Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
I wish it were that simple. LoL
|
It is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Ah that's what I was taught in Biology 12... over millions of years blah blah blah changed and became blah blah blah. Change happens through genetic change. Notice how the millions of years has now become immediate. If a theory is true it doesn't need to be constantly revised. I've never heard of Einstein revising his theory of relativity.
|
That's not how science works. Theories are revised as more/better data becomes available. Think of the things that have happened since Darwin's time. Our understanding of biology and genetics has increased thousandfold through good science.
Einstein is dead. He won't be making any revisions to anything. Regardless, this is a strawman, no one is arguing for relativity. Science is additive and if new and better information supplants older information, then it adopts the best fit. This is how the knowledge pool is expanded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
|
Macro and micro evolution are just red herring phrases. There's no such thing as either. One is just the other extended over longer periods of time. Think of it this way, if I was to take a picture of you when you were 12 and compare that to now, there would be very clear delineation (a macro change). However, if we did the same thing by comparing a picture of you as a toddler as a gradient of every day of your life to the present, day-by-day comparisons would show little, if any variation (micro). Same thing applies to speciation ---- Which is different than evolution, btw, people get this mixed up all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
I think the waters been too muddied to know whether Darwin recanted or not. I find the point irrelevant anyways. As far as crediting the expansion of science to the Theory of Evolution. What about the knowledge explosion in the Renaissance? That was way before Darwin's time. My point is there are many factors that contributed to mankinds explosive growth of knowledge. The biggest being printing presses and the internet. Evolution has nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. To credit evolution with the advances in science is incorrect when it is due to the rapid dissemination of knowledge.
|
I think you're setting up a strawman here Tim :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Interesting article. They found soft tissue inside fossilized bones. She said they even have found chemicals consistent with being DNA. There's a few differences between this article and the one I mentioned. The Hadrosaur bones I mentioned were not fossilized. They hadn't even started to fossilize. They were found laying on the surface of the ground in a pile.
|
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pull a "source or it didn't happen" here, haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555
If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue. |
This is incorrect, the correct statement would be "DNA will not remain intact for x years", not "DNA only last a so-so amount of time".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Lets break this statement down a bit.
|
Will do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.
|
It IS observable. It happens in hospitals (superbugs), it happens in transplanted populations. It happens in the lab:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Gravity = observable and repeatable results
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Particle Physics = observable and repeatable results
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
True science is based on Observable and Repeatable results.
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
|
It is not hypothetical and it does not violate thermodynamics... Which has bloody absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This is a common trope of creationist to discredit the theory (which is the highest level an idea can be elevated to within science, btw). Here's a quick summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ShyXSHsbc
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimT
Darwinian Macro Evolution is a house of cards just before a wind storm. Get out quick Albert. ;^) Even Richard Dawkins is running. Here's an interesting exchange where he endorses intelligent design and then goes on to say the higher intelligence must have come about via Darwinian Evolution.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?opt...test&Itemid=28 |
No, Richard Dawkins is not running from evolution. ben Stein edited and cherry picked that interview to match his narrative. He's scum for doing it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog
There it is from Richard himself.