Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Perfection, Nov 21, 2007.
Who are you invoking it upon?
Indeed. It isn't true just because Darwin said it.
More scientific justification for Creationism! Please
I do apologize for adding fuel to the fire in that regard, but I'd like to read Dom's response to my post via PM if he has one.
Don't apologize! It's a perfectly legitimate discussion that I think you folks should have. I just would like it moved to a different location.
Eran's thread is still open maybe you could continue the discussion there.
I was wondering if anyone was following Susan Lindquist's work on epigenetic inheritance? It's a form of non-genetic phenotypic inheritance, passed on through the mother. Prions in the egg have their shape determined by the mother's environment, and then the embryos proteins are determined (in their shape) by the conformations induced by the prions.
In this way, phenotype can be inherited along the maternal line, until a baby is born that doesn't have the prions 'activated'.
Got any links?
How can it be "scientifically accurate" when you reject the part of science that contradict it ?
Nice circular reasoning here, you consider it true because "it's always been correct", but then you discard every time when it's contradicted.
It's quite hard to prove or deduct anything when you take the result you want and just ignore everything that doesn't agree with it.
Apologies for the necro, but seeing as this thread got revived after being inactive in 2009, I was just wondering if we had actually settled things and that there were no more defenses of creationism as "science".
I actually read this whole thing from post 1 until now, and I enjoyed it very much, especially the Proofs of God's existence and God is Imaginary links.
I also saw very little offered in the way of a defense of creationism as "science", but a valiant effort by perhaps one person. Still fell short of anything besides a semantic nitpick and really off-the-wall interpretation of the Bible.
Means you reject science that you don't like, which means you accept the Bible and reject anything not endorsed by the bible, which means you reject science.
Furthermore, the "book" being referred to here.... always correct? Wow.
Not only is it logically, literally, physically, provably incorrect in more ways than I can count, but it is also incorrect in ways that can't be proven, because it's so wrong that it's "not even wrong". Like Timecube.com. Half of what's written in the Bible is precisely this kind of absurd unprovable illogical nonsensical purposeless arbitrary mind-numbing ranting. Comparing it to science is like comparing college students doing calculus to monkeys throwing feces at each other.
Suggesting that the feces-throwing is "scientifically accurate" has some kind of special higher meaning that transcends calculus simply because it has been around longer and has always predicted what will happen throughout history and has never been wrong, is so wrong, that it is both provably wrong and not provably wrong, beyond the realm of "not even wrong" and into the realm of aggressively, pathologically, brain-stabbingly wrong.
One good thing about the Bible not being a science book is that it is not continually being updated and being found out of date, like many scientific theories in the past.
The greatest evidence against Evolution is the fact that we do not see the amount of information adding mutations, if any that are required for this gradual process over millions of years and more we learn about you genome, the harder it is getting for us to have evolved from apes to humans, let alone the first step from bacteria, since the gap between us growing after every new study on that area and we are finding more areas of our genome being as functional, rather than just useless junk.
No, that's not a good thing about the Bible. It is probably the worst thing about it (disregarding the racism, homophobia and misogyny).
Are you talking about information theory?
Because it's a lot more complex than simply 'adding information'.
It's just being re-interpreted at will.
6 days. Those aren't days, it could be millions of years! No they're not, it was literally 6 days. Wake me up when you guys grow a consensus on what the Bible actually says.
Of course you can't observe a billion year process! Comparisons are made to genomes of sequenced species and inferences are made based on changes. Orthologous and Paralogous comparisons for example. Also examination of retroposon elements' activity/inactivity across speciations.
The functional non-coding gene areas of the genome are a newer discovery as you say but they serve much the same function and can be examined as regulatory genes.
None of that invalidates evolution, nor supports creationism.
Whoever said you must observe a scientific theory?
The greatest argument against TOE is that it has contradicting evidence for genetic mutation over gradual amounts of time.
The paleontology evidence is clear. It demonstrates not slow gradual changes but sudden and abrupt, as if out of the thin air.
One thing that might be considered is a pulse of energy through consciousness that is universal. This is consistent with the evidence at least.
As it stands, the standard theory cannot be observed or falsified and so in my mind is a postulate at best.
And how does that prove creationism in any way? Creationism and evolution are not polar opposites - you do not prove creationism by casting doubt on the total accuracy of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
What does this mean? Translation for the layperson?
That is a misunderstanding of the paleontology. The evidence is that these changes are abrupt. But Abrupt relative to geological processes. These changes still occur on the orders of many many thousands of years. In geological time, 100,000 years is nearly the blink of an eye.
Because religions don't make progress?
So you claim to know how much mutation is required for evolution to be true, please tell us, and tell us your source too.
Separate names with a comma.