Christianity and Creationism are NOT the Same Thing
-
davorb — 14 years ago(April 14, 2011 12:16 PM)
When it comes to the number of chromosomes, you clearly do not know much about the subject. Please read this and all will be explained to you.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html -
agentwhim — 16 years ago(June 20, 2009 08:04 AM)
"It could just as well be said that the goal of Darwinism is to find holes in the Bible."
That just doesn't make sense. The idea that a scientific theory might be produced in order to discredit a book is ludicrous. From a scientific standpoint, the Bible is just a book like any other. Any claims which might be subject to verification by experimentation might be followed up, but I think most scientists would think that this is a pointless exercise. The really fundamental tenets of the Bible, like the existence of an omnipotent creator, are so obviously untestable that there is no point in even beginning.
That's why I don't really understand the interest that religious people take in trying to promote scientific or pseudo-scientific explanations of the most glaring problems with the Bible (or other religious books). You'd really be on much safer ground with the usual "God works in mysterious ways" style of argument. After all the whole point of religion is faith isn't it? Not proof.
You've still missed the point, though. Scientists don't sit around thinking "Hmmm my new theory could disprove the Bible hehehe", they are looking for ever better ways of understanding the universe. The Bible might have been a reasonable explanation of how things work when it was compiled, but that was a long time ago. -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 21, 2009 11:29 AM)
[The idea that a scientific theory might be produced in order to discredit a book is ludicrous]
Darwinism became a religion in Oct 1866.
"Darwin greeted at his home in Kent his most enthusiastic German supporter, the zoologist Ernest Haeckel. The encounter had its difficulties, since Haeckel was so overcome with exuberence that Darwin could scarcely comprehend him."
Soon Haeckel produced Generelle Morphologie "promoting the superiority of the Germanic peoples and the need to combat Christianity, the priesthood and its 'gaseous' God."
Haeckel publically argued against his own teacher -Rudolf Virchow. Virchow argued that "mutation of individuals which gave rise to the evolutionary process was not the result of random agents of change, but cellular alterations that were precursors of disease."
John Cornwell, Hitler's Sentists pp. 76-77
Haeckel became famous for his phony anatomical drawings, which propogated the human embryonic 'gill slit' nonsense.
" it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it, had been abandoned by science." (Ontogeny and phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p1) -
agentwhim — 16 years ago(June 21, 2009 11:51 AM)
So you're arguing that one guy makes Darwinism a religion?
Anyway, even if somebody did foolishly make a religion out of it, that doesn't mean that Darwin had the idea of discrediting any religious book when he came up with his theory. I don't believe any self-respecting scientist would do that - it would be like trying to pick holes in the science of "Star Trek" or "The Da Vinci Code". A self-publicist might do it, but not a serious scientist. -
gourlegr — 16 years ago(June 19, 2009 02:58 PM)
Darwinism cannot explain why chromosomal mutants would have an incentive to inbreed or why chromosomal mutants would have such genetic ability.
At this clip, Ken Miller explains how the fact humans have two less chromosomes than the other great apes actually verifies evolution. I'm not sure it's what you're looking for, but it's solid evidence for common ancestry.
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.John 8:32 -
Roquefort — 16 years ago(June 19, 2009 04:03 PM)
What human chromosome 2 proves is that there were 48 human chromosomes and that we are descended from two that were altered to 46.
Evolutionists have known for 10 years that there is something unnatural about the fusion:
"When new staining techniques revealed the structure of human chromosome 2, however, what was revealed was a fusion that was neither Robertsonian nor centric. For human chromosome 2, the tips of the short arms of two acrocentric chromosomes were broken off. The 2 short arms then fused together. This resulted in a chromosome with 2 centromeres, one of which is suppressed."
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html
More recently it has been shown that the genes in chromosome 2 were human at the time of fusion:
"At the site of fusion, there is approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B PRIOR to the fusion event."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project -
skiop — 16 years ago(October 26, 2009 04:41 PM)
Indeed. Spencer Tracy was alluding to this when he was questioning Frederic March. "You've never read it, so how do you know it's incompatible." Then the other guy on the state's side objected to him reading from The Origin of Species that would clarify that God and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive.
-
sccitylhh — 14 years ago(September 04, 2011 12:05 PM)
Religion as presented by The Bible contains absolutely NO modern science (i.e. information ascertained using the scientific method), because, naturally, it was compiled before the scientific revolution. However, you have to have blinders on not to see that it doesn't make scientific claims, as in the formation of the cosmos and life and the virgin birth of certain people. These are clearly claims being made about cosmology, abiogenesis, parthenogenesis, etc Some religious folks will use the metaphorical argument for explaining this away and then in the next breath point to another part of the book as literally true and to be followed. It just doesn't work that way. The Bible has no footnotes explaining the lens in which its passages are to be interpreted through. The individual cherry picks which text to explain in a certain way using a reasoning faculty that is outside of the scope of their book, and therefore should make them pause. Unfortunately it just doesn't happen that often.
There's absolutely no evidence that any scientific claim made by The Bible or any other holy book is true in the empirical sense, and any attempt to square the book with modern science only exemplifies the elasticity and nebulous nature of religious scripture, not the veracity of the claim.