The Creationist Explanaton

[DogmaHunter]

No, it requires an actual means.

No idea what you mean by that.

I invite you to learn the specifics related to the molecular mechanisms involved in adaptive evolution.

I'm fairly certain the geneticists have done that.

The molecular basis has to be the efficient cause, the rest is rhetoric signifying nothing.

The gradual accumulation of small change, happens at the molecular level.
And this process leaves testable evidence behind.

No,

Yes.

it's a foregone conclusion all evidence is organized around, Ive always known that. Otherwise the arguments would not be inevitably pedantic, anecdotal and ad hominem.

lol

 

[mark kennedy]

No idea what you mean by that.

I know, it's because you habitually beg the question of proof. The epistemology that is natural science in its most rudimentary form requires cause and effect. Did you know for fifty years genetics was not considered a real science, do you know why?

I'm fairly certain the geneticists have done that.

I'm fairly certain you have no interest in genetics.

The gradual accumulation of small change, happens at the molecular level.
And this process leaves testable evidence behind.

Yes.



lol

The inevitable shrinking rhetoric, such a disappointing representation of such an intellectually vigorous subject. Your ideology has failed you miserably, my sympathies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know, it's because you habitually beg the question of proof

No. I genuinely don't have a clue what you meant by that comment.

The epistemology that is natural science in its most rudimentary form requires cause and effect. Did you know for fifty years genetics was not considered a real science, do you know why?

Don't know and don't care. It's a science today. And a very big one. With lots of merrit.

I'm fairly certain you have no interest in genetics.

You're wrong about that. As said, I just don't pretend to know better then actual geneticists.

The inevitable shrinking rhetoric, such a disappointing representation of such an intellectually vigorous subject. Your ideology has failed you miserably, my sympathies.

You're the one with the ideology.
What's disappointing, btw, about the FACT that evolution is the gradual accumulation of small changes at the molecular level?

I'ld think that someone who claims to have an interest in the subject of genetics and who claims to read a lot about it, would at least understand this very basic thing.

 

[Skreeper]

to sum up the main evolutionery argument: this car isnt evidence for design since its wheels shape is different from other cars (just like the whale tail is different):

(image from wiki)

I am sorry that you've recieved such poor education where you come from and that you've been heavily indoctrinated in to your religious nonsense.

I hope that one day you'll free yourself from your religious shackles but based on your posting history I feel like you're too far gone.

 

[Jimmy D]

to sum up the main evolutionery argument: this car isnt evidence for design since its wheels shape is different from other cars (just like the whale tail is different):

(image from wiki)

LOl, what shape are car wheels where you come from?

 

[Ophiolite]

@mark kennedy, perhaps you have already defined the phrase explicilty, but if so I missed it. Therefore could you do so now: what do you mean by adaptive evolution? From where I am sitting that looks like an inverted oxymoron. Evolution is adaptation; genetic adaptation produces evolution. Adaptive is redundant.

All I seen there were modifications, one was just an SNP. These are normal variation, it's not the same as major morphological change.

Being deliberately obtuse is, at best, unseemly. How many times will you reject, without discernible cause, the concept that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step? How many times will you pretend you have not been reminded of this? How many times will you insult the intelligence of your readers by ignoring this? It would be nice if you would adapt to reality.

 

[Root of Jesse]

. Darwin was a scientist and as such he didn’t posit unprovable supernatural explanations instead of evidence based natural ones. He also was originally in training at university to be a minister. Science in general excludes supernatural explanations if it’s done correctly. Adding magic to science is actually doing pseudoscience . ID is pseudoscience by the way.

This imagines that supernatural events are magic. Darwin was as much a scientist as Bill Nye. And as much a minister as Jimmie Swaggart.

 

[Brightmoon]

But bill nye is a scientist, engineers sometimes are. They usually have to have a deep understanding of materials science, chemistry and physics

 

[Brightmoon]

Darwin was a naturalist . he understood Biology,,zoology,comparative anatomy,botany, and geology at the level of the middle and late 19th century scientists. Jimmy swaggert was probably better at preaching as Darwin’s father forced him into studying for the ministry. It was at University that he took the natural science courses and found out what he really wanted to do. Darwin was originally impressed with Paleys watch explanation. Later he discarded it when he began to study fossils and living organisms.

There’s an excellent book that’s written like a graphic novel called “ Darwin for Beginners “ by Jonathan Miller and Borin Van Loon . It goes over the social and scientific influences of his time ;The thoughts of other 19th century researchers and then current ideas about evolution that since have been discarded like Lamarckism.

 

[AV1611VET]

They usually have to have a deep understanding of materials science, chemistry and physics

Yup -- that's how we got this:

 

[Jimmy D]

Yup -- that's how we got this:

I didn’t realise Bill NYE was that old.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yup -- that's how we got this:

I've never really understood how you can claim that an accident is a failing of science. Please explain.

Was this also a science failure?

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn’t realise Bill NYE was that old.

Would it have made a difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never really understood how you can claim that an accident is a failing of science. Please explain.

Science misapplied and misinterpreted can have tragic results.

 

[Skreeper]

Yup -- that's how we got this:

And the countless lives that were saved due to science, medicine and technology?

Everything has its flaws, you can't really expect science to work flawlessly.

 

[Brightmoon]

But it wasn’t science that was misapplied. The Germans made a decision to use hydrogen because they didn’t have good access to helium . The science said that helium was safer.

 

[Skreeper]

Science misapplied and misinterpreted can have tragic results.

Christianity misapplied and misinterpreted can also have tragic results. I don't see you complaining about that though?

 

[Jimmy D]

Science misapplied and misinterpreted can have tragic results.

True enough AV.

And when it's applied correctly it can benefit mankind, no?

 

[AV1611VET]

And the countless lives that were saved due to science, medicine and technology?

Ya.

Who cares how many got killed on the Tilt-a-Whirl.

Think of all those who didn't and had a good time.

Everything has its flaws, you can't really expect science to work flawlessly.

Fair enough.

But people get defensive when someone brings them up.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Germans made a decision to use hydrogen because they didn’t have good access to helium .

What changed their minds?