Summations Only

But you are forgetting (or ignoring) the effects of mutation and selection.And both the genetic and fossil records show changes over large stretches of time that qualify as macroevolution, although they were the result of many small changes (small steps).

But you have to consider the time periods involved. YECs tend to underestimate just how long a few million years can be, and the changes that can occur during that time.If you have a few thousand microevolutionary steps over a couple of million years, and if you compare the first and last critters the differences could certainly be called macroevolution--though we don't tend to use that term as much as creationists do.

Your "proofs" have all been disproved.You just can't accept the evidence provided by the real world.Perhaps you should stick to the Faith and Belief threads, as you are committed to ignoring scientific evidence when it disproves your religious beliefs?????

That is a YEC belief, one which is not supported by evidence.See RAZD's threads on dating for the details.

Scientific theories (and data) must be susceptible to falsification.If it is claimed that certain theories and data can't be falsified, then that's not science.Its that simple.

Please edit.That was not my comment.

There are a lot of scientists in each of those fields who do understand the argument, the data, the theory and the scientific method. They can make a judgement. Neither can any other creationist. That's why they quote-mine, misrepresent, deny, ignore, and otherwise avoid dealing with the evidence.For example, I've brought up the dating issue on many of these threads. The dating evidence alone destroys the YEC claims and the idea of a global flood ca. 4350 years ago. RAZD has gone to great lengths in his dating threads showing how all the different dating methods agree with close tolerances. But as of yet no creationist has been able to do anything but try and hand-wave all that evidence away. (It hasn't gone away.)

Slight thread title change:

Nothing in biology (or any other science) makes sense in the light of creationism

You should also look at all of the religious mythology that has been disproved by modern science.The young earth and a global flood during historic times are two examples.Except that creationists don't accept the results of modern science when those results disprove their beliefs. Instead, they do their best to discredit or destroy those sciences.So yes, nothing in biology (or science) makes sense in the light of creationism. Creationism is anti-science.

RAZD commented on your lack of education in science. This post you made confirms it. Nothing in science is "proved" and those who expect proof are clearly unfamiliar with how science and scientific theories operate.Here are some definitions which may help in your studies:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

You are compounding your mistake.The facts of evolution are proved.The theory of evolution is the single best explanation for that given set of facts. And theories are never proved, but rather supported or disproved.If you had read my definitions instead of looking for a cheap "gotcha" you might have learned something.

But chimps can do a lot of things humans can't, so there is more "genetic information" around there somewhere to account for those functions.Your job is to quantify "genetic information" in some manner that accounts for both differences and similarities, and produces a reliable total that can be cross-compared.

Short term memory:
Chimps Have Better Short-term Memory Than Humans | Live ScienceStrategic reasoning:
Chimps Are Better at Strategic Reasoning Than Humans AreStrength and speed:
Chimpanzees vs. Humans: Sizing Up Their Strength - ABC News

Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia

Garden of Eden

​

The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[23] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity.

​

Advice from Ecclesiastes

​

Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[24]

​

A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope (a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken) is common to both books.

​

Noah's Flood

​

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[25] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[26] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[27] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

​

Other biblical parallels

​

Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[28]

​

While not directly discussed in the Epic itself, many of the characters in the Epic also have myths associated with them with close biblical parallels, notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. Some scholars suggest that this served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[29] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

Its an interesting question--why do creationists so often want to meddle in science and quibble about definitions?Its certainly not to benefit science.