Why are people afraid of creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

We cannot buy or sell energy that comes from God.

Simon tried that and was told by Paul:
"May your silver perish with you, because you thought through money to get possession of the free gift of God..." (Acts 8:20)

You are not using a standard definition of "energy".

You need to properly define your terms.

 

[sayak83]

That's science for you..
Science over stepping its boundaries..

Science does not recognize any artificial boundaries created by fundamentalists theologies and never will.
Maybe God inspired humans with science so that they can move away from man made fundamentalists ideas about Himself?

 

[Shakeel]

You are right, science isn't a conscious being. Neither is math or geography or literature. What is your point?

You don't have a habit of reading what you're responding to. That's why I usually ignore your questions because the answer is right there in the post you quoted.

 

[ecco]

You don't have a habit of reading what you're responding to. That's why I usually ignore your questions because the answer is right there in the post you quoted.

I'm not going to bother reposting the entire conversation. You posted what you posted. I commented on what you posted.

 

[Suave]

That's science for you..
Science over stepping its boundaries..

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. Many ERV insertion points are located in exactly the same position on our genome as on the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for these perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is a nearly impossible coincidence that endogenous retroviruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The probability that an endogenous retrovirus was inserted at the exact same location is roughly 0.00003 percent. Chimps and humans share 7 instances of endogenous retroviruses inserted at a perfectly matched location. There is at least a 99.9999999999999999999999999999 percent likelihood that it was a shared common ancestor between chimps and humans that became infected, and both chimps and humans inherited these ERVs.

( Edited) *Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry strongly suggest chimps and humans share a common ancestry:*

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

 

[ecco]

There is at least a 99.9999999999999999999999999999 percent likelihood that it was a shared common ancestor between chimps and humans that became infected, and both chimps and humans inherited these ERVs.

That doesn't prove Evolution over GodDidIt. When God created chimps he made them sorta-humanish to make mankind feel a kinship toward animals. He constructed them in similar fashions.

Of utmost importance is to acknowledge that only humans have a soul. This makes the difference between humans and chimps overwhelming.







As written by me, the above is sarcasm.

Fundamentalists, feel free to use it to destroy arguments that rely on comparative DNA. However, you need to credit me as the source.

 

[Suave]

That doesn't prove Evolution over GodDidIt. When God created chimps he made them sorta-humanish to make mankind feel a kinship toward animals. He constructed them in similar fashions.

Of utmost importance is to acknowledge that only humans have a soul. This makes the difference between humans and chimps overwhelming.



As written by me, the above is sarcasm.

Fundamentalists, feel free to use it to destroy arguments that rely on comparative DNA. However, you need to credit me as the source.

Which or what God-did-it? and Why?
Even if genetic coding were evidently created by extraterrestrial intelligence as demonstrated by intelligently construed mathematical patterns found therein, this might not reveal much about our genetic code's Creator.

 

[ecco]

Which or what God-did-it? and Why?

Which or what god? Whichever god a poster is trying to promote as The Creator instead of natural evolution.
Why? To promote the poster's god as The Creator instead of natural evolution.

 

[Suave]

Which or what god? Whichever god a poster is trying to promote as The Creator instead of natural evolution.
Why? To promote the poster's god as The Creator instead of natural evolution.

I find most people follow the god or a similar god they were taught to follow by influential people in their lives. For example, I was raised Presbyterian, and subsequently ended up following a similar religion, namely Methodist. I stopped following any theistic belief system upon realizing there is zero evidence supporting the actual existence of any particular theistic deity. Also, the notion of me being (edit) *an eternal* soul makes no sense to me, because I consider this hypothesis to be unverifiable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

95% of people accept it for no other reason than that it's a popular belief Claiming to believe due to evidence is mostly hypocrisy because most of what we believe is not due to evidence at all.

Speak for yourself.

Then, since I also reject anything in any other religion if it contradicts Islam, I'm anti-religion, too.

"anti-science" in the sense of anti basic principles of evidence and intellectually honest inquiry.

This is a basic principle of science. Nothing is sacred. Everything is questionable. Nothing is untouchable.
Off course, when one questions, one must provide valid reasoning and evidence to do so.

"i don't believe it", is not a valid objection.
That's just an argument from incredulity.

Well, for a scientist to openly object the theory of evolution could get them fired from many places - why not?

For pretty much the same reason that a flat earth wouldn't last long as a geographer. Or how a stork theorist would be kicked out of embryology research programs.

Like I said, that would make any atheists opinion about religion irrelevant as well.

Only if the atheist takes an a priori intellectually dishonest approach to it.
The issue here is not you "not believing" science. The issue is the reason why.

I don't need my opinions to be thought of as relevant, but I doubt you would consider that logic to work the other way around.

It works in every way in all directions. When you are going to discuss a topic, any topic, and come at it from an a priori intellectually dishonest standpoint, then yeah - your opinion is, in the words of Joey Tribianni, "like a cow's opinion: It's moo".

The topic is evidence in religion as well.

Religion has none. Religion has "faith" instead.

You said the egg was first, did you not?

Yes, the non-chicken ancestors of chickens, were egg-layers.



[/QUOTE]

 

[Astrophile]

Simon tried that and was told by Paul:
"May your silver perish with you, because you thought through money to get possession of the free gift of God..." (Acts 8:20)

It was Peter, not Paul, who rebuked Simon.

 

[GardenLady]

Of utmost importance is to acknowledge that only humans have a soul.

What is the evidence for this assertion?

 

[ecco]

Of utmost importance is to acknowledge that only humans have a soul. This makes the difference between humans and chimps overwhelming.

What is the evidence for this assertion?

Did you really miss this part of my post...

As written by me, the above is sarcasm.

Fundamentalists, feel free to use it to destroy arguments that rely on comparative DNA. However, you need to credit me as the source.

 

[Neuropteron]

It was Peter, not Paul, who rebuked Simon.

Thank you, my mistake.

 

[Polymath257]

The bird must have resembled what was in the egg. Or did a dinosaur lay the first chicken?

Birds are descended from dinosaurs, yes. Chickens evolved much later, so their immediate ancestors would have been a similar type of bird.

Once again, species boundaries are not precise. They are broad and cover multiple generations.

Again, sort of like how languages change over time. There wasn't a 'first French speaker'. The language changed over the course of generations from a language that was not French into a language that is. The same happened for English. Nobody spoke English 2000 years ago. And the language spoken 1000 years ago was so different that nobody today would understand it without training. But there was no 'first English speaker'.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you can't say the egg came first because that was the first chicken. The implication was quite clear. You even affirmed it. Inclining to illogical thinking is a fault in intelligence.

There was no 'first chicken'. The boundary between 'non-chicken' and 'chicken' isn't a fine line. It is a broad area that took many generations to cross.

 

[Polymath257]

But someone I quoted said the egg came first. That's what I'm responding to.

Eggs came before chickens. The ancestors of chickens laid eggs.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure.

I don't know who makes the boundaries, but for us, as far as I know, it is simply a matter of accepting what there is proper evidence for and that which does not contradict the teachings.

What if the evidence contradicts the teachings? Shouldn't we follow the evidence wherever it leads? even if it leads to questioning the teachings?

 

[Polymath257]

I was already told it did address it.

Does science have a definition for a chicken?

Not a hard line definition as you seem to expect. Chickens are defined by having most of a collection of properties. But not all chickens have all of those properties, nor are the properties themselves precisely delineated.

 

[Suave]

Birds are descended from dinosaurs, yes. Chickens evolved much later, so their immediate ancestors would have been a similar type of bird.

Once again, species boundaries are not precise. They are broad and cover multiple generations.

Again, sort of like how languages change over time. There wasn't a 'first French speaker'. The language changed over the course of generations from a language that was not French into a language that is. The same happened for English. Nobody spoke English 2000 years ago. And the language spoken 1000 years ago was so different that nobody today would understand it without training. But there was no 'first English speaker'.

Actually, I can understand some Old English without having been well versed in this language. For example, Gōdne mergen means Good Morning. I could have guessed the meaning of this Old English greeting without having been schooled in understanding Old English.