Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[joshua 1 9]

Newton's Theory of Gravitation was published in 1697

Then Newton was a part of the 50% that stood the test of time. Often the 50% that fails does no harm, it just does no one any good. Half truth is better then no truth. If you help half the people that is an accomplishment. Although in general one third get better, one third get worse and one third stay they same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are only showing us the limits of your finite mind that can not comprehend how the infinite can act upon the finite.

Are you saying that you are some kind of genious of intinite intellect who CAN understand it?

Of course for Christians that have been touched by the God of infinity they know that this is indeed possible.

How about muslims and hindu's that have been touched by the god of infinity?
Or people that have seen Elvis in 2010?

Sense you have never had this experience then you have no testimony to this effect.

I guess the same goes for those that were never abducted by aliens and had weird sexual experiments performed on them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates.

So science isn't to thank for finding the relationship between air pollution, smoking and lung cancer? For realz?

Or did an angel reveal this to someone?

Unless you want to claim that science is killing less people now then before. I may give you that. If the CEO of general foods uses science to produce food that promotes heart disease, diabetes and cancer then all of a sudden you do not want science to have the credit for that, you want to blame the CEO that is using science to put money in his pocket.

Science doesn't have CEO's. Science is a method, not a business.

 

[Armoured]

Have you not heard of this?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

None of whom are active in the relevant fields of biology. A rocket propulsion scientist who dissents from evolution? Say it ain't so!

Have you not heard of this?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

JINX!

 

[Armoured]

Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works.

Oh, this'll be good...

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Bible can say pretty much anyone wants it to say to fit in with their own beliefs, Did Peter say that in Genesis a day is the equal to a thousand years?

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"

I don't see it.

I think science has pretty much confirmed that the account in Genesis is not literally accurate and true (whether it was 600 or 1300 years ago). Have you got any evidence to back up your assertions?

Science is not trained to confirm or deny anything in the Bible. If you want too study the Bible then you need to study Theology or go to Bible school or at least study and read the WHOLE Bible. Mosses was talking about Genesis in the past when he says: "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by" Peter was talking about: "the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." This is a future event. Either way dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby) shows us that a day is as 1000 years. Without this Genesis maybe difficult to understand. If people wanna be OEC that is fine, but the days are going to be a different length. So that is why one is a 'shadow and a type' of the other.

 

[DogmaHunter]

JINX!

Great minds think alike.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Can cause"?

Wow -- just wow.

[sarcasm] Ya ... there's an outside chance that it might. [/sarcasm]

Without using science, show us that thalidomide causes birth defects.

 

[Loudmouth]

View attachment 162036

AV claims that science doesn't work and isn't reliable, so how can anyone claim that thalidomide causes cancer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be.

Macroevolution is a theory, first of all. You don't observe or repeat theories. Repeatable observations are what we use to test theories. They are not the theories themselves.

There is also a ton of support for macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.

I see this claim a lot, but no one can seem to back it up.

Why aren't the mutations that separate humans and chimps enough to explain the physical differences between humans and chimps?

Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.

99.9% of degreed biologists disagree. I think I will go with their opinion over someone who probably doesn't know much about biology.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh, this'll be good...

Careful licking the butter on that popcorn can give cats coronary artery disease. Why is it when we have all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips people only want to look at photos of cats?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd.

Background: Retroviruses insert randomly into host genomes. If this insertion happens in a sperm or egg cell, it can be passed vertically to offspring. Due to the random nature of retrovirus insertion, finding the same retroviral insertion (i.e., endogenous retrovirus or ERV) at the same base in two species means that there was a single insertion in a common ancestor. Independent insertions would produce insertions at different bases.

Hypothesis: If humans and chimps share a common ancestor, then the bulk of the ERV's found in their genomes will be found at the same base which is called an orthologous ERV.

Null hypothesis: If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, then the bulk of ERV's should be found at different bases in each genome, and there should be no phylogenetic signal for ERV sequences or placement in different primate species.

Test: Sequence the chimp and human genomes and find the placement of ERV's. Compare them.

Results: Of the over 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, 99.9% of them are found at the same base in the chimp genome.

Conclusion: This data strongly supports shared ancestry between humans and chimps.

Now please tell me how this isn't science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

AV claims that science doesn't work and isn't reliable, so how can anyone claim that thalidomide causes cancer?

Sorry double negatives are difficult for my mind to work with. Science is a flip of the coin, you got a 50% chance of being right. The women that trusted their doctor when they took thalidomide did not think they were flipping that coin. They did not know that taking that pill would cause birth defects for their children. That is why the consumer needs to beware. We need to be careful when dealing with science and not assume they know what they are talking about. Whenever anyone wants to sells you something then you got to be careful that they are not going to do you more harm then good. kævɛɑːt ˈɛmptɔr is Latin for "Let the buyer beware"

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you not heard of this?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.

Even someone who accepts evolution as a well supported theory could sign that petition since it doesn't say that evolution is wrong, only that we should look at it critically. I think all scientists agree that all theories should be looked at critically.

Even more, how many Steve's are on that list? A petition was started where only people named Steve, or variations on that name, could sign it. The petition asked the signees if they accepted evolution and rejected ID/Creationism. The petition has over 2,000 signatures. Given the small percentage of scientists with the name Steve, I think you can clearly see where the consensus is.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

 

[Armoured]

Careful licking the butter on that popcorn can give cats coronary artery disease. Why is it when we have all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips people only want to look at photos of cats?

How do you know butter can give cats heart disease?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Background: Retroviruses insert randomly into host genomes.

Actually there are studies that show insertion is not always random, and that Retroviruses do have targeted sites.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry double negatives are difficult for my mind to work with. Science is a flip of the coin, you got a 50% chance of being right. The women that trusted their doctor when they took thalidomide did not think they were flipping that coin.

If you reject science, how would you determine that your doctor is unreliable.

And I meant to say birth defects instead of cancer. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

We need to be careful when dealing with science and not assume they know what they are talking about.

So why do you suddenly trust them when they say that thalidomide causes birth defects?

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually there are studies that show insertion is not always random, and that Retroviruses do have targeted sites.

It is still random enough that less than 0.01% of insertions will happen at the same location from independent insertions. It can't explain why 99.9% of chimp and human ERV's are found at the same bases in each genome. Didn't I already show you this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do people today think that by Googling things makes them an expert? Google does not rank by truth you know. Try reading some text books.

And like I said, I differentiate between micro and macro evolution.

The problem is that you can't differentiate between the steps of the scientific method. You seem to stir them altogether, claiming that hypotheses need to be observable.

I read my own source, I'm wondering why you are failing to grasp such a simple concept but I will try one more time before giving up. There is a difference between macro and micro evolution, even if they are just different 'scales' of the apparently same phenomenon. But I do not accept the evidence of micro automatically extends as evidence of macro, I think macro needs its own evidence and on that front I'm not convinced by what scientists currently have, and neither are all evolutionary scientists. Now compare that to how many physicists doubt the theory of relativity..

The human and chimp genomes differ in 40 million places out of about 3 billion. In fact, here is a comparison of a short segment of those two genomes:

Out of 420 bases, there are 11 differences. What I want you to tell me is which of those differences could not have been produced by microevolutionary mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates. Unless you want to claim that science is killing less people now then before. I may give you that. If the CEO of general foods uses science to produce food that promotes heart disease, diabetes and cancer then all of a sudden you do not want science to have the credit for that, you want to blame the CEO that is using science to put money in his pocket.

It's just a coincidence that people are suddenly surviving leukemia during the same time that science has developed leukemia treatments?

http://serc.carleton.edu/woburn/overarching/leuk_treatment.html