"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
But Einstein also admited that his previous view of a Godless universe in a "Steady State" was his worst blunder. Course, that doesn't mean his view of God was the same as is a Christian's.Audacity: Einstein could never have come up with his theories of relativity if he hadn't disagreed with Newton.
And Einstein had an Illegitimate child, yet he wasn't a Christian.Philip wrote:But Einstein also admited that his previous view of a Godless universe in a "Steady State" was his worst blunder. Course, that doesn't mean his view of God was the same as is a Christian's.Audacity: Einstein could never have come up with his theories of relativity if he hadn't disagreed with Newton.
Audacity wrote:And Einstein had an Illegitimate child, yet he wasn't a Christian.Philip wrote:But Einstein also admited that his previous view of a Godless universe in a "Steady State" was his worst blunder. Course, that doesn't mean his view of God was the same as is a Christian's.Audacity: Einstein could never have come up with his theories of relativity if he hadn't disagreed with Newton.
No, because he wasn't.crochet1949 wrote:Audacity wrote:And Einstein had an Illegitimate child, yet he wasn't a Christian.Philip wrote:But Einstein also admited that his previous view of a Godless universe in a "Steady State" was his worst blunder. Course, that doesn't mean his view of God was the same as is a Christian's.Audacity: Einstein could never have come up with his theories of relativity if he hadn't disagreed with Newton.
Maybe your last sentence should have read -- '...an illegitimate child, yet he 'was' a Christian ?!
It doesn't, which is my point.But I don't see why That would make any difference. Being a Christian or not.
hughfarey wrote:There is a general point to be made here, which is that whenever a 'spontaneous creationist' spots a disagreement among evolutionists, that alone is assumed to be good evidence that evolution is a complete nonsense and thus creationism must be correct. They rarely look at themselves from a similar viewpoint. If I, as an an evolutionist, spot a disagreement among creationists, such as YEC or OEC or whatever, may I assume this to be good evidence that creationism is a complete nonsense and thus evolution must be correct? If not, then what is the difference in validity between the two viewpoints?
Have you been banned. Not sure. Still...Obviously you're not familiar with how science operates. Scientists disagreeing with the status quo is how science often progresses. Einstein could never have come up with his theories of relativity if he hadn't disagreed with Newton.
My expectation is that science would advance faster if researchers accepted what they have observed. Researchers can count/use what supports their view and ignore the rest.hughfarey wrote:There is a general point to be made here, which is that whenever a 'spontaneous creationist' spots a disagreement among evolutionists, that alone is assumed to be good evidence that evolution is a complete nonsense and thus creationism must be correct. They rarely look at themselves from a similar viewpoint. If I, as an an evolutionist, spot a disagreement among creationists, such as YEC or OEC or whatever, may I assume this to be good evidence that creationism is a complete nonsense and thus evolution must be correct? If not, then what is the difference in validity between the two viewpoints?
hughfarey wrote:An interesting collection of statements, which illustrate well the different approaches that creationists and evolutionists take to the evidence - evidence, I may say, entirely discovered by evolutionists. The mantra “this supports creationism” is, I’m afraid, more or less meaningless. After all, absolutely everything “supports creationism” in that God can do anything, and could, if he so wished, have spontaneously created everything we know in any way, and at any time. Maybe yesterday. Who knows? Perhaps all the coherence we spot in the laws of physics, the passage of time, and the appearance of common descent is an illusion; and there is nothing anyone can say which can disprove this hypothesis.
So in the absence of any way of falsifying the theory of spontaneous creation, we can validly say that it isn’t a scientific hypothesis. Creationists do not always deny this, instead they claim that nor is evolution a scientific hypothesis, because it can’t be falsified either. This would sound more credible if they didn’t then spend most of their time attempting to falsify it!
Evolutionists do think that their ‘theory’ can be falsified. For example, to take an illustration of your own, if the DNA of humans, chimpanzees and chickens was all equally different, such that it was impossible to infer that any two were more closely related than the other, that would be a real blow. But of course there’s no such evidence. The quantitative difference between any two may be similar, but qualitatively it’s very easy to derive a closer relationship between chimps and humans than between either of them and chickens.
Another common creationist hope lies in ‘failed’ searches. The search for a common ancestor of all current life? Failed. The search for an explanation for abiogenesis? Failed. The search for laboratory speciation? Failed. Well, sorry, but all this represents is a rather desperate hope by creationists that scientists have finished searching, which they haven’t. A search hasn’t failed until either all possible places to search have been searched, or until everybody gives up. Neither of these is anything like true. Exactly the opposite. Not only do we continuously discover new needles in the haystack, but we continuously discover more haystack! The success of the search so far encourages us to continue to explore, and we don’t know how long we need to go on for. Not only have these searches not ‘failed’, many of them have barely begun.
The mitochondrial DNA thing may turn out to be another two edged sword. It isn’t true that all human mitochondrial DNA is exactly the same; it varies considerably due to mutations. Knowledge of the variety and rate of mutation allows us to distinguish different ancestral lines, and to establish roughly the point at which they all converge on ‘Ancestral Eve.’ What is less well known is that our knowledge of chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA allows us to establish not only the point at which ‘Ancestral Bobo’ lived, but also a female primate ancestral to both chimpanzees and humans, and similarly, by comparison with other primate mitochondrial DNA a proto-simian from which we all descended.
Please don't confuse 'evidence' with an hypothesized support. Indeed what has been found does support creation. For example if biblical creation were true creationists need data to support modern mankind being related to one male and female ancestor. Guess what? It does. That's too bad for evolutionists. Now evolutionists have to add a story line. eg That data really doesn't mean what it indicates because there were other people about as well and all other ancestral lines since then died how. Indeed Why? Because evolutionary scientists said so or else TOE will be falsified in favor of a creationist paradigm.hughfarey wrote:An interesting collection of statements, which illustrate well the different approaches that creationists and evolutionists take to the evidence - evidence, I may say, entirely discovered by evolutionists. The mantra “this supports creationism” is, I’m afraid, more or less meaningless. After all, absolutely everything “supports creationism” in that God can do anything, and could, if he so wished, have spontaneously created everything we know in any way, and at any time. Maybe yesterday. Who knows? Perhaps all the coherence we spot in the laws of physics, the passage of time, and the appearance of common descent is an illusion; and there is nothing anyone can say which can disprove this hypothesis.
Sure we can falsify creationism. eg dna indicates mankind is related to multiple ancestral lines, but it doesn't. God would not need to make useless dna. The saga of 'junk' dna once upon a time sounded like great support for TOE being the useless remnant. Creationists maintained that God would have no need to create useless dna in a creation event. I shouldn't need to tell you that is exactly what we researchers are finding. eg expression switch, essential for chromosome structure, the function of centromeres and play a role in cell division (meiosis). Some noncoding DNA sequences also determine the location where transcription factors can attach and control transcription of the genetic code from DNA to mRNA.So in the absence of any way of falsifying the theory of spontaneous creation, we can validly say that it isn’t a scientific hypothesis. Creationists do not always deny this, instead they claim that nor is evolution a scientific hypothesis, because it can’t be falsified either. This would sound more credible if they didn’t then spend most of their time attempting to falsify it!
Some organism had to be more similar to mankind than the others. How does one come up with a percentage when huge chunks of DNA are missing, or when the Y chromosome is hugely divergent in comparison, deletions insertions, etc You can't! If you would like to critique the paper on "the myth of 1%" I would welcome it.Evolutionists do think that their ‘theory’ can be falsified. For example, to take an illustration of your own, if the DNA of humans, chimpanzees and chickens was all equally different, such that it was impossible to infer that any two were more closely related than the other, that would be a real blow. But of course there’s no such evidence. The quantitative difference between any two may be similar, but qualitatively it’s very easy to derive a closer relationship between chimps and humans than between either of them and chickens.
There is not desperation on my part. I'd say the long line of papers on dna first, rna first, proteins first, heaps of experiments in controlled labs, and coming up with zilch is a failure to date. Sure you can live in hope, but 'hope' is not a valid scientific hypothesis.Another common creationist hope lies in ‘failed’ searches. The search for a common ancestor of all current life? Failed. The search for an explanation for abiogenesis? Failed. The search for laboratory speciation? Failed. Well, sorry, but all this represents is a rather desperate hope by creationists that scientists have finished searching, which they haven’t. A search hasn’t failed until either all possible places to search have been searched, or until everybody gives up. Neither of these is anything like true. Exactly the opposite. Not only do we continuously discover new needles in the haystack, but we continuously discover more haystack! The success of the search so far encourages us to continue to explore, and we don’t know how long we need to go on for. Not only have these searches not ‘failed’, many of them have barely begun.
You do realize don't you that algorithmic magic uses unknown speciation dates as insertion values? Here is a bit of information for you about the not so credible 'mutation rate'.....The mitochondrial DNA thing may turn out to be another two edged sword. It isn’t true that all human mitochondrial DNA is exactly the same; it varies considerably due to mutations. Knowledge of the variety and rate of mutation allows us to distinguish different ancestral lines, and to establish roughly the point at which they all converge on ‘Ancestral Eve.’ What is less well known is that our knowledge of chimpanzee mitochondrial DNA allows us to establish not only the point at which ‘Ancestral Bobo’ lived, but also a female primate ancestral to both chimpanzees and humans, and similarly, by comparison with other primate mitochondrial DNA a proto-simian from which we all descended.
The theory of evolution is a theory undergoing evolution. eg Darwin 1859, modern synthesis 1942, Integral model 2012.hughfarey wrote:There is a general point to be made here, which is that whenever a 'spontaneous creationist' spots a disagreement among evolutionists, that alone is assumed to be good evidence that evolution is a complete nonsense and thus creationism must be correct. They rarely look at themselves from a similar viewpoint. If I, as an an evolutionist, spot a disagreement among creationists, such as YEC or OEC or whatever, may I assume this to be good evidence that creationism is a complete nonsense and thus evolution must be correct? If not, then what is the difference in validity between the two viewpoints?
Certainly not.Mazzy wrote:Please don't confuse 'evidence' with an hypothesized support.
That's cherry picking your evidence, in my opinion. Evolutionists don't deny that DNA comparisons lead to a single male and female ancestor. However, the same evidence also suggests that that they lived thousands of years apart, and other evidence suggests that they were not alone.Indeed what has been found does support creation. For example if biblical creation were true creationists need data to support modern mankind being related to one male and female ancestor. Guess what? It does. That's too bad for evolutionists.
No. Different evidence leads to different conclusions, neither of which conflict.Now evolutionists have to add a story line. eg That data really doesn't mean what it indicates because there were other people about as well and all other ancestral lines since then died how.
Establishing that humans do not have a common ancestor would be a bit of a blow for evolution too!Sure we can falsify creationism. eg dna indicates mankind is related to multiple ancestral lines, but it doesn't.
I think it's difficult to claim what God would or wouldn't do, and then say that the evidence supports the claim, because God can do whatever he likes. It is a bit more rigorous to claim what evolution could or couldn't do, and to see if observations refute it. Redundant DNA, absurd designs such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and vestiges of former characteristics with minimal current importance are suggested by evolution. No doubt some functional relevance can be found for many of them, but as a whole, I think these support at least the appearance of evolution, even if they do not refute creationism.God would not need to make useless dna. The saga of 'junk' dna once upon a time sounded like great support for TOE being the useless remnant. Creationists maintained that God would have no need to create useless dna in a creation event. I shouldn't need to tell you that is exactly what we researchers are finding. eg expression switch, essential for chromosome structure, the function of centromeres and play a role in cell division (meiosis). Some noncoding DNA sequences also determine the location where transcription factors can attach and control transcription of the genetic code from DNA to mRNA.
I didn't bring up the percentage game, and I agree that it is not a very satisfactory way of comparing the similarity of DNA. However, that doesn't mean that the DNA of humans and chimps is not vastly more similar than that of either of them and chickens.Some organism had to be more similar to mankind than the others. How does one come up with a percentage when huge chunks of DNA are missing, or when the Y chromosome is hugely divergent in comparison, deletions insertions, etc You can't! If you would like to critique the paper on "the myth of 1%" I would welcome it.
To date. Exactly. The search is far from over. There are plenty of unexplored avenues, and plenty of partly explored avenues which are worth exploring further. Scientists are more patient than creationists, it seems.I'd say the long line of papers on dna first, rna first, proteins first, heaps of experiments in controlled labs, and coming up with zilch is a failure to date.
Yes. Creationist web-sites love to list the various eminent mainstream scientists who are also creationists. However, it turns out that none of their mainstream papers actually research the evidence for creation, whatever they may publish in creationist literature. Andrew Snelling, for example, who claims to be a Young Earth creationist, has published numerous geological papers referring to millions of years. The gene-gun is a wonderful thing, but far from refuting evolution, it encourages research that tends to confirm it.Creationists actually do research. John Sanford invented the gene gun and has published numerous papers. Regardless, it's fine to let evolutionists do it for us. So far they are doing a great job at supporting creationism.
It has long been recognised that mutation rates are not like half-lives, which are fairly rigorously predictable, and there is plenty more research to be done to enable us to calibrate accurate mutation number/age relationships for all the various germ-lines in which we are interested.You do realize don't you that algorithmic magic uses unknown speciation dates as insertion values? [...] Even at half the mutation rate a 'story' will be invented to keep the TOE timeline from totally falling apart, and falsifying a plethora of published papers.
I dispute that, but it gets to the core of the discussion. It's not that this or that piece of evidence proves creation or evolution, but that it can be interpreted as better supporting one than the other. It seems that the DNA evidence can be interpreted as supporting either. What evidence do you think definitely suggests creation better than evolution?Additionally much data does appear to better support a creationist paradigm and challenge an evolutionary one.
I have read research articles about mt Eve and ch Adam living thousands of years apart. Unfortunately there is some 'evidence' that contradicts same....That's cherry picking your evidence, in my opinion. Evolutionists don't deny that DNA comparisons lead to a single male and female ancestor. However, the same evidence also suggests that that they lived thousands of years apart, and other evidence suggests that they were not alone.
Again what evidence has lead to the conclusion that mt Eve and chr Adam were among cohorts.No. Different evidence leads to different conclusions, neither of which conflict.
You mean, it would be a blow to evolution if humans & chimps had no common ancestor. The common ancestor is yet to be identified. Suffice to say this common ancestor was initially predicted to look like a chimp and now it is meant to look nothing like a chimp and may have been a bipedal ape, according to some evolutionists.Establishing that humans do not have a common ancestor would be a bit of a blow for evolution too!
I think using the term 'minimal' is misleading. Loosing both eyes will not result in death, but they are hardly classed as having minimal function. Still it does seem sensible to conclude God would not need to put anything that is useless into his creation.I think it's difficult to claim what God would or wouldn't do, and then say that the evidence supports the claim, because God can do whatever he likes. It is a bit more rigorous to claim what evolution could or couldn't do, and to see if observations refute it. Redundant DNA, absurd designs such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, and vestiges of former characteristics with minimal current importance are suggested by evolution. No doubt some functional relevance can be found for many of them, but as a whole, I think these support at least the appearance of evolution, even if they do not refute creationism.
This is a good topic. Let me have a think and get back to you.I dispute that, but it gets to the core of the discussion. It's not that this or that piece of evidence proves creation or evolution, but that it can be interpreted as better supporting one than the other. It seems that the DNA evidence can be interpreted as supporting either. What evidence do you think definitely suggests creation better than evolution?
This was not as easy as I thought. I cannot pin one research paper. I have decided to get to one of the lynch pins of creationists claims which is this, limits to adaptation. It is only fair that you also speak to what you think definitely suggests evolution over creation.I dispute that, but it gets to the core of the discussion. It's not that this or that piece of evidence proves creation or evolution, but that it can be interpreted as better supporting one than the other. It seems that the DNA evidence can be interpreted as supporting either. What evidence do you think definitely suggests creation better than evolution?
