Unintelligent Design?

[Assyrian]

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?

 

[SkyWriting]

You ok with the fact that this shows human and other placental mammals have been evolving since we split from the marsupials?

All 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.

 

[Assyrian]

All 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

 

[SkyWriting]

Is that a yes

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.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Well, I dug one question out of your rant. It's not a quote so it's pretty hard to answer what I didn't say, 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.

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.

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.

 

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

You claim that "Creationist" views are not about faith? Wow. You've stumped me.

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. If you like, you can always start a thread about faith.

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.

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.

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?

Um, non sequiter? Let's review. I mention all the work done by evolution supporters compared to the little if any done by creationists. You respond by bringing up Dr. Collins as someone who doesn't mention evolution, yet does a lot of work. I point out that he's a huge evolution supporter, and you follow with the above, out of left field statement.

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?

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.

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.

The fact that you still think to the contrary is irrelevant.

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.

Maybe actually read the book, or just watch the video I supplied earlier. It can't be too hard.......



​

​

In every link, they are saying, every single piece of DNA may indeed have a purpose.

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.

Meaning? Every part has a purpose.

No one is saying that. You are reading your own personal myth into the papers through a lack of understanding. Could you please show me where it says that, in any current peer-reviewed paper (or retract that claim)?


So, you didn't answer my question - do you understand the paramecia data (now that you've ignored it at least twice)? If so, could you explain it back so we can see you understand it? If not, would you like me to explain it yet again? If you don't understand it, and don't want me to explain it, will you admit that you are hiding from evidence?

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

No problem. I know how to cut & paste:

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?

My answer: I don't think you have a clue as to who is a Creationist author and who is not. You admit that you don't.
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/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

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.

Nope. Your memory fails you:

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."

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.

I will continue without your kind support then:
'Junk' DNA may be very valuable to embryos
Our data suggest that such exons possess accessory sequences that facilitate their inclusion.

I was left with the impression that our understanding of the regulatory RNA world is still in its infancy.. The situation was nicely summed up by Mattick in his comment "...and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg". The next few years are certain to bring new discoveries that will provide a greater appreciation and understanding of the role of RNA in regulating our genomes. Perhaps it is time to bid farewell to the term 'junk' DNA - we knew not your true nature.


Our conclusion is that, in animals but not in plants, most of the "junk" is intron DNA.

...do you understand the paramecia data...

My degree is in Plastics.

"...our understanding of the regulatory RNA world is still in its infancy"

 

[Assyrian]

Well, I dug one question out of your rant.

Well you tried the usual creationist tactic for evading what science shows us by claiming science cannot study the past.

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.
​

I showed you that the heavens were just as inaccessible to scientists in Galileo's time. It would have been as silly of talking about flying to the moon as talking about time travel. Yet science was able to study the laws of physics beyond the earth that proved to be true when we did go out there. What would have happened if the church had used the creationist tactic of claiming science can only test theories on earth? How is gravity supposed to pull planets in a circle, science shows us gravity it pulls apples to the ground. Who ever heard of the sun having gravity? If you let go an apple is it pulled into the sun? To prove such preposterous ideas a scientist would have to travel into the heavens and show how apples fall there. They cannot, so the heavens are totally inaccessible to science. Wouldn't the gospel have been dragging into disrepute if the church was still insisting on geocentrism when Neil Armstrong stood on the moon and watched the earth rotate?

Thank God the church had more wisdom than that and accepted what science told them about places scientists could not go.

It's not a quote so it's pretty hard to answer what I didn't say

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Like the heavens in Galileo's time. Science managed to get it right though.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well you tried the usual creationist tactic for evading what science shows us by claiming science cannot study the past.

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


The rest of your diatribe and rant is unremarkable.

 

[Assyrian]

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

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.

The rest of your diatribe and rant is unremarkable.

If you can't address it that's fine.

 

[Papias]

SW Wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?

​

My answer: I don't think you have a clue as to who is a Creationist author and who is not. You admit that you don't.
End of your "Fact".
End of story.

Sure we do a have a clue - more than a clue. We can see all the papers published in support of evolution, and it's reasonable to see that those are by evolution supporters. We can also see the lack of papers published in support of creationism. Further, we know that scientists are the ones publishing, and that many different studies have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that practically all scientists support evolution and reject creationism.

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.)

​

Thanks for reposting it. It shows that we have plenty of data showing that evolution supporters do real research and publish, while creationists by comparison do neither.

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

First, you didn't answer my question. Second, we know about the past millenia the same way we know about the past centuries - through evidence. Unless you are going to resort to last thursdayism, you have no point.

​

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.

Nope. Your memory fails you:


​

Originally Posted by Papias

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 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)

​

Read my claim again, and realize that "anesthesia" includes much more than just chloroform. Thus, you can see that my references are relevant, showing the Christian response to anesthesia (not just who invented one anesthetic).

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.

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 peice of DNA?
​

...do you understand the paramecia data...

My degree is in Plastics.

​

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.
​

So here is my question again, which you still haven't answered:

So, you didn't answer my question - do you understand the paramecia data (now that you've ignored it at least three times)? If so, could you explain it back so we can see you understand it? If not, would you like me to explain it yet again? If you don't understand it, and don't want me to explain it, will you admit that you are hiding from evidence?



Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Papias

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?
​

Let 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. The realm of Science is BY DEFINITION is the process of explaining things through natural and repeatable human procedures.

HOWEVER, you may interview each scientist and discover their personal beliefs and gather data on what they believe. People have done that.

"Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.
"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.
Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html
"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said today."

Now you MAY, if you want, to find out which ones are "Creationists" by your choice of definitions, then count up the papers they have published.
Then you have some data to boast about...or whatever.

You say you have no data about their beliefs?
Your statement fails.

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?

Fail.

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?

I believe the amount of unused DNA is zero. Everyone is aware that we know some of the functions of about 2%.
​

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Are you seriously disagreeing with the fact that evolution supporters publish more actual research in biology than creationists do?

​

​

Let me explain the absurdity of your position.
You don't know who believes in Special Creation or not, yet you insist Creationists are outnumbered.

Your data you posted shows that many scientists believe in God. Some of these are theistic evolution supporters and some are atheistic evolution supporters, both of which support my case. As I've mentioned, we have plentiful data from different sources all agreeing that practically all scientists are evolution supporters. For instance, Here is some data on what scientists understand about evolution:

from Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the same poll shows that a good chunk of scientists believe in God, in agreement with you data.

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.

Your point is disproven by your own people - the intelligent design creationists have long attempted to show creationism without a reference to a supernatural force by first attempting to claim irreducible complexity. 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.

​

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%.

OK, so the evidence, and the statements from the experts, all say that we know that a small percentage has some function, and we don't know about most of it - that some of it, even perhaps most of it, may have no function. All those links you posted agree that we know that a small percentage has some function, and we don't know about most of it - that some of it, even perhaps most of it, may have no function.
​

I believe the amount of unused DNA is zero.

But we agree that the experts don't think that, that there is no evidence for that, and so that the only support you have for that statement is your own wishful thinking from a position of ignorance. After all, as you've stated, your degree is in plastics.

So in comparing wishful thinking from an average joe to the position of the experts based on evidence, would not a rational person agree with the experts?

You still haven't answered this:

Do you understand the paramecia data (now that you've ignored it at least three times)? If so, could you explain it back so we can see you understand it? If not, would you like me to explain it yet again? If you don't understand it, and don't want me to explain it, will you admit that you are hiding from evidence?

Being that you obviously care about the question of whether or not all DNA is functional, and that the paramecia give direct evidence on that question, it perplexes me why you so ardently avoid discussing the paramecia.

You also haven't answered this:


Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution supporter before you brought him up?


Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Not true.
1. One paper would be enough. "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 and asked about "basic research". The Sr. Lab Scientist confided, "That's what we do here." Then he added in a lower voice "There really is no such thing. All research is funded by somebody who wants to see a return for their money invested."

If you want to see papers published that conclude that the source is supernatural, you need to look outside of science.

But the evidence is right here in science:

The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time.



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.

 

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

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.

Not true.
1. One paper would be enough.
​

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.

"Thousands" of papers are needed for topics that have no clear basis. Like evolution.

Huh? So "Cancer" has no basis? "Computers" have no basis? "astronomy" has no basis? All those and many more have thousands of papers.

2. Scientists have bills to pay. They publish research on what the boss asks them to.

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.

I interviewed for a laser research position once ......

Well I guess personal anecdotes that may or may not have happened in your life are a little better than the complete lack of support for your points you've had so far, but not much. Sorry, but stories of personal anecdotes aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

I really don't want to talk with you about worms.

And so we see that you are yet another creationist who apparently has zero understanding of biology. Paramecia aren't worms. In fact, they are in a completely different KINGDOM. Your statement is like saying that you refuse to answer questions about whales because you don't want to talk about pond scum.

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.

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.

Hmmmm - more unsupported, baseless trash talk. Why am I not surprised?
​

I see that you still didn't answer these questions:

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?


Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

That's dumb. It's a non-reproducible event. The basis for scientific publishing.

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.

And so we see that you are yet another creationist <snip>

It's dumb to flaunt forum rules.

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.

Ad nausium. Every link to "Junk DNA" shows that the idea that there is "junk DNA" has been discarded and dismissed.
Your efforts to revive it have failed.

...are usually considered "junk DNA". However, we previously discovered that many...

...were originally considered to be junk DNA. Recent studies, however, ...

...have historically been considered mostly as junk DNA. However, such virus derived information can...

The ability of transposable elements to autonomously amplify led to their initial characterization as selfish or junk DNA; however, it is now known that they may acquire specific cellular function....


​

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?

I have no problem with either statement.
Creationists support evolution (with a small e) as much as anybody else.
Many Creationists rally against using Evolution as a god that is not intelligent, is not a person, and is a
natural aspect of matter, yet produces both life and intelligence out of rocks and gasses baked in the sun.
That is the Evolution that many don't believe is correct. Darwin's version. But it's just a belief system.

OK. Now I have issue with #1. Thanks for making me look! I love you guys.

"Do you now agree that practically all scientists are evolution supporters?"

Sure. But do you know that evolution theory doesn't support evolution "the facts" very well?
When compiling conclusion's from 40 papers on evolution fact and evolution theory, this author claims:

"The enormous amount of molecular information that has emerged during the last couple of decades is making us review this synthesis...partly because there is data that does not fit comfortably within the synthesis."
"While the evolutionary synthesis is of course compatible with evolution,
the evidence to support it is actually much thinner than is generally supposed;..."

 

[chris4243]

Originally Posted by Papias

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.
​

That's dumb. It's a non-reproducible event. The basis for scientific publishing.

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I don't see your quote from Paul's lips. It must have been a serious kiss to get those words in there.
Tell me what topics you are seeking. Then I'll find them or explain why they are missing.
Easy enough.

 

[chris4243]

Tell me what topics you are seeking.
Then I'll explain why they are missing.
Easy enough.

How about if we compare endogenous retrovirus DNA sequences found in humans and other primates. Where are the creationist theories the predict those similarities? Oh and they have to predict the similarities better than evolutionary theory does.