Chromosome challenge

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Aieget
I for one am a Young Earth Creationist, for the simple fact that for me it takes a far smaller leap of imagination to propose that a God created everything as it says in the Bible than it does for me to fill the gaping holes in Evolutionary theory. If you have heard of the idea of irreducible complexity then you would realize that it would take a mind boggling array of mutations occuring in more than one animal in a single generation to create such a complex structure as an eye, otherwise natural selection would surely have long ago dictated that this extra growth was of no use and discarded it, and we know now that it would not have been of any use until the last precise piece was in place. This is but one of the problems of Evolution.

So it's easier for you to believe the stories written thousands of years ago than to think that science has yet to find the answers, but they're out there somewhere? 'Gaping' holes in evolutionary theory only prove that we still only have a primitive understanding of it, not that it's wrong.

As far as the evolution of the eye, you're taking a very simplistic view of how evolution works and distorting it. Living things didn't go from "no eyes" to "full on, working eyes".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

Yes, I posted a talkorigins article. Sue me.

It's interesting that every person I've ever seen discount evolution as false has done so based on a lack of understanding of how evolution works. Yes, no one knows the finer points of evolution yet, but (and I've said this a few times now), every argument I've heard from a lay person against evolution has gone something like:

"Well look at this. How could this have come about due to evolution? It's complex, so it couldn't have happened. Creation is right"

If you had done the homework, read some papers, and then come to the conclusion that evolution cannot possibly account for something, then your argument would hold some water.

If you believe in a young earth creation scenario, that's fine. But there's a lot of science that goes against that view. You ask how you can be a Christian w/o believing in a literal translation of Genesis. The bible also clearly states the earth is flat. But you don't believe that, I'm sure.

Why is it Creation cannot be an allegory, where each of the seven days represents millions or billions of years of Earth's life cycle. Why couldn't God have created earth and its life forms over a longer time span. Surely, such a view would meld much better with what is known about Earth's history. And you don't even have to get into evolution for this. I'm talking about geology and dating the Earth.

 

[Peter]

Young Earth Creationist: Prove to me that creation didn't happen five minutes ago, with all seemingly older evidence fabricated by your beloved "higher being". How do you /know/ it's been 6000 years or whatever the agreed figure is?

Note: "Because the Bible says so" is not a valid answer. Possibly fabricated evidence includes books.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: Peter
Young Earth Creationist: Prove to me that creation didn't happen five minutes ago, with all seemingly older evidence fabricated by your beloved "higher being". How do you /know/ it's been 6000 years or whatever the agreed figure is?

Note: "Because the Bible says so" is not a valid answer. Possibly fabricated evidence includes books.

I'm assuming your aim is something along the lines of "Prove to me that the Earth is more than 5 minutes old and I'll prove to you that it's more than 6,000 years old"??

If so, there were more tactful ways to go about it. Throwing an unanswerable question in someone's face and then shouting "HA!" when the answer they do give isn't to your liking isn't going to win you any debates.

Besides, you can't know that the Earth as we see it wasn't created 5 minutes ago. If God is all powerful, he could have created the Earth as it is right now and dropped all of us on it, complete with memories of our lives up until now. With this question you're getting outside the bounds of the discussion.

A more apt question to the young earth creationist would be,

In what ways is the evidence pointing to an older earth (including but not limited to geological evidence of the age of the planet, physics, astronomy, fossil records and evidence of human civilizations dating before 6,000 years ago) solidly refutable?

 

[pilgrimicron]

The bible also clearly states the earth is flat

No, no it does not. You must be refering to the old argument that when the Bible uses the phrase "four corners of the earth" or maybe even the phrase "pillars of the earth" that this somehow implies the author thought the earth was flat because how can a sphere have corners? How can a planet have pillars?

The Hebrew word for corners or quarters:
kanaph, kaw-nawf'; an edge or extremity; spec. (of a bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, _(of the earth) a quarter_, (of a building) a pinnacle:-- + bird, border, _corner_, _end_, feather [-ed], X flying, + (one an-) other, overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing ([-ed]).

The Greek word for corners:
gonia, go-nee'-ah; an angle:--corner, quarter

Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly.

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe.

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]

The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it.

The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus.

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.


The Bible of course teaches the correct shape of the earth. Isaiah 40:22 says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

It is true that during the dark ages there were some ignorant and pompous men who wanted to interpret the Bible their way. They incorrectly said that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat. The Bible DOES NOT say the Earth is flat.

I like to ask the evolutionist this. If you cannot breed back hybrid corn, how can they ever teach evolution. They took the strongest chracteristics of the corn and put them together but hybrid corn cannot multiply.

 

[Jack31081]

Well, I certainly stand corrected on that point. Good work.

As far as corn, I fail to see how hybrid corn that can't multiply somehow leads to the notion that evolution shouldn't be taught. You can breed a horse and a donkey to get a mule or a hinny, but they're also sterile. If anything, it shows how the donkey and the horse have evolved to a point where they can still breed, but the DNA is different enough to render the offspring sterile.

A little additon:

As you mentioned, the Bible uses the phrase "four corners of the Earth" and we are to interpret this phrase to mean the cardinal directions, since it's obvious the earth isn't flat and doesn't actually have corners.

So essentially, we're taking the words of the Bible and interpreting them to fit what we know is true. So, why is it we can interpret certain parts of the Bible, but when it come to other parts, such as the genesis story, it's supposed to be a literal transcript of how God created earth? Why can't Genesis be interpreted to fit what we know to be true (namely, that the planet is much, much older than 6,000) years. A non-literal translation of Genesis doesn't send you to hell, does it?

 

[pilgrimicron]

I did not say that the Bible should not be read literally. To say that the Bible says the Earth is flat is and interpretation on the phrase "four corners" . I can cut any sphere into 4 quarters.

Genesis does not say that the Earth is only 6000 years old. The first line of the Bible is In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (period) It doesn't say how long he took creating the heavens and the earth. He doesn't say. How long was this? Could have been a billion years.

He then says let there be light. Time as it were begins now. This is counted by man because in the new testament in 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The Earth could be billions of years old but life on earth took 6000 years to man or 6 days to the Lord.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Aieget
First off, those who say that creationists are stupid and backward are themselves ignorant.

Again, quite simply wrong.

I'd be willing to offer you, and your first and only post on this board, as quite convincing proof. I'll also be willing to demonstrate just how aptly your post is proof if you wish.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
Well, I certainly stand corrected on that point. Good work.

As far as corn, I fail to see how hybrid corn that can't multiply somehow leads to the notion that evolution shouldn't be taught. You can breed a horse and a donkey to get a mule or a hinny, but they're also sterile. If anything, it shows how the donkey and the horse have evolved to a point where they can still breed, but the DNA is different enough to render the offspring sterile.

Not always. Some Mules can actually reproduce with each other. Of course, the vast majority can't, and the vast majority of those that can can't reproduce for more than one generation. (So ultimately sterile.)

He then says let there be light. Time as it were begins now. This is counted by man because in the new testament in 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The Earth could be billions of years old but life on earth took 6000 years to man or 6 days to the Lord.

I think that I pointed out that is not acceptable to literalists earlier in this thread (or maybe in the previous thread.) They generally quote this one new testament quote about needing to believe in everything to believe in anything.

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Aieget
First off, those who say that creationists are stupid and backward are themselves ignorant.

No, they're just examining typical creationist behavior. Your record: 0/1

It all depends on your original viewpoint. Anyone who starts with the presumption that an all powerful God exists can explain anything without even thinking by saying "God caused it to happen so",

Which is why your viewpoint is not scientific and never will be. 0/2.

whereas anyone who starts with the presumption that there is no God because he cannot be proven by means of standard scientific procedure must accept evolution.

No, not necessarily. He could simply say, "I don't know the answers." 0/3

I think you will all agree that there are only two reasonable theories for how the Earth came to be in its present state; Evolution, and Creation by means of a Creator (God).

No, because #1, evolution isn't about "how the Earth came to be in its present state." #2, there are other possibilities, including those we haven't yet thought of. For one, you're leaving out creation by means of several different creators. 0/4

Therefore it is possible to prove that some form of Creator exists by disproving Evolution.

WRONG. Disproving evolution will only disprove evolution. 0/5

It is impossible to disprove that a Creator exists as any Creator is necessarily outside the bounds of science.

That's the first thing you've said right yet. 1/6

Therefore the situation that we have is one where Creationists can be proved right by isproving Evolution while Evolutionists must accept the fact that no matter what they prove about Evolution there is always a chance that there is actually a Creator.

Two statements here, but the first is just a rehash of a previously incorrect statement. The second statement is wrong because evolution doesn't say anything about creators anyway. 1/7. (Not a good track record so far...)

In this case I would say that Terumo is correct in stating that it is folly to believe in either extreme as there is currently insufficient evidence to support either viewpoint, although there are other factors which I have not yet taken into account.

1/8. Evolution is not an "extreme."

I for one am a Young Earth Creationist, for the simple fact that for me it takes a far smaller leap of imagination to propose that a God created everything as it says in the Bible than it does for me to fill the gaping holes in Evolutionary theory.

If you're a YEC, then you are either intentionally dishonest or unintentionally ignorant of reality. There IS no alternative: it is impossible to believe in a 6,000 year old earth complete with great, global flood as literally told in Genesis without either being a liar or just not being aware of the facts.

If you have heard of the idea of irreducible complexity then you would realize that it would take a mind boggling array of mutations occuring in more than one animal in a single generation to create such a complex structure as an eye,

And yet another goofball creationist who doesn't understand the concept of IC. Irreducible complexity as a creationist argument has been debunked.

And, you are aware that Michael Behe, the originator of this claim, accepts macroevolution and common descent, I'm sure, right?

So, another incorrect statement: 1/9.

otherwise natural selection would surely have long ago dictated that this extra growth was of no use and discarded it, and we know now that it would not have been of any use until the last precise piece was in place. This is but one of the problems of Evolution.

1/10. There are ways for so-called IC organisms to evolve.

The assertation that I am stupid and backward is a rediculous statement for the simple fact that stupidity and backwardness have nothing to do with believing in myths, which is in fact merely ignorance of truth.

No, the assertion of you being stupid and backward is quite appropriate, given that you believe in a 6,000 year old earth despite the fact that we came to the conclusion two hundred YEARS ago that this idea was wrong. 1/11.

If I was stupid and backward then I would not be in University or posting this from a computer that I put together myself. You forget that intelligence and ignorance (or refusal to accept "facts") are not mutually exclusive.

Just being in university does not make one smart. Nor does it guarantee sufficient education on the issuess at hand. Furthermore, building PCs is easy. Again, has nothing to do with evolution. 1/12.

When someone conclusively proves to me that the events in the Bible could not possibly have taken place even considering that I believe there to be an all powerful God,

Will never happen, because you will rationalize all explanations away with your ad hoc "all powerful God" excuse. The simple fact is, the earth ISN'T 6,000 years old. There WAS NEVER a global flood. Man did not come from dust. The human population did not originate from only two people, and it did not subsequently get eliminated back down to a handful of people (referring to human population being wiped out except for Noah and his family). When these realities are told to people like you, you ignore them. That's what YECs do.

and that therefore none of the Bible can be true, then I will accept that I was ignorant. When someone patches the holes in Evolution sufficiently enough for me then I will consider it a viable ulternative.

The "holes" are holes in your understanding and reasoning capabilities. They are not holes in evolutionary science.

Until then it seems to me that the Bible offers a better explanation for the way things are than Evolution does. (Besides, if an Evolutionist is wrong, then he gets to go to hell. If a Creationist is wrong, then he will have lived his life to a good set of moral codes).

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. Which works, until you posit the infinite number of possibilities of other possible gods, including one that hates being annoyed by prayer so much that he has decided that only atheists go to heaven. The Bible explains nothing.

Also: fundamentalist Christian moral codes are anything but...

note: In the above rant I refer to an Evolutionist as one who believes in Evolution to the exclusion of a God,

I.e., someone who doesn't exist. A straw man.

and a Creationist as a Young Earth Christian.

I.e., the worst case scenario: the YEC is the most ignorant, stupid, or intellectually dishonest creationist possible.

I accept that there is a middle ground, however I do not believe this to be the case for reasons stated above. Also, how can you be a Christian you don't believe in Genesis which contains the reason for Christianity anyway?

Like I keep saying: it's the creationists who keep trying to inject their faith into the discussion.

 

[pilgrimicron]

There WAS NEVER a global flood.

So what you are saying is that you know for a fact that water never covered the Earth. Man I would love to see your proof. You must have a inside track on what happened when the Earth was formed.

Man did not come from dust

Really? Well what is he made of then? You mean that when the Earth was formed life suddenly sprang from a mud hole that there was no dust around. What was it then? steel? Plastic? So what is this magical substance that suddenly came to life. What is the thing that makes anything alive? You can say that life was there but where did it come from? If not dust then what?

. The human population did not originate from only two people, and it did not subsequently get eliminated back down to a handful of people (referring to human population being wiped out except for Noah and his family

Do you mean that there were suddenly there were many people that came from nowhere? So what are you saying? Please explain how you start from a mud hole and suddenly you have many people that multiplied.

Lastly calling someone stupid, ignorant, or dishonest because they do not agree with you is a good argument for evolution I think you could be a decendant of a chimp or maybe a mule. If you do not agree then by all means enter the discussion but attacking others is never a good way to make your point.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: pilgrimicron

There WAS NEVER a global flood.

So what you are saying is that you know for a fact that water never covered the Earth. Man I would love to see your proof. You must have a inside track on what happened when the Earth was formed.

Man did not come from dust

Really? Well what is he made of then? You mean that when the Earth was formed life suddenly sprang from a mud hole that there was no dust around. What was it then? steel? Plastic? So what is this magical substance that suddenly came to life. What is the thing that makes anything alive? You can say that life was there but where did it come from? If not dust then what?

. The human population did not originate from only two people, and it did not subsequently get eliminated back down to a handful of people (referring to human population being wiped out except for Noah and his family

Do you mean that there were suddenly there were many people that came from nowhere? So what are you saying? Please explain how you start from a mud hole and suddenly you have many people that multiplied.

Lastly calling someone stupid, ignorant, or dishonest because they do not agree with you is a good argument for evolution I think you could be a decendant of a chimp or maybe a mule. If you do not agree then by all means enter the discussion but attacking others is never a good way to make your point.

Wow. Never before have I seen someone take another's post SO out of context in an attempt to belittle his position.

1. You know damn well that he means there was never a 'great flood' that covered the earth during Noah's lifetime. Geology can prove this, because when water covers land, there is evidence left behind. No such evidence exists worldwide.

2. You also know damn well that when he says 'man did not come from dust', he's referring to the Bible's creation story. As far as where LIFE began, no one really knows. It could have been created divinely, it could have been created when sufficient energy passed through the right combination of elements to create self-replicating life.

3. You don't go suddenly from a 'mud hole' to 'many people'. That statement shows that you either know nothing about evolutionary theory, or you're just ignoring the topic to try to insult the poster.

I'm sorry, but your post is pure ignorance and insult.

 

[pilgrimicron]

It is funny that whe you evolutionist belittle someone as he did there is nothing wrong with it. Then you accuse me of doing the same and it is suddenly wrong. He took it line by line and stated whet he thought. If he didn't mean it then he sould have said it differently.

You and every other evolutionist here love to throw around the word ignorance when you are infact also ignorant to what actually happend.

Geology can prove this, because when water covers land, there is evidence left behind. No such evidence exists worldwide.

Please show me this if you can find it I would love to read it.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: pilgrimicron
It is funny that whe you evolutionist belittle someone as he did there is nothing wrong with it. Then you accuse me of doing the same and it is suddenly wrong. He took it line by line and stated whet he thought. If he didn't mean it then he sould have said it differently.

You and every other evolutionist here love to throw around the word ignorance when you are infact also ignorant to what actually happend.

Geology can prove this, because when water covers land, there is evidence left behind. No such evidence exists worldwide.

Please show me this if you can find it I would love to read it.

Now you're assuming. Did I say anything of his post? No. Just because he was insulting or belittling in his post doesn't prevent me from pointing it out in your post.

Ignorance about the origins of life on this planet and ignorance as to the meaning of someone's post are two different things.

I'll see what I can find about water leaving evidence on land and get back to you.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: pilgrimicron
It is funny that whe you evolutionist belittle someone as he did there is nothing wrong with it. Then you accuse me of doing the same and it is suddenly wrong. .

Lets be fair here. He used logic and reasoning when attacking the other poster's argument. You did not.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: dgevert
What's interesting here is that, if one takes into account the fact that the great majority of DNA is "junk DNA" and serves no purpose from a design standpoint,

Scientists are discovered that "junk dna" is not junk after all. This is one of many articles I have come across recently about it:

BBC News - 'Junk' throws up precious secret

David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, and his team compared the genome sequences of man, mouse and rat. They found - to their astonishment - that several great stretches of DNA were identical across the three species.

To guard against this happening by coincidence, they looked for sequences that were at least 200 base-pairs (the molecules that make up DNA) in length. Statistically, a sequence of this length would almost never appear in all three by chance.

Not only did one sequence of this length appear in all three - 480 did.

Here is my take on this, and I'm trying to keep an open mind either way. The majority of dna is similar between all species because it is necessary for organic based lifeforms to live. The parts of the dna responsible for our characteristics are a code. Human and monkey dna is very similar - but compare a human and a monkey. The arms, legs, hands, position of eyes, ears, mouth, the organs, the genitals, the instincts. We are similar because our code is similar. Is that a cause or effect? I can tell you that Windowx XP from the box and Windows XP with SP2 installed are very very similar operating systems, but they are still different. 99% of the code is the same. XP SP2 is an evolved XP. If Microsoft had written both in parallel following the exact same coding strategy, using the exact same programmers, would they not still be 99% similar?

(I'm not arguing for Evolution or Creation, I'm just throwing that out there)

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: dgevert
What's interesting here is that, if one takes into account the fact that the great majority of DNA is "junk DNA" and serves no purpose from a design standpoint,

Scientists are discovered that "junk dna" is not junk after all. This is one of many articles I have come across recently about it:

BBC News - 'Junk' throws up precious secret

David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, US, and his team compared the genome sequences of man, mouse and rat. They found - to their astonishment - that several great stretches of DNA were identical across the three species.

To guard against this happening by coincidence, they looked for sequences that were at least 200 base-pairs (the molecules that make up DNA) in length. Statistically, a sequence of this length would almost never appear in all three by chance.

Not only did one sequence of this length appear in all three - 480 did.

Here is my take on this, and I'm trying to keep an open mind either way. The majority of dna is similar between all species because it is necessary for organic based lifeforms to live. The parts of the dna responsible for our characteristics are a code. Human and monkey dna is very similar - but compare a human and a monkey. The arms, legs, hands, position of eyes, ears, mouth, the organs, the genitals, the instincts. We are similar because our code is similar. Is that a cause or effect? I can tell you that Windowx XP from the box and Windows XP with SP2 installed are very very similar operating systems, but they are still different. 99% of the code is the same. XP SP2 is an evolved XP. If Microsoft had written both in parallel following the exact same coding strategy, using the exact same programmers, would they not still be 99% similar?

(I'm not arguing for Evolution or Creation, I'm just throwing that out there)

That's an interesting point, and I hadn't looked at it that way. If God did create everything, and taking into account that his 'code' would have been DNA, it would make sense even from a Creation standpoint that a chimpanzee's DNA would be so similar to a human's.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: dgevert
#1, creation ISN'T backed by any form of credible science. There is no logic or fact that provides the basis of their arguments. Their arguments are PURELY religiously and politically motivated.

And Evolution is NOT fact, it's a theory. Theories change. What we believe today about evolution could be turned upside down in 50 years with a new discovery. The problem with Evolutionist (and Creationist) True Believers is they believe their belief is the undisputed "truth" as XYZ is some fact. No. We don't know why we exist, where we descended from actually, and probably never will.

Evolution is a fact. There are types of organisms that are alive today that simply did not exist millions of years ago, as there were organisms alive millions of years ago that do not exist today. I'm not the only person who finds the fossil record overwhelmingly convincing in this matter.
The mechanisms of evolution are theories. The theory which best fits the facts currently is the modern synthesis, which integrates Darwin's original ideas and genetics, with some tweaks here and there.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Frankly, I'd rather be analysing spectrographs than arguing if man was created or evolved. It really doesn't matter in the scheme of things, as we exist.

That's fine if you'd rather be analyzing spectrographs, but whether humans were created or evolved is of monumental importance to those of us who like to understand the natural world with as much objectivity as we can manage.

#2, both sides claim their view is right, but which side is based on credible science? Evolution. Which side is based on the claims of liars like "Dr." Kent Hovind, "Dr." Ken Ham, and Glenn Morris? Which side continues to use arguments even after they've been refuted dozens of times? Which side is motivated PURELY by their religious and political beliefs?

Originally posted by: Terumo
That's the problem: there is no "credible science". I don't know what they're teaching kids in school/college these days, but if they don't understand the politics of science they're clueless in what is considered "credible" in science today. It's a popularity contest now, which side has the most PR folks, not the best science itself. Man's ego is now more important than the persuit of pure and unbiased science (well, it never really existed -- Newton, for example, was a total egotistical cad).

This is clearly a jaded and bitter view of natural science. I grant the social sciences are often under much more pressure from society to be subjective, and do not deny that natural sciences are as well. No human enterprise is devoid of egos, misconceptions, bullying, or error. But to say there is no credible science today is an unfounded hyperbole.

Originally posted by: Terumo
And when you mention political beliefs, look into the politics of the scientific Establishment. They're fudging geniune science as it is. Crap they're doing typing on guestimates -- did you know that? It's why our evolutionary tree looks so messed up. Instead of going down the list to eliminate doubts, they just say, "cranium of XYZ is larger, so it must be male" log it as such and shelf the specimen.

There is no 'genuine science', the best we can hope for is good science, science that does a good job of explaining observable phenomena. Our own evolutionary tree looks 'so messed up' because of a lack of data, because of a lack of access to data, because of egos, because of politics. But what you call 'messed up', I would simply call an imperfect understanding of our natural history that still has utility.

Originally posted by: Terumo
But for the lay public, it's all "facts". These PR a-holes brainwashed a whole new generation. Same type that believes the "Big Bang" theory IS the fact of the creation of the universe. Hogwash. The red shift problem there alone disqualifies it, but as long as no one talks about it it's okay. That was known 60 years ago, with hard science.

The lay public generally lacks a good primary science education. Again, I think you're hyperbolizing in pointing fingers at PR.

Originally posted by: Terumo

#3, medical science would be nowhere near where it is today without evolutionary biology. And as far as who excuses it...guess what...it's the creationists there, too. They just chalk it up to man's sinful nature, and claim that natural tragedies are some god's wrath.

What crap is that? Evolutionary biology made medicine?? Medicine was made often by pure mechanics and trial and error. Did you know that? Medicine is more mechanical, as the body is basically a biochemical mechine. It's why surgical techniques outpace the biochemical side of medicine. The can repair and heal injuries and diseases physically faster than repairing them with a pill. MDs are mainly very fancy mechanics (same can be said of DVMs).

This is almost absurd... Evolutionary biology has made many contributions to medicine. To say surgical techniques outpace biochemistry is, well, about 50 years outdated. Almost all modern epidemiological models utilize evolution (not to mention ecology). All medicine related to nutrition is in essence, evolutionary.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Crap, creationists are MDs too. Makes no difference if they believed God created everything or nothing, they're highly trained mechanics.

Hehe, no arguments from me on that one.

Originally posted by: Terumo

To claim that both sides stand on any form of equal footing is idiocy.

No, the idiocy is claiming ANY side is more intelligent or better. As long as man has a puny mind, he will never understand the universe or his place in it. That's reality. Everything else is BS, to defend beliefs that may turn on it's head tomorrow.

Scientists and creationists are both capable of creating logically consistent arguments within their own intellectual frameworks. The whole evolution vs. creationism debacle stems from the fact that they argue across different paradigms, which can't really be done. Scientists argue about theories, not facts (well, we'll argue about which facts are relevant). Scientists and creationists use entirely different facts (scientists use observations of the natural world, creationists use whichever preferred holy text).

Originally posted by: Terumo
We will never know the unknown. It's why religions exist, it's why humans will believe a God created everything. And no one can PROVE they're wrong, anyway.

There's a tautology if I've ever seen one. Religions exist to explain things, as does science. They're simply different ways for understanding the natural world. Of course, I think one does a better job of it than the other...

 

[Jack31081]

^ great post

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Well, after reading through this entire thread, it's pretty obvious there are a fair amount of pretty sharp folks here, both professional scientists and non-professional scientists who sure know their science.

I'm not exactly sure what the point of many of Terumo's posts have been, but I think what she is criticizing are people who accept evolution as fact and the modern synthesis as theory without really understanding them. I don't understand this; if you are a lay person trying to get a functional understanding of a topic, you ask the experts. Interest in science by non-scientists should be welcomed, not criticized! People who agree with/are convinced by the arguments of expert scientists concerning scientific matters are most certainly not the same as people who apply the teachings of religion to science.

Originally posted by: Terumo
Because the people who's doing the preaching don't even know what they're preaching. None of us here are paleoanthropologists. None of us here are engaged into studies on species specialization let alone evolutionary science.

:cough: