Originally posted by finneganThis is not true. No science requires the theory of evolution.
Point being if you want to throw out evolution you have to throw out geology, chemistry, genetics, the whole package hangs together, you even have to throw out mathematics. (My daughter's partner is a mathematician and working on the evolution and spread of the flue virus entirely using mathematical tools.)
Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
was ever thought of. Do you think Newton or Franklin needed
the theory of evolution to discover gravity or electricity?
It certainly had no effect on the development of mathematics.
Even in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsEven in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
This is not true. No science requires the theory of evolution.
Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
was ever thought of. Do you think Newton or Franklin needed
the theory of evolution to discover gravity or electricity?
It certainly had no effect on the development of mathematics.
Even in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
Oh RJ. For a man who only fairly recently stated he knew nothing about evolution, that's a rather bold and frankly ludicrous claim. In fact i would go as far to say it's the most absurd comment i've seen on here this year. Heed the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Russian Orthodox Christian and also an evolutionary biologist -
"nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"
Your claim that biology doesn't need evolutionary theory is nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam
Originally posted by finneganI must say I am evolved to disbelieve in Evolution. When does Speculation gets separated from Logical presentation in arguments like these ? Why would the Brain separate the functions to the two hemispheres and yet retain the ability to perform functions of one hemisphere in another ?
There are more duplicated organs than the brain - lungs, kidneys etc - so it is not necessary to argue that the brain evolved in duplicate in order to serve two sets of specialised functions, merely that the brain, having two hemispheres organically, assigned some functions specifically to one side rather than the other. There is often no particular reason ...[text shortened]... survival benefits. Triplication might be more surprising and I am not sure we have any of that.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAbsurd or not, I state again that the theory of evolution
[b]Even in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
Oh RJ. For a man who only fairly recently stated he knew nothing about evolution, that's a rather bold and frankly ludicrous claim. In fact i would go as far to say it's the most absurd comment i've seen on here this year. Heed the words of Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Russian Orthodox Christia ...[text shortened]... ology doesn't need evolutionary theory is nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam[/b]
is not necessary in science and mathematics. It may
not make sense to some people, but it makes perfect
sense to me and many other scientist in the past who
did not need it, I'm sure. I haven't needed it to understand
everything I need to know. The young students today
would not need it to explain biology and chemistry today
if the school system would teach intelligent design instead.
But you have few people that will stand up for the truth
today.
Originally posted by RJHindsAbsurd or not, I state again that the theory of evolution is not necessary in science and mathematics.
Absurd or not, I state again that the theory of evolution
is not necessary in science and mathematics. It may
not make sense to some people, but it makes perfect
sense to me and many other scientist in the past who
did not need it, I'm sure. I haven't needed it to understand
everything I need to know. The young students today
would not need it to exp ...[text shortened]... intelligent design instead.
But you have few people that will stand up for the truth
today.
You can state it as much as you want, it's simply bunkum. Explain how you know this. For instance when you came on these boards you revealed you knew nothing about evolution, never read a book on it, and probably still haven't. How then can you claim that evolution isn't necessary in relation to biology? Explain away my good man.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen I was being taught intelligent design (some christian education seminar that came into town for a few weeks), they told me crap like humans walking with dinosaurs and chickens were closer to humans in genetic composition than a chimp. It doesn't take much more than a second glance to realize such statements are absurd.
Absurd or not, I state again that the theory of evolution
is not necessary in science and mathematics. It may
not make sense to some people, but it makes perfect
sense to me and many other scientist in the past who
did not need it, I'm sure. I haven't needed it to understand
everything I need to know. The young students today
would not need it to exp ...[text shortened]... intelligent design instead.
But you have few people that will stand up for the truth
today.
Now I'll ask again, what is wrong with god using evolution to come up with creation? Is there a contradiction? If so, what is it?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...I must say I am evolved to disbelieve in Evolution. ...”
I must say I am evolved to disbelieve in Evolution. When does Speculation gets separated from Logical presentation in arguments like these ? Why would the Brain separate the functions to the two hemispheres and yet retain the ability to perform functions of one hemisphere in another ?
if you are talking here about biological evolution then it is nonsense to talk about 'evolving' (in the biological sense) to believe a theory that has only recently come into existence.
Also, most of us who are educated in the west probably DO believe evolution happens:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_the_world_population_believes_in_evolution
“...The great majority of people in Europe, Australia and New Zealand accept the Theory of Evolution. A recent poll in Canada shows 59 percent believe in evolution, 22 percent disagree and 19 percent are unsure. There is a great deal of dispute about the relative proportions in the United States, but somewhere around half the adult population also accepts the Theory of Evolution. ...”
“....Why would the Brain separate the functions to the two hemispheres and yet retain the ability to perform functions of one hemisphere in another ? ...”
why not?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
This is not true. No science requires the theory of evolution.
Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
was ever thought of. Do you think Newton or Franklin needed
the theory of evolution to discover gravity or electricity?
It certainly had no effect on the development of mathematics.
Even in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
was ever thought of. ...”
he didn't say/imply in any way that ALL discoveries in science require the theory of evolution -read his post again.
Originally posted by ua41Haven't you ever seen TV show "The Flintstones" or is that
When I was being taught intelligent design (some christian education seminar that came into town for a few weeks), they told me crap like humans walking with dinosaurs and chickens were closer to humans in genetic composition than a chimp. It doesn't take much more than a second glance to realize such statements are absurd.
Now I'll ask again, what is wrong ...[text shortened]... ith god using evolution to come up with creation? Is there a contradiction? If so, what is it?
too old for you?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoGod made the human brain that way and different from
I must say I am evolved to disbelieve in Evolution. When does Speculation gets separated from Logical presentation in arguments like these ? Why would the Brain separate the functions to the two hemispheres and yet retain the ability to perform functions of one hemisphere in another ?
all the animals.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI believe no discovery in science required the theory of
“...Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
was ever thought of. ...”
he didn't say/imply in any way that ALL discoveries in science require the theory of evolution -read his post again.
evolution. Adaption, mutation, and God creating would
work just fine. I have done just fine without using the
theory of evolution. I never needed it to solve
differential equations in calculus.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is like saying cavemen needed to understand physics to light a fire, even though the physical properties existed to formulate the laws of thermodynamics later on.
This is not true. No science requires the theory of evolution.
Great discoveries in science were made before the theory
was ever thought of. Do you think Newton or Franklin needed
the theory of evolution to discover gravity or electricity?
It certainly had no effect on the development of mathematics.
Even in biology and chemistry we don't need it.
Selective breeding is a perfect example on how science still required evolution long before evolution was even understood. It just worked without breeders understanding why.
As for Newtonian physics. Einstein's theories of relatively still applied, just that quantities were far too small for Einstein's theories to be noticable at Newton's time.
Originally posted by lauseySelective breeding, adaptation, and mutation is not evolution.
That is like saying cavemen needed to understand physics to light a fire, even though the physical properties existed to formulate the laws of thermodynamics later on.
Selective breeding is a perfect example on how science still required evolution long before evolution was even understood. It just worked without breeders understanding why.
As for Newton ...[text shortened]... that quantities were far too small for Einstein's theories to be noticable at Newton's time.
Evolution is like an ape changing into a man. The idea that
everything came from a common ancestor is evolution.
