Fortunately it isn't the general population who gets to decide what is good science and what isn't, it is scientists working in those sciences, who know what the evidence is and understand it.
I agree insofar as the general population is concerned - scientifically that is. I am also more interested in good science. The issue I have is that there is less good science or even logical science "supplied" or understood correctly by the general population. This is specifically perpetrated by scientists working in those sciences that in the first instance filter the information through their worldview then provide the information.
An undeviating fallacy
The evolutionist uses a false form of circular reasoning to prove that he is correct. First, he starts with the assumption that he is correct, by faith. Second, he goes to the other side of the circle, digs up fossils from different places around the world and arranges them in the order he wants them to be in. Last, he goes back around the circle and says, You see, the fossils prove that I am right. This logic is patently illogical.
When the Greeks developed the science of logic 2,500 years ago, they called this kind of reasoning a tautology; that it was circular reasoning that falls under its own weight, that it was patently illogical. If you allow me to rearrange the evidence I can prove anything I want to, cant I? You cannot rearrange the evidence and then claim proof for anything!
If you remember little else from this reply remember this! One of the single greatest differences between a creation-believing scientist and an evolution-believing scientist is that the creationist does not rearrange his evidence and the evolutionist does!
The USA isn't the best example, it is way down there with Turkey when it comes to public acceptance of evolution.
Hmmm
I agree it also falls under its own weight. Is this a better example? If you remove Turkey, the EU has about 410 Million people. If you add Turkey to the USA and Canada (which has a 60% creationist worldview) you have about 410 Million people.
Ireland is what, 68% or something like that?
Whats your point exactly Ireland is mostly secular humanists and pagans but you dont say that. There is no such thing as a spiritual vacuum.
Or the better educated people are, the better they are at evaluating the evidence.
WHAT EVIDENCE!?
How do proteins and sugars change how similar chimp and ape DNA is? If you want a good overview of the question from a creationist have a look at Todd Wood's blog
I never said chimp and ape DNA was similar where did you get that from? We as yet DO NOT have a completed genome for either species which has a lot to do with why human and ape DNA cannot be compared.
You are talking about a process that arose in the some of the earliest forms of life on earth, which we have no information about and no fossil evidence, not that fossils preserve biochemical processes anyway. So you are trying to use as evidence against evolution something we would not know about whether evolution is true or not. Not that great an argument.
Are you seriously arguing that you have no evidence for the evidence? Thats like saying I dont know what I dont know.
My argument is sound because you are stuck with irreducible complexity and are back to the chicken or egg conundrum invented by evolution. Once again we are back to tautology or circular reasoning flaunted as science we do know because one COULD NOT form without the other.
Stripping of information?
Yes, if you were to use the whole DNA - and the outcome of its production, you would find that the gap in information is colossal.
Is that a direct quote from Darwin? It does not sound like him.
Try this from Darwin then
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. 167.
Does a snowflake contradict the second law of thermodynamics? They spontaneously organise themselves into all sorts of marvelous and complicated shapes. Don't believe what creationist websites tell you about the second law of thermodynamics. It does not contradict evolution.
For Petes Sake!! I let it go the first time you posted it because I actually thought you were joking! The more than verifiable answer is that water has a structure and furthermore a pliable memory. It takes on the properties of its container and remembers these properties. However, upon evaporation it loses those properties and returns to its energised state. It also reacts directly to ALL outside influence and as such, upon freezing forms those marvellous shapes because of this influence. If I played rock music to the water it would have an extremely erratic and disturbing shape on freezing. If I play it Bach it has a pleasing shape not unlike the snowflake. This does not discount crystallization which is also a common considerate. An interesting documentary that may help you understand is called appropriately H2O.
Furthermore, we have never seen a complex system built or assembled by random chance. (Particularly from a snowflake!) Mutations are harmful and produce negative outcomes. Mutations are the result of the bondage to decay. The evolutionists beliefs are illogical, irrational, unreasonable and not based on observable or verifiable evidence.
And by the way
Dont quote Mr. Rennie again If there is anyone here that does not understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, it is Mr. Rennie! Frankly, his argument is irrelevant and poorly reasoned. Whats more a snowflake has NO meaningful information in terms of letters; a snowflake is analogous to ABCABCABCABCABC
You tell me. You were born with about 120 to 180 single point mutations, letters in you DNA code that are different from either of your parents, AAGCTTA instead of AAGCCTA for example. Every one of us was born with these pieces of new genetic code. Is this extra information? Is that a problem?
I agree only this far
1. I was too simplistic and deserved that retort.
2. Some changes do confer an advantage in some situations.
3. I am born with these mutations.
BUT as stated; Mutations are harmful and produce negative outcomes. Mutations are the result of the bondage to decay. The evolutionists beliefs are illogical, irrational, unreasonable and not based on observable or verifiable evidence.
AND; ONCE AGAIN the bold truth is that we have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. You see biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., DO NOT HELP EXPLAIN evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of
functional genetic informationthese mechanisms create
nothing new. Macroevolution needs
new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example), yet evolutionists continue to completely miss this simple distinction.
You also neglect to mention that The SRC gene family is among the most notorious genes known to man, since they cause cancer as a consequence of single point mutations.
So
you tell me. Is this really extra information? Is that a problem?
Speaking of reading Romans, I suggest you need to read it again and see if Paul is actually writing about evolution. Perhaps you read it and think ' oh that really applies to evolution', it doesn't mean it is what he talking about. Have a look at what Paul is actually saying rather than what it means to you.
Simply stated, he is. I am strictly exegesis and Pauls handle on the Greek language was excellent. Any good lexicon will put you right should you bother.
