The explanatory power of evolution

[AV1611VET]

Which still has absolutely nothing to do with the science of evolution.

So again, are you going trying to win an award for the most number of non sequiturs in a thread?

Nope. I'm gonna bow out for now on this subject.

But I'll reiterate:

Thanks to science, abortions occur without conviction.

 

[pitabread]

But I'll reiterate:

Thanks to science, abortions occur without conviction.

Repeating an incorrect statement does not make it correct.

 

[vincejohnson]

Wherever we humans have evolved from, we all have one thing in common, it is the same in plants, bacteria, Amoebae, insects, birds, fish and humans have & that is DNA.

The origin of DNA is the origin of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

The origin of DNA is the origin of life.

God.

 

[xianghua]

-

 

[xianghua]

Creationism must have such explanatory power as well as it can also answer this question.

The Chicken, because it was created fully formed and already capable of reproducing it's own kind.

its also true according to science:

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? – Scientific Scribbles

". This is the reason chickens form shell (6g per 24h) faster than any other species. Therefore according to this research an egg can only form if it has been inside a chicken."

 

[xianghua]

From the scientific theory of evolution POV, yes, the egg came first. From the creationist POV, the chicken came first.Only if you arbitrarily factor deep time into the equation.

and guess who is correct?:

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? – Scientific Scribbles

 

[AV1611VET]

and guess who is correct?

If you get a scientist to say anything concrete, then "reverse engineer" his mindset, he will eventually say something wrong.

Scientist: The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen.
Creationist: Where did the atmosphere come from?
Scientist: Outer space.

Scientist: The moon is full tonight.
Creationist: Where did the moon come from?
Scientist: [One of about ten different answers ... all wrong.]

Mathematics, of course, would be an exception.

 

[xianghua]

If you get a scientist to say anything concrete, then "reverse engineer" his mindset, he will eventually say something wrong.

Scientist: The atmosphere is 78% nitrogen.
Creationist: Where did the atmosphere come from?
Scientist: Outer space.

Scientist: The moon is full tonight.
Creationist: Where did the moon come from?
Scientist: [One of about ten different answers ... all wrong.]

Mathematics, of course, would be an exception.

thw main point is that again we see why evolution has no explanatory power. again from the article:

"A study into how chicken eggs are formed discovered that a protein found in the chicken's ovaries, ovocledidin-17, is vital for shell production. According to the researchers, this means the chicken must have come first"

 

[AV1611VET]

"A study into how chicken eggs are formed discovered that a protein found in the chicken's ovaries, ovocledidin-17, is vital for shell production. According to the researchers, this means the chicken must have come first"

Either that, or all it shows is that there was a first chicken.

If chickens existed on the earth in Adam's time, then the chicken came first.

But if the chicken is a hybrid of something else, then the egg came first.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nope. I'm gonna bow out for now on this subject.

But I'll reiterate:

Thanks to science, abortions occur without conviction.

-_- you do know that abortion rates have drastically decreased in recent years without any changes to the legislation related to abortion, right? Plus, there were a lot of deaths happening due to botched abortions before it was legalized; you aren't saving any lives or souls by making it illegal. Heck, you aren't a catholic, so I don't even understand why you have a problem with it. From your perspective, all those involved in the procedure can still attain salvation, and the souls of the unborn aren't destroyed or sent to hell. That's why I've said before that if I was a believer, I'd want to be an abortion doctor, because I'd save more souls by killing the unborn than I would by preaching. Dark, but true.

Also, the decision to legalize abortion was a political move, not a scientific one. After all, from a scientific prospective, an embryo is definitely alive, albeit not capable of living independently. The legal definition of life is drastically different from the scientific definition. It's no wonder that plenty of atheists are prolife.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

-_- you do know that abortion rates have drastically decreased in recent years without any changes to the legislation related to abortion, right? Plus, there were a lot of deaths happening due to botched abortions before it was legalized; you aren't saving any lives or souls by making it illegal. Heck, you aren't a catholic, so I don't even understand why you have a problem with it. From your perspective, all those involved in the procedure can still attain salvation, and the souls of the unborn aren't destroyed or sent to hell. That's why I've said before that if I was a believer, I'd want to be an abortion doctor, because I'd save more souls by killing the unborn than I would by preaching. Dark, but true.

Also, the decision to legalize abortion was a political move, not a scientific one. After all, from a scientific prospective, an embryo is definitely alive, albeit not capable of living independently. The legal definition of life is drastically different from the scientific definition. It's no wonder that plenty of atheists are prolife.

But then you would be a murderer. It would be like saying a 5 year old will go to Heaven if you murder it so you'd be doing the kid a favor. A child that weighs less than a pound can suvive outside the womb. If you kill it while it is hooked up to the machine you'd go to jail for murder. Do you really think that killing a baby inside the womb that weighs four times as much is not murder?

 

[stevevw]

Isn't it true that the scientific theory of evolution has such explanatory power that it can finally answer the question: what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Which is clear the egg, because the ancestors of the chicken were laying eggs eons before there ever were any chickens. So, eggs had a long time to wait before their contents were chickens.

I dont really think evolution has that great an explanatory power. It can make claims about the egg coming first but it cannot explain how that happened. Natural selection is not an all powerful creative process that can make the impossible happen. It is good at explaining the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Even then there is a lot that is assumed about its ability.

Besides the analogy is silly. The concept of what came first the chicken or the egg is not just about the chicken. It is about the symbolic egg and creature that can lay eggs. So even the ancestors of the chicken need to be included in that analogy. Going right back to the beginning how can a creature lay an egg without a reproductive system that can produce an egg.

 

[Gabbleduck]

its also true according to science:

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? – Scientific Scribbles

". This is the reason chickens form shell (6g per 24h) faster than any other species. Therefore according to this research an egg can only form if it has been inside a chicken."

Except that isn't what the article says. The article, which is a bit of fun and not published research, finishes by apolgising for not resolving the question of which came first. It wasn't a serious scientific article to begin with.

This is a big part of the problem trying to converse with creationists - grabbing small sections of articles or quotes because that small section seems to agree with your claim, when the entire quote or article actually doesn't, is disingenuous at best and lying at worst.

Why do you have to lie, or if I'm being generous, misquote things to make your point?

 

[Gabbleduck]

I dont really think evolution has that great an explanatory power. It can make claims about the egg coming first but it cannot explain how that happened. Natural selection is not an all powerful creative process that can make the impossible happen. It is good at explaining the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. Even then there is a lot that is assumed about its ability.

Besides the analogy is silly. The concept of what came first the chicken or the egg is not just about the chicken. It is about the symbolic egg and creature that can lay eggs. So even the ancestors of the chicken need to be included in that analogy. Going right back to the beginning how can a creature lay an egg without a reproductive system that can produce an egg.

There are extant examples of every strategy of egg laying through to bearing live young.
Through examining the genetic side of things, pathways that led from soft eggs requiring laying in water to leathery eggs that could survive on land (which many snakes and lizards still lay) to hard shelled eggs are understood. It's not a case that suddenly one day an animal laid a hard, bird-like egg where previously no eggs had ever been laid.

 

[Gabbleduck]

God.

A terrible designer then, considering the number of genetic defects that cause not only spontaneous abortions but untold suffering for living children through a large number of horrible genetic disorders and diseases.

Given the number of pregnancies that spontaneously abort (around 1 in 4) whatever deity you attribute everything to is the most prolific abortionist of the lot.

This deity either purposely designed human DNA to cause enormous amounts of suffering to both parents and children, or is just such a bad designer that a quarter of "children in the womb" can't even survive the design process to birth.

And those of us that do survive to an older age, thanks to modern medicine the days, are quite likely to die of another flaw created by this deity you think designed DNA, cancer.

 

[AV1611VET]

A terrible designer then, considering the number of genetic defects that cause not only spontaneous abortions but untold suffering for living children through a large number of horrible genetic disorders and diseases.

Those came as a result of the Fall.

Adam & Eve were perfect, and that includes their DNA.

God may have created DNA as a straight double-helix.

As a result of the Fall, this straight double-helix now has a twist to it.

We literally live in a twisted world, don't we?

And those of us that do survive to an older age, thanks to modern medicine the days, are quite likely to die of another flaw created by this deity you think designed DNA, cancer.

And what if God gave us Charles Darwin to find a cure for cancer?

He abandoned his studies and his family for a cruise, then brought home a communicable disease.

Remember Nimrod?

He started out a MIGHTY HUNTER BEFORE THE LORD and ended up building an empire so evil the Antichrist will revive it during the Tribulation.

 

[xianghua]

Except that isn't what the article says.

do you have any other reference?

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And what if God gave us Charles Darwin to find a cure for cancer?

He abandoned his studies and his family for a cruise, then brought home a communicable disease.

It would have actually been very difficult for Darwin to have discovered a cure for cancer in the late 1800's since no-one knew what caused cancer, and there would have been no way for anyone to study and to find a way to beat it.
But, sure, keep repeating this canard of yours until the cows come home if it'll make you feel better.