1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Do creationists accept biology?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Jaiket, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jacques de Molay

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +18
    Religion:
    Christian
    So you admit that you don't really know much about it, yet you assume that it's "well understood."

    OK...

    Well...It was once well understood that the earth was flat.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Okay. so you are not a biology student. You do not even know what a theory is. You have now demonstrated that at best you have a high school level of science education and have picked up a few terms. That is all.

    And you are repeating refuted arguments. That did not take long at all.

    Let's start with the concept of a theory. Yes, anyone with even a high school level of science education understands that evolution is a theory. Theories are never "proven". The theory of gravity is not "proven". But both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are well supported by scientific evidence. There is quite a bit of scientific evidence for the theory of Gravity. There are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution. To date there is no scientific evidence against either.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jacques de Molay

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +18
    Religion:
    Christian
    This is an abstract of how something could work according to one person/group's hypothesis.

    It's NOT indicative of a factual event.

    In addition, you didn't read it:

    "although the jawless fish have genes for generating the thrombin-catalyzed conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, they lack several clotting factors, including two thought to be essential for the activation of thrombin in mammals."

    So what does THAT prove???

    Nothing, in terms of disproving irreducible complexity.
     
  5. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    49,779
    Ratings:
    +14,353
    Religion:
    not a theist
    Show your math
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Jacques de Molay

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +18
    Religion:
    Christian
    LOL!

    Sorry, Champ, but YOU don't know what a theory is!

    A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon

    A theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon.

    A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept.


    Evolution is a hypothesis. It's NEVER been observed to occur. It doesn't qualify as a theory.

    This is too much fun!
     
  7. Jacques de Molay

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2021
    Messages:
    111
    Ratings:
    +18
    Religion:
    Christian
    A meaningless reply.
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It is complex, you clearly to not understand it and yet you think that you can refute it. Didn't you complain about how I was gong against a PhD, who by the way was speculating on science that was not in his personal field of study, when I told you that Behe had been refuted? There are quite a few PhD's that understand the evolution of the blood clotting factor. I am not one of them, but I know that they exist and I know that they can support their claims. That is why I linked their work.

    Knowing what you do not know and when it is time to ask experts is an important part of knowledge.

    And no, Flat Earth believers never "understood". That is the problem. Creationists never "understand". They are not that much different from Flat Earthers.
     
  9. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    49,779
    Ratings:
    +14,353
    Religion:
    not a theist
    You made the claim.
    Now either support it or have it dismissed as a bold faced lie.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Hey! You can look up things! Wow.

    But you keep demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of biology. Of course evolution has been observed. It has been observed directly in the lab. It has been observed directly in the field. I bet that you do not even know what evolution is. By the way, your hierarchy is a bit messed up. In the sciences there is nothing "above" a theory. It is as good as it gets. Evolution is an in depth explanation of the observed phenomenon of the diversity of life.

    Once again, what school did you supposedly get your degree from? Anyone that graduated in biology would not make such grade school level errors:

    Can you be specific in what observations that you think have not occurred? You probably do not even know how evolution is observed.
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    He already exposed himself.
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    There is a link to the complete article. You can read all of if for free.

    The article shows that Behe is wrong. The blood clotting cascade did not need to evolve all at once. That is what the article demonstrates. The particular example you quoted demonstrates one stage in the evolution of blood clotting. You do not even seem to understand Behe's argument. If you did you would see how that alone refutes it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,816
    Ratings:
    +2,388
    Religion:
    Something else
    I see. I'm not going to try and argue with you. I would like to ask some questions and also give you some impression of my perspective as someone who thinks evolution by natural selection is a good scientific theory.

    So when I learned how DNA replicates I was struck by how complicated it is. In fact cell biology in general blew me away. So much going on.

    Anyway, lets assume for the sake of argument that we don't know where DNA comes from. Maybe it's the outcome of natural chemical processes, maybe God did it. Would you agree that when DNA replicates the process is inherently mistake prone and that mutations are guaranteed to occur in such a system?
     
  14. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,816
    Ratings:
    +2,388
    Religion:
    Something else
    For the purposes of this thread I'm quite content to take our new poster's word on his background.

    One of the reasons I've been sidestepping arguments about evolution here and elsehwere is that I've heard it all before. People were posting about irreducible complexity when I joined this over a decade ago. If that's their take they can have it - I don't want to argue about it.
     
  15. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    49,779
    Ratings:
    +14,353
    Religion:
    not a theist
    Any time someone presents old outdated debunked and refuted out the backside "arguments" I tend to yawn and not bother.

    Though I do love to ask them to present the math when they make math claims.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I do get a bit irritated when posters claim to have a specific level of education and then demonstrated almost immediately that they do not have any education at all. All that he was going to do was to repeat the same failed arguments from ten years ago.

    I am sorry for ruining your fun so quickly.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,174
    Ratings:
    +25,773
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I love the standard response "You provide the math!"

    I am not opposed to an honest debate, but one should never give themselves credentials that do not hold up:

    I am a neurosurgeon and I will explain the benefits of eating Fruit Loops every day. I do not think that I would get away with that for very long.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,816
    Ratings:
    +2,388
    Religion:
    Something else
    Ach, it's the internet, innit? :shrug:
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    You clearly are not taking into account natural selection.

    I had a nice little demonstration. I had a computer randomly generate a sequence of 70 symbols with 90 possibilities in each place.

    If you compare that to a 'target' string of 70 symbols, the probability you will get the correct sequence is vanishingly small. it would take longer than the age of the universe to randomly find such a string, even if you try millions of times per second.

    BUT, if you generate 50 sequences and *select* the best 5, then randomly change *those*, and repeat, you will get to the target string is a few thousand 'generations'.

    Too many people criticize evolution by looking only at the mutation side of things. But it is mutation *with natural selection* that is the real power of evolution. That is what allows near optimal solutions to problems involving survival.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    20,101
    Ratings:
    +23,883
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Actually, even Behe admitted he had no real examples.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...