Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

We are talking about a whale and then you give me dolphin pron?

What am I supposed to learn from the video? I can't see the internal structure in that video, but I am supposed to conclude that dolphins don't use or need their pelvic girdle? Why are all their sexual organs connected to it then?

I gave you dolphin as example because you had claimed that whales must use their pelvic limb remnants for sexual function since their penises are huge - hello!!! dolphins and porpoises are kind of related to whales, don't you think so?? And it is so funny how in the same article where you took your diagram there is ventrodorsal view of it with arrows pointing to tibia and femur. You know what tibia and femur is right?

And to answer you last question - because we are all mammals and had common ancestor. What do you think human penis is attached to? Bull? dog? Horse?
See and compare some animals genital systems for example. Striking similarities due to common ancestor.

 

[MVP]

Or is it just that the "evidence" has holes everywhere?

Evidence of evolution is striking and whatever those tiny holes you are trying to talk about are regularly filled in the more we learn and find about it.
While creation on the other hand is basically one big hole. There is nothing whatsoever proving it. Myths and legends about it hold same value like about Zeus, Thor and Hades.

 

[LogGrad98]

Evidence of evolution is striking and whatever those tiny holes you are trying to talk about are regularly filled in the more we learn and find about it.
While creation on the other hand is basically one big hole. There is nothing whatsoever proving it. Myths and legends about it hold same value like about Zeus, Thor and Hades.

To someone with only a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

 

[MVP]

To someone with only a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

To someone who believes in 2000+ year old books modern science is kind of scary, I understand that. When Columbus and his sailors first discovered America natives thought that they are Gods. Some natives from tribes in Amazon still look with ave when they see planes ( and probably are thinking about it as divine creation as well).

 

[VINYLONE]

I just meant when atheists die they will know that things exist that can't be seen.

I assume that I'm correct in believing that you are a man that believes in god, believes in the teachings of his son, Jesus, and believes in the concept of an afterlife. In your life, in your perspective, those are all great things. If they help you to become a contributing member of society, a moral being who does good, how could I as an Atheist have any issue with that? That's all I want for the member's in the society I am a part of. In regards to your post I quoted, it seems to me that you are more concerned about having some sort of "gotcha" moment and proving an Atheist wrong than being happy for your fellow man who now gets to share in everlasting peace in the kingdom of Heaven.

My mind does not reject possibility of God. My mind rejects any claims about it as false/mythical/unproven . Show me proof and I will gladly accept it. Since there is no proof at this stage I deny it.

I think many Atheists have this similar position. If someone can show me proof, than why would I balk at the notion of a God? I also find it interesting that pearlwatson believes in this one god but does not believe in the other gods throughout history. The only difference between pearl, babe, the other believers in this thread and myself is that I go one god further in my disbelief.

Well if that turns out to be truth isn't that wonderful for me?

Indeed.

You ain't aware of Pascal's wager?

If you withhold a belief in God and He does exist you have infinite loss.
If you believe in God and He doesn't exist you have lost nothing.

If us God-believers don't have an eternal soul then we ain't aware of shattered hopes once we are dead.

I have heard of it, though I prefer Marcus Aurelius' take on belief:

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I prefer it because it's based in proactive being. It's rooted in the social contract we have with each other in respect to doing good to one and other. It's not belief for sake of belief, which we can both agree, is prevalent in our society. There are many folks who consider themselves Christians and speak about the teachings of Jesus but don't live their lives in any sort of meaningful or valued way.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Says the med student about the guy with a ph.D.

Why should I listen to anything you have to say after this comment?

Because three letters next to an individual's name doesn't mean anything.

A reputation is built upon amount of published literature, quality of published literature, and what you've done for the progression of the scientific field of your given expertise. Scientists who who sacrifice objectivity for agendas are 'garbage', in my opinion.




It would be foolish, and naive of you to listen to me based on what my credentials are, or in what stage of academic studies I happen to be. Take in my comments in this thread post by post, and try and find loopholes in them. Yes, the fact that I have a background in Genetics will probably help my case-- but expertise and unquestionable truth is not assumption that should be made of any invidiual simply because he has a "PhD" next to his name.



PS: cute post. Your tactics are pathetic. How about you address the two posts that I made in pertinence to gene copies?

 

[One Brow]

I've said all along that it leads to more information not new.

When the repeated paragraph develops a typo, that's new information.

yeah, it ain't a random new page or paragraph. It is an accidentally repeated already existing page or paragraph.

Yes, until the next edition has a typo in that randomly created paragraph, creating new information.

 

[One Brow]

I took my information from a genetics professor.

Which one?

 

[One Brow]

That's a bit of a stretch.

By comparison to you and I, in this particular field, dalamon has expertise.

 

[One Brow]

Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., Biology: "The adverse effects of gene duplication, such as Down’s syndrome, are well known. Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

You have six copies of the gene to make hemoglobin, of which at least four are likely functional, because of gene duplication. Why do you believe people who make factually false statements?

 

[One Brow]

E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions.

One of Lenski's twelve strains became capable of utilizing citrate under aerobic conditions. That's a new ability.

Creationists:

fish----> any kind of animal the Creator decides it should birth

Darwinists:

fish----> fish who live part of their life on land, a subgroup of fish called amphibians

Fixed.

 

[Deleted member 848]

You have six copies of the gene to make hemoglobin, of which at least four are likely functional, because of gene duplication. Why do you believe people who make factually false statements?

Yup. Pearl has yet to respond to the images & articles I posted in the previous page.

By comparison to you and I, in this particular field, dalamon has expertise.

I would distance myself from the 'expert' label when it comes to Genetics, but I suppose I do know quite a bit, and it is the main focus of my studies.

Someone like Zulu would know more than myself.