Can any creationist tell me ...

[DavidFirth]

DNA similarity indicates relatedness.

You need to read over the articles, and my last post where I pointed out how scientists were able to map out and detect the genetic alterations that occurred over tens of millions of years that resulted in the digestive, metabolic and musculatory differences between the big cats that were included in the study. The degree of relatedness between living creatures helps us determine where they fall along the phylogenetic tree. It’s a pretty good method (one of many) for helping scientists figure out what came from what or that “one came from the other.” Read up on comparative genomics sometime.


“The tiger shares 95.6 percent of its genome with the domestic cat, from which it diverged about 10.8 million years ago, the comparison showed.

In addition, several genes were altered in metabolic pathways associated with protein digestion and metabolism, or how the body uses fuel like food to power cells. Those changes, which evolved over tens of millions of years, likely enable the majestic felines to digest and rely solely on meat, Bhak said.

Big cats also have several mutations that make for powerful, fast-acting muscles — a necessity when chasing down prey.

The team also found two genes in the snow leopard that allow it to thrive in the low-oxygen conditions of its high-altitude habitat in the Himalayan Mountains. Those genetic changes are similar to ones found in the naked mole rat, which also lives in low-oxygen conditions, though underground. In addition, the genetic analysis identified the mutations that give Bengal tigers and white African lions their distinctive white coats, Bhak said.”House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals

The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes

Actually, chimps are quite intelligent and not actually stupid at all. You should read up on chimps as well.


We didn't descend from chimps, rather, we share a common ancestor with them. Nobody is asserting that chimps are human. Chimps and humans are however, both Homininae.

"DNA similarity indicates relatedness."
No, it does not. It indicates DNA similarities and that's all it indicates. The relatedness is a figment of the imaginations of scientists.

You cannot prove we share a similar ancestor with chimps. This is a figment of the imaginations of scientists. Similar DNA means similar DNA. That's all it means.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am familiar with this "self-correcting method." YEC science is often biased against and not published in "serious scientific journals" who use this "self-correcting method." It was set up to exclude them on purpose due bias against them.

If YEC science is "biased against" it's because it wants to assert things that are untestable and not demonstrable and therefore not a part of science. YEC is based on an unsupported assertion. Figure out how to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural and you'll only have just begun the process of trying to prove that the earth is young and that the specific god YECers believe in did it. Science is indeed biased against the non demonstrable, undetectable and untestable.

Scientific journals were established long before this YEC movement came onto the scene. Your assertion is a silly one.

Yeah, you lock them out and you use your fallacious "Argument from Authority" logic to discredit them. So much for so called, "Unbiased non-preferential" scientists. They don't exist.

I haven't used the argument from authority so I don't know what you're talking about.

You're really not following here. You're still talking about individuals, while I'm talking about the tool we use to discover things about our world - that being the scientific method. It's this process of information gathering, testing, experimentation and repetition that is self-correcting. If somebody else can't replicate your work, it's not going to be accepted.

 

[DavidFirth]

If YEC science is "biased against" it's because it wants to assert things that are untestable and not demonstrable and therefore not a part of science. YEC is based on an unsupported assertion. Figure out how to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural and you'll only have just begun the process of trying to prove that the earth is young and that the specific god YECers believe in did it. Science is indeed biased against the non demonstrable, undetectable and untestable.

Scientific journals were established long before this YEC movement came onto the scene. Your assertion is a silly one.



I haven't used the argument from authority so I don't know what you're talking about.

You're really not following here. You're still talking about individuals, while I'm talking about the tool we use to discover things about our world - that being the scientific method. It's this process of information gathering, testing, experimentation and repetition that is self-correcting. If somebody else can't replicate your work, it's not going to be accepted.

"Science is indeed biased against the non demonstrable, undetectable and untestable." No, it isn't. Surely you are not going to tell me that macroevolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis are testable. Atheists speculate about those theories, they can't test them. Yet they accept them as fact. Now that's you contradicting your own argument.

The argument from authority I'm talking about is:
"Scientific journals were established long before this YEC movement came onto the scene."
So what? Just because they were established by people who think in terms of millions of years - before YEC science came onto the scene it means they can just exclude it? I don't think so, not in my world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't need evidence. I'm pretty sure I'm right and if I'm not then I'm not.

I don't buy into your theory of the truthful scientist. They're sinners just like everybody else, no better, no worse.

A dangerous statement indeed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"DNA similarity indicates relatedness."
No, it does not. It indicates DNA similarities and that's all it indicates. The relatedness is a figment of the imaginations of scientists.

Of course it does. Please explain in detail how it does not. If we carried out a DNA test on your parents and compared it to yours, what do you think it would show?

You're just saying silly and unreasonable things now. Which I guess I should expect from a person who believes things without evidence.

You cannot prove we share a similar ancestor with chimps. This is a figment of the imaginations of scientists. Similar DNA means similar DNA. That's all it means.

It can be demonstrated via a variety of different methods, and has been. Stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring it isn't a very reasonable response. I expect more from thinking human beings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"Science is indeed biased against the non demonstrable, undetectable and untestable." No, it isn't. Surely you are not going to tell me that macroevolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis are testable.

All of those things are testable. They are physical phenomena that take place in a physical universe which is more than can be said about god(s).


FYI: Many religious-minded people accepted the theory of evolution, big bang and the rest of science. Science isn't about atheism. It's about evidence.

Yet they accept them as fact. Now that's you contradicting your own argument.

Again, they are testable. Read some literature sometime. Ever heard of cosmic background radiation? Comparative genomics? The Urey-Miller experiments?

The argument from authority I'm talking about is:
"Scientific journals were established long before this YEC movement came onto the scene."

I think you need to look up what the argument from authority actually is.

So what? Just because they were established by people who think in terms of millions of years - before YEC science came onto the scene it means they can just exclude it? I don't think so, not in my world.

So what? You just asserted that, "YEC science is often biased against and not published in "serious scientific journals" who use this "self-correcting method." It was set up to exclude them on purpose due bias against them." That's what.

You know, many of the scientists who laid the ground work for an old earth were actually Christians putting their beliefs aside and doing proper science.

Scientists don't accept YEC because all evidence indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. We must follow where the evidence leads.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

There those Christians that have no idea what God's word will say nor what God's word confirm's.
Alot of Christians will tell you that everything started back in Genesis in the creation week of Adam and Eve.

Then comes the question, If the creation week is where supposedly the earth is only 6000 years old, but then the dinosaurs bones date back to Millions of years ago.

You see the dinosaurs bones are God's witnesses of the world that then was.

You see Christians are taught by man's teachings and doctrines. Unto which I am not one of them, I go by what God reveals in His word. That the earth is not 6000. Years old, But Millions of years old.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

To answer your question, because alot of Christians can not accept the fact that the earth is Millions of years old. Because of man's teaching and doctrines. So Christians will exalt man's teachings and doctrines over God's teachings, thereby making the word of God void.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't buy into your theory of the truthful scientist. They're sinners just like everybody else, no better, no worse.

So are the people who wrote, copied, translated, re-translated, edited, and re-re-translated the Bible.

 

[Jose Fly]

Surely you are not going to tell me that macroevolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis are testable. Atheists speculate about those theories, they can't test them.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

"Science is indeed biased against the non demonstrable, undetectable and untestable." No, it isn't. Surely you are not going to tell me that macroevolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis are testable. Atheists speculate about those theories, they can't test them. Yet they accept them as fact. Now that's you contradicting your own argument.

The argument from authority I'm talking about is:
"Scientific journals were established long before this YEC movement came onto the scene."
So what? Just because they were established by people who think in terms of millions of years - before YEC science came onto the scene it means they can just exclude it? I don't think so, not in my world.

Just saying David, the Human Genome Project was headed up by a Christian, Francis Sellers Collins.
NIH Fact Sheets - Human Genome Project Being a Christian doesn't mean you have to be anti-science.

 

[blü 2]

To answer your question, because alot of Christians can not accept the fact that the earth is Millions of years old. Because of man's teaching and doctrines. So Christians will exalt man's teachings and doctrines over God's teachings, thereby making the word of God void.

Do you mean that those Christians who can't accept the fact that the earth is ~4.5 bn years old and that life' s been around for more than 3.5 bn years, do so because they're ignorant of science?

In your view, is it good to be ignorant of science?

 

[blü 2]

"Science is indeed biased against the non demonstrable, undetectable and untestable." No, it isn't. Surely you are not going to tell me that macroevolution, big bang theory and abiogenesis are testable.

There's no doubt that abiogenesis happened. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking here.

How it happened is presently a mix of potentially helpful evidence and gaps in the chain from chemistry to active biochemistry.

Did you ever address my question whether you'll cease to be a creo if science shows in the lab a path from chemistry to life? What was the answer?

Macroevolution and the Big Bang are the subject of theories that have proved to be robust when tested. If you want to doubt them, then you'll need to point to your complaint about the science.

Which is why it would be a great start if you set out to understand science. The filling in of that Grand Canyon begins with a single shovelful of learning.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Did you ever address my question whether you'll cease to be a creo if science shows in the lab a path from chemistry to life? What was the answer?

I remember hearing a cleric, more than thirty years ago, speak on this topic. He said it would just mean we have discovered "how God did it". You'll never win blü 2!

 

[DavidFirth]

Just saying David, the Human Genome Project was headed up by a Christian, Francis Sellers Collins.
NIH Fact Sheets - Human Genome Project Being a Christian doesn't mean you have to be anti-science.

I understand that. I am not anti-science. I believe science supports the Bible. I do not believe in much of what scientists accept as fact, though. Way too many assumptions are made without all the facts needed to make the leap of faith scientists make in many of their theories.

 

[DavidFirth]

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html

" I test UCA by applying model selection theory5, 16"

Great. He tests one theory by applying another theory to it. That's a far cry from recreating and testing big bang theory, macroevolution theory and abiogenesis.

To properly test those 3 theories would require 1) recreating the big bang and also recreating conditions before the big bang, 2) starting with the first organism and waiting millions of years to see if it changes, 3) abiogenesis is not possible to test because no lab can be made exactly like conditions in which non-life became life randomly.

A theoretical test is just making another assumption about the theory you're testing.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Do you mean that those Christians who can't accept the fact that the earth is ~4.5 bn years old and that life' s been around for more than 3.5 bn years, do so because they're ignorant of science?

In your view, is it good to be ignorant of science?

Yes that is the Exactly what I mean, Little do people know that God's word in the bible.supportes that the earth is Millions of yrs old and not 6000 yrs old.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I understand that. I am not anti-science. I believe science supports the Bible. I do not believe in much of what scientists accept as fact, though. Way too many assumptions are made without all the facts needed to make the leap of faith scientists make in many of their theories.

I sort of agree, but what we know from "science", even if it is an inference, it is based on solid researched evidence, where people have gone out to discover "how things are" without presupposition. What you offer is, at best, an inference from ignorant (nothing derogatory, I just mean they had far less knowledge than we do) ancient writ where people make bald assertions. There is, I'd contend, good reason to challenge the biblical account. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, there is every chance it is false.
I have a problem with you saying that science "supports" the bible, it is in conflict with it in many ways, you need to employ a great deal of metaphorical interpretation to bring the two together. Some Christians do that, I did myself when I was a Christian, doesn't mean I was luke warm (far from it), just that I wasn't prepared to surrender my intellect. I didn't have any choice in the matter, we cannot choose our beliefs.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I sort of agree, but what we know from "science", even if it is an inference, it is based on solid researched evidence, where people have gone out to discover "how things are" without presupposition. What you offer is, at best, an inference from ignorant (nothing derogatory, I just mean they had far less knowledge than we do) ancient writ where people make bald assertions. There is, I'd contend, good reason to challenge the biblical account. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise, there is every chance it is false.
I have a problem with you saying that science "supports" the bible, it is in conflict with it in many ways, you need to employ a great deal of metaphorical interpretation to bring the two together. Some Christians do that, I did myself when I was a Christian, doesn't mean I was luke warm (far from it), just that I wasn't prepared to surrender my intellect. I didn't have any choice in the matter, we cannot choose our beliefs.

The bible and the archaeology scientist both Supporte each other. The bible proves the earth to be over a Million of yrs old and the same with the archaeologist scientist proves the earth as being Million of yrs old and the dinosaurs bones proves the earth as being over Million of yrs old. All Three are in the Supporting of each other.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

The bible and the archaeology scientist both Supporte each other. The bible proves the earth to be over a Million of yrs old and the same with the archaeologist scientist proves the earth as being Million of yrs old and the dinosaurs bones proves the earth as being over Million of yrs old. All Three are in the Supporting of each other.

Care to tell me where the bible indicates the world is over a million years old? You are raising the hackles of young Earth creationists with such heresy!