FAQ
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:10 pm


Author Message
marnixR
Post  Post subject: did E. coli evolved into a person ?  |  Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:56 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
that's what the senator for Louisiana apparently asked a school teacher, when then the latter gave the decade-long E.coli experiment as an example of evolution

Monday morning levity: Louisiana senator asks if E. coli evolve into persons

i've always maintained that macro-evolution is nothing but micro-evolution + time, both representing evolution when viewed in different time frames, which is why i fully agree with the following quote in the article which states that not accepting that micro- and macro-evolution are one and the same thing is basically denying the method underlying all of science

Scientific American wrote:
But what we should be really pointing out is how fundamentally this accusation questions not just evolution but the basic scientific method. In questioning macroevolution, the creationists are essentially questioning the whole premise of scientific understanding based on indirect evidence, a philosophy most starkly pioneered by Galileo. Most of science including atoms, the Big Bang, black holes, biochemistry and the understanding of disease, lasers and computers is derived not from direct observation of things we can all see but from indirect but foolproof evidence gained through an exceedingly accurate array of instrumental techniques and conjecturing.

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: did E. coli evolved into a person ?  |  Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:45 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
another sign how deep the rift is between those who want to explain everything through god and those who think science is essentially naturalistic :

The Legacy of Brainwashing

where the author has a go at Zack Kopplin, who obviously must be an atheist since he believes in evolution and thinks science should be naturalistic - still, how can you have even a common ground for discussion with someone who claims :

Quote:
First, Kopplin makes the assumption that science has to be “naturalistic.” Now, there’s no reason that science must be naturalistic—this is simply an assertion made by Kopplin and atheistic evolutionists!


in what other branch of science could you say "i don't understand how that works, so i'll fill in the blanks with something supernatural" - science always has been about explaining evidence through natural means, so why should it be ok to claim the opposite just to have creationism accepted as science ? you may as well state that black equals white just because you feel like it

i'm afraid this sort of chasm is just unbridgeable - both sides may be using english as their language, but the underlying meaning is utterly incompatible

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy