Revealing the data behind the science of evolution

[Loudmouth]

I took the numbers on faith and did some math.

Yet somehow you refuse to do the same thing with DNA sequences.

 

[Loudmouth]

DARWINISM!!!!

HYPOCRISY!!!!!

 

[juvenissun]

Faith is not based on logic. The whole point of logic is ELIMINATING as many assumptions as possible. When you say that you begin your logic with the assumption of God, you have eliminated logic from the process before you even begin.

Faith is an extension of logic. So it IS based on logic. If a theology is logically wrong, then it can not generate a reasonable faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Faith is an extension of logic.

Faith is the absence of logic.

"Claim A is true because a book says so" is the perfect example of the absence of logic.

 

[Lulav]

Ladies and Gentlemen
Please Let's all

 

[pat34lee]

Actually, most people who believe in evolution are Christians. Even most biologists believe in god.

Those are the ones fooled by the first group, by not believing
that God is smarter than scientists.

 

[pat34lee]

Why would a creator and a plan require a nested hierarchy?

Why wouldn't they? God isn't limited to one type or another.
He made nearly infinite variety in nature, both in form and in
function.

 

[pat34lee]

Faith is the absence of logic.

"Claim A is true because a book says so" is the perfect example of the absence of logic.

Remember that the next time you mention science journals.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those are the ones fooled by the first group, by not believing
that God is smarter than scientists.

Creationists are the ones who think they are smarter than God. They think they can tell God how God created instead of looking at the Creation itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Remember that the next time you mention science journals.

The journals contain verifiable facts. You can check every piece if data if you wish. The same can not be said of the claims made in the Bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why wouldn't they?

There is absolutely no reason that creationism should always produce a nested hierarchy. Ever.

God isn't limited to one type or another.

Then why are you saying that God would be limited to a nested hierarchy?

He made nearly infinite variety in nature, both in form and in
function.

False. The variety of life is strictly limited to a nested hierarchy.

 

[The Cadet]

Why wouldn't they? God isn't limited to one type or another.
He made nearly infinite variety in nature, both in form and in
function.

So, just to be clear, there's no reason why this would apply to creationism, it has to apply for evolution to make any sense, the odds of it happening by chance or without it being necessary are extremely slim... But God created it that way anyways.

Why would He do that, though? Wouldn't he know that this would mislead a lot of people, and that this could easily be avoided by simply not creating animals with such a dual-nested heirarchy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would He do that, though? Wouldn't he know that this would mislead a lot of people, and that this could easily be avoided by simply not creating animals with such a dual-nested heirarchy?

It's like a defense attorney arguing that God came into the room and made a little swirly pattern of oil that just coincidentally matches the ridges found on his client's fingertips.

 

[pat34lee]

The journals contain verifiable facts. You can check every piece if data if you wish. The same can not be said of the claims made in the Bible.

Actually, the bible has a better track record.

"A number of empirical studies show that 80-90% of the claims coming from supposedly scientific studies in major journals fail to replicate."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi...research-today-a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/

That is the top journals. It goes downhill from there.

 

[pat34lee]

Why would He do that, though? Wouldn't he know that this would mislead a lot of people, and that this could easily be avoided by simply not creating animals with such a dual-nested heirarchy?

It can only mislead if you're looking the wrong way.

 

[pat34lee]

It's like a defense attorney arguing that God came into the room and made a little swirly pattern of oil that just coincidentally matches the ridges found on his client's fingertips.

More like a signature saying "God was here" in DNA that
most scientists try to ignore.

 

[The Cadet]

It can only mislead if you're looking the wrong way.

I know you think this is a response to my question, but it really isn't...

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, the bible has a better track record.

Creationism was thoroughly refuted 150 years ago.

"A number of empirical studies show that 80-90% of the claims coming from supposedly scientific studies in major journals fail to replicate."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi...research-today-a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/

That is the top journals. It goes downhill from there.

Of the papers I have presented, how many have been shown to be false?

 

[Loudmouth]

More like a signature saying "God was here" in DNA that
most scientists try to ignore.

It's kind of hard to spell that with just four letters. Even the amino acid code lacks an O. No U either, so Vishnu must not be real. Allah, however, can be spelled out in amino acids.