Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You ok with the fact that this shows human and other placental mammals have been evolving since we split from the marsupials?That could well be the case, judging by the research coming in.
Here is an example of an evolutionist inadvertently making
a case for Intelligent Design.
James A. Shapiro: More Evidence on the Real Nature of Evolutionary DNA Change
I find mainstream science sources make a better case for Intelligent Design and Special Creation than anybody else.
You ok with the fact that this shows human and other placental mammals have been evolving since we split from the marsupials?
Is that a yesAll animal populations change now and likely will.
What has happened in the past is always a matter of written history.
Science and history are different things.
Do I need to quote the scientific method again?
I didn't have this problem when I put it on every post.
Is that a yes
I suppose if you lived in the time of Galileo you could claim science can't prove anything that happens in space either. It as only with Sputnik orbiting the earth and when Luna 10 orbited the moon, that we got out there and showed Newton was right about how gravity works in space.Science can only provide data culled from the present.
Ideas of the past are either a matter of the historical
writings of man or conjecture.
Science can't actually prove anything about the past.
That's why some people gravitate there. Nobody can
prove them wrong, because they can point to their
cell phone to prove "Science" works. But it's really
in the land of fiction they love to dwell in.
I suppose if you lived in the time of Galileo you could claim science can't prove anything that happens in space either. It as only with Sputnik orbiting the earth and when Luna 10 orbited the moon, that we got out there and showed Newton was right about how gravity works in space.But none of this has anything to do with my question. You quoted a link showing evidence of mammal evolution from the time we split from marsupials. If the the link was so wrong and the mechanism it talks about is not part of how we evolved because we didn't evolve, why quote it? How can you claim design is operating in the evolution of major genetic changes, if you don't think these genetic changes happened?Your argument takes you beyond special creation, that God each species separately, beyond ID that says that God designed and made every genetic change if we may be descended from a common ancestor, to saying God designed and created the mechanism for evolution to produce the genetic changes. Not quite TE, but much closer to the truth than Behe and friends.
You claim that "Creationist" views are not about faith? Wow. You've stumped me.
Anyway, What people publish is real work on actual facts they have in front of them....most of the time.
"Creationists" have done that from the beginning of time. You can't separate them from "Mainstream"
science because they work in science the same , or better, than non Creationists in research.
So your claim that they don't fails, unless you can provide facts on the matter.
It's the design of God. Here is God's "language".
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Not exactly in line with Natural Selection is it?
You have the opportunity to make a point. It has no merit yet. You have not made a good argument
in your own words or using the words of published authors. You MAY be able to claim that current fears of
anesthesia are due to religious reasons. But you don't get to claim it with out supporting data.
My mistake. I should have said I searched your particular book
using the word "archaeology" and didn't find support for your view that the bible was inaccurate.
In every link, they are saying, every single piece of DNA may indeed have a purpose.
Meaning? Every part has a purpose.
No problem. I know how to cut & paste:No, I didn't. I never brought faith in one way or another. It's not in my original claim, but you seem to want it to be.
Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?
(See your original claim above.)I did provide facts on the matter - including links to find thousands of papers in support of evolution. You have yet to show thousands of papers in support of creationism.
So, you didn't answer my question - were you really so clueless as to not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?
Nope. Your memory fails you:Sure I did - my original claim was that when anesthesia was introduced, it was opposed by some Christians on religious grounds. I've shown that with numerous references, including a book from that time period.
My response hit the nail on the head (quite hard):It goes back to the one of the many problems I have with creationism - that it is the abrogation of the use of our God-given minds, a rejection of the whole idea of human progress and learning.
"Don't try to develope anesthesia, that goes against God's plan for us."
...do you understand the paramecia data...
Well you tried the usual creationist tactic for evading what science shows us by claiming science cannot study the past.Well, I dug one question out of your rant.
It wasn't what you said, it was your hailing a scientific discovery that completely contradicts your position. I was asking you how you reconcile the contradiction.It's not a quote so it's pretty hard to answer what I didn't say
Unlike houses, organisms have offspring, and the research you quoted shows a common ancestor can have descendants that are wildly different species, because it's DNA is able to build completely new genetic code. This is not the creationist idea that all the DNA in modern species come from the original kinds, this shows how new genes are made. This isn't simply being designed with a repair mechanism, this mechanism allows it to evolve and adapt and spread through every enviroment on earth, whether you want to say the earth degrades or not.but I'll give it a shot:
"How can you claim design is operating in the evolution of major genetic changes, if you don't think these genetic changes happened?"
I claim that all evolution is a system designed to allow for species to continue while the earth degrades. Not a stupid, randomly derived system of baking a dirt ball until it hatches some life fungus. But one where life was created up front with perfection in mind.
All of life does not have one common ancestor. Nor does every brick house have a common ancestor with other brick houses or with a particular pit full of clay. A designer uses certain materials and certain tools. That explains commonality.
Court cases resting on a single piece of evidence are liable to mistakes, or fraud. But evolution have been tested and confirmed vast quantities of evidence and a multitude of different ways to test it.If I can't duplicate your experiment, then its not science. Plain and simple. You are free to use "Scientific Methods" to create data. And you are free to come up with theories as to what the data shows. But you are drawing conclusions. Not facts. Not Data.
Just guesses as to what happened.
Let me quickly illustrate with Jerry Springer.
DNA found on the victim "Scientifically proves" rape by rapper "Dim-Bulb".
But this is not 2012AD. This is 2099.
The victim wanted to get money from Dim so planted the DNA on her own body that she got off a wine glass.
Jerry gets a big thrill busting "Dim" on his show, but its not a fact. It didn't go down as everyone imagines it did.
So, Science can "prove" some things about the present, but be wrong about past events.
Like the heavens in Galileo's time. Science managed to get it right though.The past is outside the realm of Science. Science can't actually prove anything in the past or even present.
Only make predictions about the future.
Well you tried the usual creationist tactic for evading what science shows us by claiming science cannot study the past.
So evolution uses the hypothesis the predict that there were transitional species with characteristics intermediate between fish and tetrapods, early reptiles and mammals, mammals and whales, and humans and other apes. Often the hypothesis tells them where geographically and in what geological strata any fossils that remain are likely to be found. Experiment: go there an look for them. Do a detailed comparison between the skeletal structure and the fossils it is supposed to be transitional between and see if the features are intermediate. To repeat the experiment, simply open the drawer in the museum and look at the fossil again to see if it still exists, you can repeat the measurements and comparisons or do other ones. Or you can go back to area you think the fossils will be found and dig out similar ones or other transitional species. Same thing with genomic comparisons and predictions that genes of species you think are related, will fit the same phylogenetic tree. You have the prediction that since humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and great apes 24, and that genes we knew of from human chromosome 2 where found on 2 chimp chromosomes, that when you sequences the entire chromosome 2 it would show signs that it was formed when two chromosomes fused together. Sure enough when they sequenced the chromosome there was the remains of two telomeres (chromosome ends) in the middle of the chromosome, and as well as a functioning centromere, the remains of another one. The experiment is simply repeated by looking at the sequence again and seeing they it is still there.Then you've had ample time to research how your visions of sugar plums stumbling out of the primordial ooze will fit below
Steps of the Scientific Method
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
You make your visions fit,
I'll not bring it up again. -SKY
If you can't address it that's fine.The rest of your diatribe and rant is unremarkable.
Originally Posted by Papias
End of your "Fact".
End of story.
I did provide facts on the matter - including links to find thousands of papers in support of evolution. You have yet to show thousands of papers in support of creationism.
(See your original claim above.)
So, you didn't answer my question - were you really so clueless as to not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?
What scientists believe they know about the past is of no interest to me. Others take great stock in it. Science has no more place in dealing with history than a pair of good eyeglasses.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/scienc...c_method.shtml
Originally Posted by PapiasSure I did - my original claim was that when anesthesia was introduced, it was opposed by some Christians on religious grounds. I've shown that with numerous references, including a book from that time period.
Nope. Your memory fails you:
"Don't try to develop anesthesia, that goes against God's plan for us."
My response hit the nail on the head (quite hard):
Not according to this:
CHLOROFORM was developed by a Creationist -JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
I don't disagree with that some papers say that - "May have a purpose" is very different from "known to have a purpose", so it doesn't in any way prove that there is no useless DNA, as you are asserting.
Our conclusion is that, in animals but not in plants, most of the "junk" is intron DNA.
Again, you didn't answer my question. You seem happy to talk about the DNA data, even though it is outside your degree area, so I assume that means that you are happy to talk about the paramecia data too.
Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?
You still don't seem to understand that "may have no purpose" is very different from "known to have a purpose". Do you at least agree that we don't know the purpose of every piece of DNA?
Originally Posted by PapiasLet me explain the absurdity of your position.
You don't know who believes in Special Creation or not, yet you insist Creationists are outnumbered.
Second. Science doesn't not allow for supernatural explanations of anything. So your not going to find papers published in Scientific journals proving a case for non-natural forces.
Papias wrote:You still don't seem to understand that "may have no purpose" is very different from "known to have a purpose". Do you at least agree that we don't know the purpose of every piece of DNA?
Everyone is aware that we know some of the functions of about 2%.
I believe the amount of unused DNA is zero.
If there really was a significant percentage of creationist scientists, then we could have many thousands of papers like this, but we don't. The silence is deafening.
Huh? So "Cancer" has no basis? "Computers" have no basis? "astronomy" has no basis? All those and many more have thousands of papers."Thousands" of papers are needed for topics that have no clear basis. Like evolution.
2. Scientists have bills to pay. They publish research on what the boss asks them to.
I interviewed for a laser research position once ......
I really don't want to talk with you about worms.
If you don't understand the absurdity of your position
on "Creationist Publishing" then you lack the reasoning ability and logic for other topics as well.
No it wouldn't - you have thousands of papers in support of evolution, so I'm expecting at least thousands of papers in support of creationism if you are going to back up you still unsupported claim.
Naturally. Your request for scientific support of a supernatural event will forever go unmet. A dumb request.Like so much of your arguments, that again sounds like just another creationist pretending that science doesn't tell us about the real world. So you are saying that all the topics above have "no basis", this time because all scientists aren't independent businesses? Again, I don't see your point.
It's dumb to flaunt forum rules.And so we see that you are yet another creationist <snip>
Ad nausium. Every link to "Junk DNA" shows that the idea that there is "junk DNA" has been discarded and dismissed.So I guess you agree not that your "all DNA is useful" statement is completely unsupported, even to the point that you won't bother to talk about it.
I have no problem with either statement.Do you now agree that practically all scientists are evolution supporters? and Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?
"Do you now agree that practically all scientists are evolution supporters?"
Originally Posted by Papias
Like so much of your arguments, that again sounds like just another creationist pretending that science doesn't tell us about the real world. So you are saying that all the topics above have "no basis", this time because all scientists aren't independent businesses? Again, I don't see your point.Naturally. Your request for scientific support of a supernatural event will forever go unmet. A dumb request.
We can't count recent, maybe even scientific evidence. The scriptures say no to that. "Unmistakable" must be ancient evidence.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
So again, where are all the scientific papers about that which is clearly seen? Like Paul said, people who don't believe evolution are without excuse.
Tell me what topics you are seeking.
Then I'll explain why they are missing.
Easy enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?