually exist - are adequately explained by geology. ![]() Every out-of-place artifact I know of has a questionable provenance - there is no reliable record of where they were found. One "the Coso artifact" turned out to be the remains of a spark plug - it was even possible to identify the manufacturer. http://s8int.com/index.htmlhttp://byerly.org/whatifo.htm Angular unconformities are evidence for an old Earth. Under the model of relative geology, of which I currently debate.
There are no confirmed human footprints found alongside dinosaur footprints.
Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTSHuman and Dinosaur Footprints in Turkmenistan? | Answers in Genesis If some dinosaurs (other than birds) had managed to survive the KT extinction and live on to modern times it would have no signfiicant effect on evolutionary theory at all. Honestly? Explain how it would not.
There are many transitional fossils and that article is nowhere near exhaustive. And it DOES list several examples of invertebrate transitions. DId you read it at all ? Yes, and it was reminiscent of a movie by F. Gary Gray.
The first article is a pack of nonsense. I really wish that more creationists would pay attention to Dembski's saner utterances. At least he has some idea of how to frame a probability argument. The probability argument - which I assume is the one you refer to - assumes a single attempt with a single successful outcome, accomplished by pure random combination. As such it is simply a strawman. The second article has the same flaws. Avoiding the topic? Or assuming that I am as knowledgable as you seem to think you are? This assumption has been proven wrong at the EvC many times, just click on my name and follow the topics.
The talkorigins article is hardly an apologetic. The section you quote points out that order to disorder does occur naturally without an intelligent agent or information "embedded" in nature. Hardly unbiased information. Please prove me wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
You mean like the links you used to show that there were polystrate fossils ? Oh, right. You didn't have any. But try this which deals with a 19th century explanation that still holds up. I checked the link, and read it all, then came to the conclusion that Dawson and talk.origins has no clue how these things exist in multiple stratas. *If* it wasn't deposited rapidly, how did it just survive long enough to be buried then fossilized? I know first hand what happens to trees that have sediment over the original root level. It won't take long before the micro-organisms eat through the bark and kill the tree. Also too much water will kill trees especially if it's stagnant water. Dawson might have known about geology, but he excludes the basics of horticulture. Also, I think it is important to notice the reason he gives for this.
"...that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions," This in no way suggests that a massive flood couldn't have deposited this. The fact is that roots will bind and hold together soils. Hostas are extremely good plants for this, also most broadleaf grasses. It could have taken a massive chunk of soil with root ball intact. This is way off topic, I will propose a polystrate fossil thread to discuss this further. Mullers response is confusing as it does not address how these machines appeared. He speculates why there will be many vestigual parts, which is and has been proven ignorance on the part of the scientist. honestly i don't want to spend so much time on off topic topics. i have much more to say but too tired to care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
survive was a poor choice in words. Stand up would have been better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6345 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I'm not avoiding anything baby! Bring it on!
This is how: Uniformitarian assumption.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025