Consider This Article

[RealityCheck01]

A comment from PZ Meyers on the response to that bad article: Big fish on the hook. I repeat, BIG FISH.

I predicted that the creationist clickbait in the title of that stupid article about all animals originating at the same time would snag a few doofuses. I was right. Look who is tweeting about it: Eric Erickson and Ted Cruz.

 

[Ophiolite]

Joshua Swamidass does a good job of running down the problems here.

Cheers. That was a damning analysis.

 

[Astrophile]

You've heard of the harlot of Babylon?

Meet the harlot of London (evolution).

I've always thought of Babylon as a sort of Baby Lon-don. Also, if the harlot of London is evolution, I've met her; she lives in the Natural History Museum, in South Kensington. You ought to visit it next time you're in England.

 

[Astrophile]

Then it can take a hike.

I don't respect science that doesn't respect the word of God.

I don't respect a 'word of God' that doesn't respect science.

 

[Skreeper]

I don't respect science that doesn't respect the word of God.

If the word of God doesn't respect science, it can take a hike. Amen?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the word of God doesn't respect science, it can take a hike. Amen?

QV my caption.

 

[USincognito]

And sadly the media and the scientific community will ignore this.

You mean the media that reported the actual findings instead of the dishonest clickbait linked in the OP?

Arguing this with a group of people who believe GENDER is a spectrum is pointless since they aren't even looking for facts at this point.

If one wishes to show everyone what a sober and superior grasp of science one has, it's best not to inject personal social issues politics into the discussion.

It's been widely known for a long time that we LOSE DNA information over time rather than gaining it.

Oh really? Do you have a citation this "fact" or is something you just know in your gut?

Evolution has been proven false over and over again but is still being taught in schools.

Laughably false. Evolution has never been falsified and it's only gotten stronger over the last 150 years.

 

[USincognito]

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time

This version of the information seems a little less ad crazy.

this looks like a link to the actual publication
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

But it's still a terrible headline. The study concluded that 90% of animals living today evolved within 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. That's quite a bit different than what the headline suggests.

 

[USincognito]

Charles Darwin wouldn't even believe his own theory after this.

This might come as a surprise, but Darwin was not an apostle nor was Origin an epistle. Darwin's basic ideas have withstood the test of time but the science, and the theory, has moved far beyond what he knew and proposed. In science the idea is important, not the scientist.

 

[USincognito]

Ideas of panspermia have been advanced before in recognition of the problems surounding ND, however they only really push the issue away onto another planet, and in terms of the time available for advance life to evolve (on the other planet) make the problem worse.

The origin of life has no effect on the evolution of life after it got "started". Evolution only deals with extant, reproducing life that passes on genetic material to offspring.

 

[Anguspure]

The origin of life has no effect on the evolution of life after it got "started". Evolution only deals with extant, reproducing life that passes on genetic material to offspring.

There is no reason why the force, law or principle should not be evident at a subsequent time.

All other forces, laws or principles recognised scientifically are evident and repeatable on a daily basis, and in fact the creative principle is also evident and repeatable (and repeated) many millions of times daily.

The supposed magic that gets the ball of evolution moving up mount improbable and leaping up every step on the way is not repeatable, not testable and its adherants deny it's falsifiability.

 

[pitabread]

All other forces, laws or principles recognised scientifically are evident and repeatable on a daily basis, and in fact the creative principle is also evident and repeatable (and repeated) many millions of times daily.

Physicists still haven't figured out what gravity is or developed a unified theory of gravity. Why isn't anyone here complaining about that?

 

[sfs]

There is no reason why the force, law or principle should not be evident at a subsequent time.

What force, law or principle? What makes you think anything other than the laws of chemistry -- which are indeed evident today -- was required? As for why we don't see life starting many times, there's a simple reason: living things are already around to gobble up pretty much anything that might form.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why isn't anyone here complaining about that?

Well you won't see me complain about it, because I like to use gravity to make two points:

1. We know gravity exists because it demonstrates cause-and-effect -- just like God does.

2. Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

 

[pitabread]

2. Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

Wut?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wut?

It shows that atheism and evolutionism are both a religion; while showing that Christianity is not.

 

[USincognito]

There is no reason why the force, law or principle should not be evident at a subsequent time.

All other forces, laws or principles recognised scientifically are evident and repeatable on a daily basis, and in fact the creative principle is also evident and repeatable (and repeated) many millions of times daily.

The supposed magic that gets the ball of evolution moving up mount improbable and leaping up every step on the way is not repeatable, not testable and its adherants deny it's falsifiability.

I'm sorry bu there's too much sciency talk and trying to be clever in this message for me to discern a clear, cogent point - especially one germane to the point I was making about evolution. Again, the origin of life on earth, be it abiogenesis, panspermia, creation by God or whatever, has zero effect on evolution.

Evolution only explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record and only applies to already living things that reproduce and pass on genetic material to offspring.

 

[Strathos]

It shows that atheism and evolutionism are both a religion; while showing that Christianity is not.

Is gravity a religion too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is gravity a religion too?

Cute.

 

[Strathos]

Cute.

It's a reasonable question, considering your definition of the word.