Views of Evolution Depend on Knowledge

[Jimmy D]

I do not value human knowledge. It is good, but has low value.

Did you put that on your CV when you were a teacher?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you said you were "concerned" with the logical consequences.
I took that to mean that you don't "like" the implications (that you consider logical).

So this might be a good opportunity for you to explain exactly what you meant by that statement.

Great opportunity, thanks. The more people study evolution the less they tend to study the bible. The knowledge of God is far more valuable to mankind than the ToE.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Note the quotes around the word "designed".

I'll give you that if you give me my quotes (semi quotes) around 'wings' and 'flying'.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

More meaningless oneliners that seem to have as only goal: running away from honest discussion.

Pile all the papers and books on evolution in front of the average person (that are necessary for understanding the theory) and he will look at you like you're crazy. Science asks the average person to study all this stuff or just take their word that it's true. The bible on the other hand can be easily understood by most in a relatively short time (also available in many languages).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

so, just to be a little persistent, have we come up with a purposeful design for the Emu wing yet?

Emu's are flightless birds, but perfectly designed as a ground dwelling specie. That they 'flap' their stubby wings while running indicate their possible function as a 'balancer'.

If their wings are vestigial we should be able to track it in the fossil record.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Emu's are flightless birds, but perfectly designed as a ground dwelling specie. That they 'flap' their stubby wings while running indicate their possible function as a 'balancer'.

Apart from being quite pithy and diminuitive to start, they don't sport anything in the way of musculature to do any 'balancing' with.

If their wings are vestigial we should be able to track it in the fossil record.

We do.

Osteology and myology of the wing of the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and its bearing on the evolution of vestigial structures. - PubMed - NCBI
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-discovery-emus-grounded-flight.html
Study explores evolution of flightless birds
Fossil Record of the Aves​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Apart from being quite pithy and diminuitive to start, they don't sport anything in the way of musculature to do any 'balancing' with.

We do.

Osteology and myology of the wing of the Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), and its bearing on the evolution of vestigial structures. - PubMed - NCBI
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-discovery-emus-grounded-flight.html
Study explores evolution of flightless birds
Fossil Record of the Aves​

This interesting.

"It’s difficult to imagine that flight would re-evolve from a group that lost flight – it’s not absolutely impossible, but it’s very unlikely.”

Why would it be more difficult to evolve in any certain way?

If Emu's once flew what did they look like?

 

[Brightmoon]

I do not value human knowledge. It is good, but has low value.

The next time you go to the doctor with an infection and have to take an antibiotic remember that you said this. Remember that common descent is responsible for even using fungus based antibiotics in the first place

 

[Brightmoon]

Pile all the papers and books on evolution in front of the average person (that are necessary for understanding the theory) and he will look at you like you're crazy. Science asks the average person to study all this stuff or just take their word that it's true. The bible on the other hand can be easily understood by most in a relatively short time (also available in many languages).

. I can read my grandnephews elementary school books a lot easier than I can read a scientific research paper too. My grandnephews books would be almost useless to me learning something about science. The Bible is pretty useless when learning about nature

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do not value human knowledge. It is good, but has low value.

So I guess we can just ignore anything you say then.

 

[Ophiolite]

Pile all the papers and books on evolution in front of the average person (that are necessary for understanding the theory) and he will look at you like you're crazy. Science asks the average person to study all this stuff or just take their word that it's true. The bible on the other hand can be easily understood by most in a relatively short time (also available in many languages).

So, we are agreed then - the average person is a lazy, unambitious, superstitious, irresponsible fool. I knew we would eventually find common ground.

 

[Brightmoon]

Ah yes , the Homer Simpsonification of America. (I can’t stand it!!!- bangs head on wall)

Orwell called it . “ Ignorance is Strength “

 

[bhsmte]

No surprises.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

This interesting.

"It’s difficult to imagine that flight would re-evolve from a group that lost flight – it’s not absolutely impossible, but it’s very unlikely.”

Why would it be more difficult to evolve in any certain way?

....dunno, I haven't read up on the specifics of that statement... perhaps someone in the know might have an answer for you?

If Emu's once flew what did they look like?

Not sure they ever did fly. Perhaps some of their ancestors did, but fhey likely looked nothing like an Emu spare the beak & feathers...

 

[USincognito]

Probably because the level of indoctrination increases the more people are exposed to it.

No.

People are psychologically weak and will believe anything if exposed to it long enough.

Or, you know, they see the evidence, weigh it and come to the conclusion that it supports evolution.

This is why Christians need to oppose evolution being presented as if it's a fact.

That would be a fools errand because evolution is a fact.

Science can't prove anything about the past; rather, science is only valid when experiments can be performed to confirm, or when you can build something like a bridge and it doesn't collapse.

Science doesn't prove anything, period. I'd recommend reading this:
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

 

[juvenissun]

Did you put that on your CV when you were a teacher?

Yes. But if appropriate, I won't list that on the first line.

 

[juvenissun]

The next time you go to the doctor with an infection and have to take an antibiotic remember that you said this. Remember that common descent is responsible for even using fungus based antibiotics in the first place

This is an example of knowledge. It is NOT the top priority.
We have antibiotics, we use it. Earlier people did not, they could lived much more meaningfully than we do.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Brightmoon]

Never mind..... you just left me speechless. Because you’re a creationist I’m not sure if you’re joking or not. I’ve heard equally as odd statements from other creationists

 

[Brightmoon]

Antibiotics are derived from plants, fungi and bacteria. We fiddle with them to make them less harsh on the human body but we KNOW they work because we’re related to those organisms. ( sigh)

penicillin was discovered by accident .others were looked for deliberately.