|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation science II | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
"Scientists are not defending evolution because they hate creationists or because they think Darwin was a swell guy."
No, they see natural selection as a fact of nature and try to justify it's existence because it's so inherently cruel. Once they have built this God-Principal they spend the rest of their lives trying to justify it's existence and enthrone it as a deity. Fortunately, it's just a tiny little portion of our world that acts in a very un-godly like manner where the weak die. It's not a fundamental force that caused life to come into being. It's part of a decaying process that will eventually be laid to rest itself. An infinitely inferior degradation of the process that built the cosmos. Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Hello and welcome, -Sky-. (snip)...this will show you the markup they used to make their post. Thanks Jack. I wondered what "peek" was for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Ring species demonstrate mutation and evolution, and all of the intermediates (transitionals) are still there to be studied. Never heard of them. So it doesn't qualify as "All pervasive, blatant, or clearly foundational" then does it. OK... I just researched it. Again, Darwin's mistake. The idea that because a salamander has a lot of natural variation built into it's DNA that it will evolve into some other creature given enough stress in it's life. Sorry.Yes, lots of variation. No, that's due to mindless mutations. There are limits to how far the particular animal can change, and likely none of that range is due to genetic mutation. More likely is that those limits will all become more obvious when we declassify the purpose of "junk DNA". The idea that it's all just leftovers is being eaten away by "Science" a little bit every day. That's why I'm both an advocate of Science and a critic of Scientific Historians who rewrite their findings to their own liking. My disdain is for branches of "Science", who produce nothing of value to humans. Like the idea that organic mud is my source of life. Mud should taste better then at least. And look nicer on ones face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Even if we didn't have a single fossil the genetic evidence would be more than enough to point to the theory of evolution. Any reason then that most Geneticists believe that God is responsible for the creation of DNA? - Sky-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
So what predictions does creation science make when it comes to specific comparisons of DNA between species? Any? How are these predictions testable?
1. That all evolutionary "Series" will be thrown out.To my knowledge - yes 2. That all "species" or whatever designation you use will show up farther and farther back in the fossil record. Yes 3. That the DNA comparisons will have the same structure as my Avatar. Similar parts will be found suitable for similar uses. -Tires made of rubber. -Axles help the wheels turn. -Metal creates a framework -Red is a pretty color All of those findings point to a common source. Yet none evolved from the other by way of mutation. Common data but different conclusions. 4. Darwins branches on the tree will ALL have separate sources with no branching at all. Take a sideways slice through every branch. That's the direction real science and DNA is taking us. Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given. - Sky-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Who are you to pass judgment on the value of a whole branch of science? It's WAY smaller and MUCH more unless than you imagine. For proof, you suggest no actual benefits...because you can't think of any. The concept that one species will mutate into another species has no value to humankind. What's to judge? There is nothing there. As for Inherent Variation in a species DNA, I like it. It helps me tell you apart from mud. And it helps keep the animals around for us to eat them. Not that I get a huge kick out of that, but it is what it is. Why does every state in the union have laws that separate humans from animals? Because we aren't. Edited by -Sky-, : Eating my words...(kidding).....spelling...add a sig...the usual. - Sky-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Once again, who IS they? There is no evolution conspiracy. If I come across ANY evidence disproving evolution by natural selection in my research, you can bet I will publish, publish, publish, and then you can clap as I receive my Nobel prize. I am not the only one who would do this either. However, until I find this type of evidence, or someone else does, I and the rest of the scientific community will accept evolution as a fact, and evolution by natural selection as a valid theory. I guess you haven't figured out yet that it's a Spiritual problem. Even some Evo's have published that. People MUST embrace the mud or else admit they have done wrong against what they know it "right". Admit that they are designed for good, yet do wrong. Embracing the mud is the only way out after they have done what they are not designed to do. Animals don't have this problem. They don't go nuts after killing others. We do, because we are designed better than they are. It's a "spiritual conspiracy" inherent in man. - Sky-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Similar parts will be found suitable for similar uses. The tetrapod forelimb is used as a leg, arm, wing, and flipper. That prediction fails as well. That would be a similar structure being used for similar uses. Yet you are quite blind to that because instead of"body appendage for locomotion" you chose different names for each even though they all accomplish the same task. - Sky-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5152 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
...Would you care to take on the task of presenting evidence that "creation science" is indeed science and not just thinly-disguised religion? Mind you, this would need to include evidence for creation and not just claims against evolution... Sorry. "Creation Science" is no more or less faith based than the religious creeds I left behind in that one chapter in H.S. biology class covering Darwin's Evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024