Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's what I do not get. Evolution was created by Darwin, and he was not intending to do anything against religion. He was a Christian and he just made observations and developed a theory. Creationism was literally created to be an anti-evolution theory. Religion is always counter-active, it never comes up with anything on its own to support itself, it just spend s all its time trying to dismiss anything that makes you question religious dogma. But I will take it a step further.
Do people who believe in creationism believe in DNA? Because if they do then why do they find it unfathomable that we evolved from an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago when there is the Bonobo.
Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. Initial genetic studies have characterized their DNA as much as 98% (99.4 in one study) identical to that of Homo sapiens. More recent studies have shown that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.[11]
If we were all created simultaneously by a deity then why would we have such a close DNA match with Chimps and Bonobos??? In fact why would any species DNA be similar to anything else's, should'nt they all have a distinct genetic code so the species keeps replicating, its not like they need to evolve ever...
You do realize that science has also shown that such a close DNA match is still very far seperated. If I recall we share 97% with pigs and 89% with dogs, and I believe something like 93% with birds and I believe between 90 and 97% with many sea creatures. I am working from memory here so my numbers may be off a little.
Robin said...."Actually, if we are all honest, small gradual changes in some systems would be illogical without a designer. So science and the Bible are not in conflict here except for the fact science does not want to consider the designer theory."
I would have thought that since you think God is the designer that it would be illogical for changes to be required. Why didn't he do the job right in the first place?
The part I bolded is absolutely NOT true. It's a common misconception that 'Mitochondrial Eve' is the one common ancestor. If there was only one man and one woman, humans would have gone extinct due to a population bottleneck...
The bottom line is that, in courts of law, creationists have had the opportunity to present their best evidence in order to determine whether the creation hypothesis could be considered valid science to be taught in classrooms.
The best minds of creationism have never been able to present any such evidence that held up to scrutiny while those on the evolutionary side have presented their evidence. That's a pretty big knock against this entire premise.
The bottom line is that, in courts of law, creationists have had the opportunity to present their best evidence in order to determine whether the creation hypothesis could be considered valid science to be taught in classrooms.
The best minds of creationism have never been able to present any such evidence that held up to scrutiny while those on the evolutionary side have presented their evidence. That's a pretty big knock against this entire premise.
Maybe I finally get it - creationism is a faith-based method and stands up to that scruitiny. Scientific methods are simply not that advanced.
Robin said...."Actually, if we are all honest, small gradual changes in some systems would be illogical without a designer. So science and the Bible are not in conflict here except for the fact science does not want to consider the designer theory."
I would have thought that since you think God is the designer that it would be illogical for changes to be required. Why didn't he do the job right in the first place?
I you would read what I wrote rather than putting your own spin on it then perhaps you will see that He did do it right the first time. But did you ever consider He set everything up for further diversity within the genetic code? Unfortunately your question is condensending rather than adding to the conversation.
The bottom line is that, in courts of law, creationists have had the opportunity to present their best evidence in order to determine whether the creation hypothesis could be considered valid science to be taught in classrooms.
The best minds of creationism have never been able to present any such evidence that held up to scrutiny while those on the evolutionary side have presented their evidence. That's a pretty big knock against this entire premise.
Actually the scientific community does not take the creationists serious enough for such a court case to be arbitrated. They are usually thrown out before they get to the courts. Like I also said the conflict is not really between creation and evolution but between creation and abiogenesis. While evolusion can be explained by ID just as well as by science.
Actually scientist have traced the DNA back to one woman in Africa as being all of mans common ancestor, this was on National Geographic. So even science gives creadence to one man and one woman even if the timeframe is different.
.
Oh good grief, not this again? You need to study up on mitochondrial "Eve" and just exactly what that means. It is NOT espousing the Adam and Eve malarkey at all. You merely heard what you wanted when you watched the show you did.
Also, not only is mitochondrial Eve not recent science anymore, it has been proven that mtDNA can also be inherited from your male parent, thus pretty much blowing the lid off all ya'll who want to think it actually means Eve-from-the-bible (which it didn't in any case, it was a stupid label to give it because it doesn't in any way prove one-man-one-woman beginning to humans).
Bleah. Don't you read up on anything before making claims about what they mean? I dare you to Google "mitochondrial Eve" and read the first ten links that come up. Go ahead, I dare you.
No because other religions are just theories while Christianity is fact.
Because the Christian view of creationism lines up with scientific evidence.
This is your opinion, but all religions are not equal, Christianity is superior to all because we have Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, and plenty of scientific evidence for our beliefs.
Gee most people think the holy war is only in the middle east. There are religious fanatic groups right here in this country. I'm glad to see Home Land Security is aware of these folks.
Actually the scientific community does not take the creationists serious enough for such a court case to be arbitrated. They are usually thrown out before they get to the courts. Like I also said the conflict is not really between creation and evolution but between creation and abiogenesis. While evolusion can be explained by ID just as well as by science.
Whatever happens "usually" is irrelevant. We're not talking about the scientific community. We're talking about the legal system. Such court cases have been tried with full opportunity and legal protections afforded the creationists to make their claims in full and be heard before a jury. They have failed to make a convincing argument.
Not thrown out. Look it up. National Geographic I believe has a whole documentary on one court case. I think you're simply trying to protect your views rather than seek truth objectively.
btw - it's spelled evolution. Perhaps a typo, but if you're going to argue against a scientific theory, it doesn't help your credibility in having studied the theory to make an informed argument if you don't even know how to spell the title.
A brief aside in reference to your other post - whatever Thomas Jefferson's personal spiritual struggles were, he was adament about keeping our nation free of state religion. He could see beyond his own personal struggles to the larger needs of mankind. That's why we can't just let one religion's creation myth be adopted without scientific evidence. Science changes, so there is always hope, but as of today it is not a valid position for science class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe I finally get it - creationism is a faith-based method and stands up to that scruitiny. Scientific methods are simply not that advanced.