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.
DNA could also be used to demonstrate the idea of common design.
Data can be massaged to "prove" evolution...if you want it to. Of course, it still doesn't explain stuff like the cambrian explosion, or irreducible complexity.
What explosion?...I already explained to you that the Cambrian period lasted more than 50 million years...One can hardly call it an explosion...Giving that name to this period was probably not a great choice, especially for people like yourself who take things literally.
Data is not "massaged", nor does it have to be to prove evolution. How do you think DNA could be used to prove creation, and if it could why has no attempt been made to obtain this proof?
By the way I would really like to visit the creation museum one day...I enjoyed my visits to Disney Land and other fantasy parks Ive been to.
I just saw a show on the Discovery Channel the other day suggesting that dragons might have been based on real-life creatures. It's not that far fetched.
That's nice but you've confused two different claims.
"Dragon myths might have been based on real-life creatures": I don't think too mant people would disagree with this. Some people say dragons myths come from our fear of reptiles, some say a person with an incredible imagination saw a very big bird. Heck, for all we know an ancient person stumbled upon the fossilized cranium of a T-rex and came up with a backstory for it.
"Dinosaurs and humans coexisted": This one I find really far-fetched. Even most Christians find the idea of dinosaurs wearing saddles to be comical since every argument for it requires ignoring every argument against it and the opposition isn't just based on a biological standpoint.
There is also a third claim proposed by some creationists:
"Dragons really existed": Based on the descriptions of the Behemoth and the Leviathan in the bible, Campbell claimed that there were fire breathing dragons living until not too long ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
But you're as guilty as anyone of thread-jacking and subject-changing.
You're not listening. My 2 complaints about these threads are:
1. Achilles hell fallacy: Thinking that finding a hole(whether true or not) or gap in knowledge in a theory is enough to invalidate it.
2. False dichotomies: You already know all about these. Invalidating evolution would not imply creationism, creationism needs to stand on it's own merits instead of branding every science as lies perpetrated by an evil or deluded group.
That's nice but you've confused two different claims.
"Dragon myths might have been based on real-life creatures": I don't think too mant people would disagree with this. Some people say dragons myths come from our fear of reptiles, some say a person with an incredible imagination saw a very big bird. Heck, for all we know an ancient person stumbled upon the fossilized cranium of a T-rex and came up with a backstory for it.
"Dinosaurs and humans coexisted": This one I find really far-fetched. Even most Christians find the idea of dinosaurs wearing saddles to be comical since every argument for it requires ignoring every argument against it and the opposition isn't just based on a biological standpoint.
There is also a third claim proposed by some creationists:
"Dragons really existed": Based on the descriptions of the Behemoth and the Leviathan in the bible, Campbell claimed that there were fire breathing dragons living until not too long ago.
You're not listening. My 2 complaints about these threads are:
1. Achilles hell fallacy: Thinking that finding a hole(whether true or not) or gap in knowledge in a theory is enough to invalidate it.
2. False dichotomies: You already know all about these. Invalidating evolution would not imply creationism, creationism needs to stand on it's own merits instead of branding every science as lies perpetrated by an evil or deluded group.
That is a great picture, what is the story behind it, and could you post the link?
By believers in evolution telling everyone they have found the missing link when they have not. By having artistic drawings displayed everwhere showing fictitious pictures of non existant transionals. ect. I could give you numerous examples of this sort of thing.
That's nice but you've confused two different claims.
"Dragon myths might have been based on real-life creatures": I don't think too mant people would disagree with this. Some people say dragons myths come from our fear of reptiles, some say a person with an incredible imagination saw a very big bird. Heck, for all we know an ancient person stumbled upon the fossilized cranium of a T-rex and came up with a backstory for it.
"Dinosaurs and humans coexisted": This one I find really far-fetched. Even most Christians find the idea of dinosaurs wearing saddles to be comical since every argument for it requires ignoring every argument against it and the opposition isn't just based on a biological standpoint.
There is also a third claim proposed by some creationists:
"Dragons really existed": Based on the descriptions of the Behemoth and the Leviathan in the bible, Campbell claimed that there were fire breathing dragons living until not too long ago.
You're not listening. My 2 complaints about these threads are:
1. Achilles hell fallacy: Thinking that finding a hole(whether true or not) or gap in knowledge in a theory is enough to invalidate it.
2. False dichotomies: You already know all about these. Invalidating evolution would not imply creationism, creationism needs to stand on it's own merits instead of branding every science as lies perpetrated by an evil or deluded group.
Well I know the idea of a man riding on a Triceratops may sound a little over the top. However, there are Inca bruial stones that do depict dinosaurs, and there is one that does show us a man riding on top of a Triceratops smoking a pipe. Consider the link below.
Well I know the idea of a man riding on a Triceratops may sound a little over the top. However, there are Inca bruial stones that do depict dinosaurs, and there is one that does show us a man riding on top of a Triceratops smoking a pipe. Consider the link below.
No, the difference is in the degree of willingness to explore alternatre ideas, tom. We all make assumptions. None are spared. You assume you've talked to a real god, but since I "know" there isn't one, just who, then, did you actually talk to, I ask?
Sigh... C34 & kd, please read my next post, following this one. It'll be my last here, though I'll of course look for your wonderful, open-minded responses.
I love it, coos... open your brain too far and it will fall out. Hee Hee! Actually, I did go to this fantasy sight, whose only purpose is to mis-inform those who desperately want and need that.
I can't seem to get the fundies to go to my links though... Whose minds are clouded and clamped shut here? I'll go on record and state that it is NEVER a true scientist who is afraid to look at anything new. It's just that after a while, we've seen everything that Xtianity has to offer, and, given that tiresome and endless replay, we have, you bet, formed some inescapable conclusions. There's nothing new from them, except when they try to glom onto a new scientific discovery and bend it to their nefarious needs. (aka: Mitochondrial Eve).
Easily. Did you EVER attend even one science class, kd? for example, when your Gawd descends, steps out of his Starship Type 7 (sub-type AgNo 123) and shows us the sample of DNA broth he poured into the primordial broth 25 million years ago, we'll know.... well I contradict myself here. That would only prove an ID, not that he didn't intend for Evolution to start up when he "seeded" the broth.
Evolution is how it works. Proven.
But otherwise,to falsify any theory (gravity, home economics, Xtianity, etc.), you just do some careful research and disprove some key point(s). Happens all the time in science, where we happily refute each other. The diff is, this advances our understanding in the long term. Your approach stilts the advancement of knowledge, requiring abject and utter unquestioning obedience to the Book. No exceptions; punishment by stoning or burning in the public square, to suitably impress (terrify?) the pesaantry into what they should expect if they stray into inquisitive thinking.
Unfortunately, kd, you can't disprove Creation; no-one can, which makes it non-science; as in irreproducable results or research options. It misses the boat completely as being in any way logical, step-wise, reproducable or even rational. It's just mythology, and you even agree on that.
***(Ooooo Ooooo Oooo!~ This just in on NPR this very minute: there's been a survey just done by Trinity College (aka: a theist organization) that the number of believers in Christianity has dropped by 10% in just the last decade. Huzzah for open minded thinking and education! Yes!! Proof that WE ARE EVOLVING! Yippers!)***
I think I'll have an early drink to toast this obvious & irrefutible proof of advancing thinking & education in the average American. And to think this study came from a theist college! Wonder what the true number really is? I'll bet it's more like, oh...15 - 20%.
Well before you run off, you still did not answer my question. Do (all believers in Evolution) imbrace your transionals as the slam dunk for Evolution? I know you believe they are, yet what about the rest of the Evolution believers?
The person who spoke to me informed me the need to pray for a job, and when I prayed as soon as I said the (A) of Amen the phone rang, and I got my job. How else could of done that? Another time that same person told me my wife was going to have a child, and four hours later my wife discovered she was pregnant. Who else could of done that?
According to the prophecies of the Bible, they state that before Christ returns, there would be a great falling away from the faith, so the survey suggesting this, would be in keeping with what the Bible already declared would happen. Jesus Christ Himself even ask the question. When I return, will there be any faith left on the earth? Here again, the prophecies of the Bible are correct.
What does Creationism have to do with predictions?
Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
same thing could be said regarding evolution.
How exactly can we falsify evolution?
There are several ways. I want to add a disclaimer that I'm not an evolutionary biologist so you should do your own investigating for validation. One way - Evolution predicts nested hierarchies. A violation here would be a boon to anti-evolutionist (i.e., angels, griffins, etc). What we note in living organisms are shared traits and this increases with relatedness. I don't know if a flying jelly fish would automatically dismantle the ToE but it would certainly beg restructuring. There are oodles of ways to poke holes in the theory, as with all scientific theories. If there weren't, than they wouldn't be scientific theories.
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.
