Ive never looked at it like that before, but now when i think about it, it seems that your absolutely right!!! Creationism is idol worship!!!. Or maybe thats a bit too harsh. I don’t know; but its an interesting point.
Transmissions can only be repaired by people who understand mechanics?
There are entire journals dedicated to problems yet to be solved in evolutionary theory, as there all in all sciences. Sometimes someone even comes up with a criticism that sticks and a theory has to be modified or replaced.
Who won the money?
Typical. Roger, the reason the “evidence against the theory” isn’t taught is because it doesn’t exist.
The only embarassing thing about that is that anyone takes it seriously. Berthault is a quack, not a sedimentologist. He paid Colorado State University to perform a standard experiment and then, voila, found an interpretation that no one else in history ever found. Unfortunately, it existed only in the fantasies of those who need so desperately to disprove evolution and not in any rational evaluation of the test results.
I will comment on Sungenis since you continue to act as his disciple on this forum. Sungenis had to go to an offshore diploma mill to get his “PhD” because NO accredited university in the US or anywhere else would let him get his “PhD” in geocentrism. Says a lot about his scientific ability, doesn’t it?
Roger, you need to understand that there is no evidence that can go against the “theory of evolution”. That is because whatever evidence appears will just be incorporated into the theory.
Correct. Evolution has no problem with living dinosaurs. Neither do I, I ate one for Christmas. You do know that birds are classified as dinosaurs don’t you? Evolution says that living organisms descended from earlier living organisms, so a late appearance of a dinosaur is not a problem. If you could produce evidence of a Cambrian dinosaur, or a Cambrian cow, then that would be evidence against evolution.
Evolution says that some DNA will be functional and some will not. It does not make any specific predictions as to the relative amounts of either. Indeed we have examples of similar organsims with greatly varying amounts of DNA. The Puffer fish has a small genome (3.4 x 10[sup]8[/sup] bp) with very little non-coding DNA while the lungfish has a very large genome (1.1 x 10[sup]11[/sup] bp) with a lot of non-coding DNA. Currently in humans (3.2 x 10[sup]9[/sup] bp) about 2% of our DNA appears to code for proteins, a further 3% or so appears to be strongly conserved, thus indicating that it is not “junk” but actually has some function. Some of the rest may be required as “spacer” to keep other elements at the right distance but not be important in itself. Much of the rest probably really is junk and of no real use. For instance it is difficult to imagine that the long stretches of poly-A are of any real use.
This probably seems unfair to creationists. Whenever evidence has shown some aspect of evolutionary theory is wrong, they just change the theory to fit reality. Creationists are stuck with an immovable belief, so they try to change reality to fit their doctrine.
Haldane’s observation remains true; if you find the fossil of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian rock, evolutionary theory is refuted.
Of course. Because evolutionary theory is about old features being reworked for new functions. Hence, non-coding DNA with useful functions would be another confirmation of a prediction of evolutionary theory.
Wrong. Want to try again?
Well, there are birds there…
It would clearly have to be explained. But you see, you don’t really understand how science works, so I don’t expect you to accept what I write.
Roger, you need to understand that there is no evidence that can go against the “theory of evolution”. That is because whatever evidence appears will just be incorporated into the theory.
Congratulations, you have understood how science works. All theories are tested against reality. If there is a conflict then reality always wins and the theory gets changed (small conflict) or replaced (large conflict).
Orogeny in post 29 ridicules me with “But you see, you don’t really understand how science works, so I don’t expect you to accept what I write.”
But Barbarian writes that there are there are entire journals devoted to resolving the conflicts?
Another thing to understand about science - dissent is not allowed.
We can here observe one of the many conflicts (contradictions) that can easily be found among evolutionists themselves.
Nah - that’s just the way science works.We can here observe one of the many conflicts (contradictions) that can easily be found among evolutionists themselves.
There is no question as to what the Church has taught for two thousand years. Some are trying to sneak stuff in and are surprised to learn just how firm the church has defended herself against evolution from the beginning.
Are you serious? Do you really mean to say that evolution might be overturned?
No - in my statement I was referring to creation.
EES - self assembly is the latest theory.