Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[AV1611VET]

... but Ham is still a huckster.

Ditto for Aad Peters?

 

[renniks]

Wrong. The Theory of Evolution is not an exception. It's one of the cornerstones of modern biology.

Not muck to us evolution. It's totally unnecessary to believe that life evolved that way in order to understand biology.

 

[MIDutch]

To each his own.

If they come back year after year, they must be getting something for their money.

Echoes in the chamber?

Fake science telling them how much smarter than the scientists they are?

Information that "may get them into heaven" but won't get them into college?

 

[MIDutch]

Not muck to us evolution. It's totally unnecessary to believe that life evolved that way in order to understand biology.

Totally false.

 

[driewerf]

Not muck to us evolution. It's totally unnecessary to believe that life evolved that way in order to understand biology.

What MIDutch said.

 

[renniks]

Totally false.

Why would it be necessary?

 

[AV1611VET]

Information that "may get them into heaven" but won't get them into college?

I've seen God's college students immunize themselves against the doctrines associated with evolution and soar through college on eagle's wings.

My ophthalmologist, for example, is a YEC.

They don't need to believe that what they're working with got under their microscope, or into their telescope, from something out of deep time.

They just manipulate what's in front of them accordingly and get the job done.

You can build a brick wall, and not even believe the bricks came from clay.

 

[Frank Robert]

Why would it be necessary?

Here is a good place to start.
Why Is Evolution Necessary For Biology

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would it be necessary?

The same reason that germ theory is necessary to understand epidemiology. A doctor that rejects germ theory and believes in, say, homeopathy is a quack, not a doctor.

Also, evolution is necessary for epidemiology. As pathogens have this nasty habit of evolving, hence the reason why we are constantly in an arms race microorganisms.

It's the reason why when you are prescribed antibiotics, you are supposed to keep taking them as prescribed, even if you start feeling better. Because the antibiotics are dealing with the microbes making you sick, and just because you feel better doesn't mean they're all gone. And here's the thing, antibiotics kill the weakest ones first, and it's the strong ones that need to be wiped out. Otherwise all you've done is created a condition in which survival of the fittest has happened, and the most resistant germs survive and reproduce, resulting in a tougher strain.

That's evolution in action. And it is necessary to understand everything in biology, and in many sciences and disciplines that rely on biology.

Your physician can't do their job properly without evolution as a fact of nature. The physician does not need to, necessarily, believe in evolution; but all their training and medical knowledge is built upon the foundation of evolutionary biology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[renniks]

The same reason that germ theory is necessary to understand epidemiology. A doctor that rejects germ theory and believes in, say, homeopathy is a quack, not a doctor.

Also, evolution is necessary for epidemiology. As pathogens have this nasty habit of evolving, hence the reason why we are constantly in an arms race microorganisms.

It's the reason why when you are prescribed antibiotics, you are supposed to keep taking them as prescribed, even if you start feeling better. Because the antibiotics are dealing with the microbes making you sick, and just because you feel better doesn't mean they're all gone. And here's the thing, antibiotics kill the weakest ones first, and it's the strong ones that need to be wiped out. Otherwise all you've done is created a condition in which survival of the fittest has happened, and the most resistant germs survive and reproduce, resulting in a tougher strain.

That's evolution in action. And it is necessary to understand everything in biology, and in many sciences and disciplines that rely on biology.

Your physician can't do their job properly without evolution as a fact of nature. The physician does not need to, necessarily, believe in evolution; but all their training and medical knowledge is built upon the foundation of evolutionary biology.

-CryptoLutheran

None of that proves that everything evolved from whatever you believe it started with. No creationists are arguing that bacteria can not gain resistance to antibiotics and so on.

 

[ViaCrucis]

None of that proves that everything evolved from whatever you believe it started with. No creationists are arguing that bacteria can not gain resistance to antibiotics and so on.

Well in my experience YECs tend to do this little dance, where they invent terms like "microevolution" and "macroevolution", and then don't ever explain how one can happen but not the other.

Which is a bit like agreeing that you can heat up something with fire, but that you can't burn something with fire. We're talking about the same thing, it's only a matter of degree and being consistent.

Which is why it is obvious that Creationists don't understand evolution. If someone understood evolution at all, they'd know why saying the equivalent of: "creatures can adapt through selective pressures, but things don't evolve due to natural selection" is such an insane statement to make.

Or let's spin this around into a question:

What is the mechanism by which "bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics and so on"? How does that happen?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MIDutch]

I've seen God's college students immunize themselves against the doctrines associated with evolution and soar through college on eagle's wings.

My ophthalmologist, for example, is a YEC.

They don't need to believe that what they're working with got under their microscope, or into their telescope, from something out of deep time.

They just manipulate what's in front of them accordingly and get the job done.

Which is all well and good if you want to be a car mechanic.

But it isn't going to give you the understanding if you want to send me to the moon.

For that you need to understand the actual science.

Something creationists don't seem to be capable of.

Hint: have you ever heard of a creationist coming up with an astounding scientific or technological breakthrough using creationism?

No? No one else has either, because creationism, and it's complete and utter denial of most of science, is an abysmal failure at producing anything of scientific or technological value.

 

[renniks]

Which is why it is obvious that Creationists don't understand evolution. If someone understood evolution at all, they'd know why saying the equivalent of: "creatures can adapt through selective pressures, but things don't evolve due to natural selection" is such an insane statement to make.

No, it's not. It's like saying that because I can make a toaster that has an automatic switch or manual off it can evolve itself into the terminator. It's actually absurd to think that because bacteria can adapt a bit we all evolved from pond scum.

 

[MIDutch]

No, it's not. It's like saying that because I can make a toaster that has an automatic switch or manual off it can evolve itself into the terminator.

This might make some sense if you think that toasters are alive, can reproduce, and pass genetic traits on to their progeny.

You don't actually think that ... do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hint: have you ever heard of a creationist coming up with an astounding scientific or technological breakthrough using creationism?

No, I haven't.

But scientific and technological breakthroughs use God's creation (not God's creationism) to come up with astounding things.

In other words, God created the hardware in Genesis 1, then gives us the software as needed to manipulate His hardware for our benefit, when the proper time comes.

My favorite example is oil.

God embedded oil into the earth in Genesis 1, then, when the time came, it was discovered.

As God put it:

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

(Notice how He refers to scientists as "kings"?)

No?

No.

No one else has either, because creationism, and it's complete and utter denial of most of science, is an abysmal failure at producing anything of scientific or technological value.

I see you have to use the word creation-ism.

That's as it should be.

It's like saying empiricism hasn't produced one single smell.

Of course it hasn't, but the empirical thing empiricism studies has.

 

[Gene2memE]

No, it's not. It's like saying that because I can make a toaster that has an automatic switch or manual off it can evolve itself into the terminator. It's actually absurd to think that because bacteria can adapt a bit we all evolved from pond scum.

(Ignoring the "pond scum" bit, because that's disingenuous)

That's the conclusion that is best supported by the evidence. At the moment, it's the only conclusion that's supported by the evidence. It could be revised, if better evidence comes along.

Have you got any?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's like saying that because I can make a toaster that has an automatic switch or manual off it can evolve itself into the terminator.

I thought I saw my toaster running out the back door the other morning!

 

[renniks]

This might make some sense if you think that toasters are alive, can reproduce, and pass genetic traits on to their progeny.

You don't actually think that ... do you?

It's an analogy.

 

[renniks]

(Ignoring the "pond scum" bit, because that's disingenuous)

That's the conclusion that is best supported by the evidence. At the moment, it's the only conclusion that's supported by the evidence. It could be revised, if better evidence comes along.

Have you got any?

It's laughable. Of course I have another conclusion. The evidence of an earth filled with beauty and order tells me this place was invented by a master artist and architect and inventor.

 

[Gene2memE]

It's laughable. Of course I have another conclusion. The evidence of an earth filled with beauty and order tells me this place was invented by a master artist and architect and inventor.

That's not evidence, that's just supposition.

There's no indication that nature can't produce beauty or order. Or that these aren't just concepts created in human minds that we then impose on reality via our perceptive framework.

It's not even related to the question being asked. Evidence for that would be something like this: "Single celled simple organisms (nee "pond scum") are incapable of developing into multicellular complex life due to [insert reasons here]".

This speaks to the problem. The two sides of this debate are, to borrow from Churchill, "two nations separated by a common language". I'm asking for evidence against 'A', you're telling me about how 'B' and 'C' can only be produced by 'X'. It's a non-sequitur. A deliberate one, I suspect.

When I ask for evidence, I'm seeking something that is demonstrable. Quantifiable. Able to be replicated.

If I'd never heard of a the Christian God before, why should I believe such a thing was responsible for 'beauty' or 'order' on earth? Or, to put it another way: How did you rule God in, and how did you rule nature out?