slowpoke55

AlexanderJ

"Suggests" is the keyword in my post. I'm not drawing a conclusion but trying to provoke clarity on what de-evolving culture means. Hence the question about critical trends.

See post #17:

I’m speaking of culture in general. But this OP was in reference to Romans 1 in the Bible pointing to the degeneration and fall of the Roman Empire (who’s symbol was an eagle ironically). History repeats itself with patterns would you agree?

That's too general of a statement can you be more specific? Cycles can be tied to the limitations of economic and political systems. For example: an economic system that allows the hording of wealth and resources will eventually exhaust its resources and attempt to conquer foreign resources. That can happen peacefully or violently.

Technology has evolved I agree through inventions and science. While this is good it also brings new challenges. As an example what percentage of the internet websites are dedicated to pornography?

A much better example is an atomic bomb.

Seems to me like you are equating tolerance with positive evolution of culture? Are we to take a more universal approach or outlook on culture in order to be “enlightened”?

My point is equality is a positive evolution of culture. Would you agree with this?

Christianity and it’s set of morals isn’t failing.

Humanity is simply de-evolving as more and more people turn away from God. Your thoughts?

A Gallup poll suggests that being less religious is actually better for the economy of a country.

http://www.gallup.co...st-nations.aspx

What are the critical trends that a society is de-evolving?

I propose the following consequences are the result of de-volution of cultures due to sin...

Summary of Sin's Progression in a Culture:

1. Mankind rejected God’s truth.

2. Not only that but we have suppressed God’s truth and followed after unrighteousness.

3. Because of Mankind’s rejection of truth we fell into idolatry.

4. This leads to fornication and adultery in heterosexual relationships.

5. This is the classic example of the consequences of men not being spiritual leaders in their homes, in the Church, and in society at large.

6. Marriage is no longer valued. So...

7. This then leads to unnatural relations between women.

8. This then leads to unnatural relations between men.

9. God allowed mankind to have a degraded mind and be consumed by all sort of sin.

Is this the case in the U.S. today and abroad?

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

What culture are you talking about?

There are many aspects of culture that have evolved and continue to evolve in a positive direction. The pursuit of scientific knowledge has provided many great benefits that we experience every day. Here in the US racism and homophobia (although very much alive) are seen as negative traits. Women are enjoying greater job opportunities. Our communities are becoming more diverse.

At a human level we are becoming more accepting of others, regardless of appearance, sexual preference or religion. This is actually a good thing for humanity. Or would you argue that a community with enforced divisions and separate classes builds a more harmonious society?

Your question really seems to be “why is Christianity and its set of morals failing?”

I like how you dodged the rest of my post.

Nothing dodged - the rest of your post was irrelevant.

Disingenuous posts are irrelevant in discussions? Now why would anyone want to continue participating in a discussion when honesty is not a given? Please note these are rhetorical questions.

For slowpoke55 and/or ByFaithAlone,

I am very interested in carefully analyzing the evidence for the theory of common descent. I propose the following, how about you pick one of the 15 evolutionary gems described in the Nature article and we can discuss it. Entire books are written on each of those 15 "gems"; simply posting the link and asking for a refutation/critique is treating the evidence very lightly and you can not expect anything other than a light response. I think we all agree that surface level treatment of this subject is a waste of time, so let's park on one evidence for a little bit. Your pick...

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

P.S. It is important to note that articles such as the Nature one posted, are review articles which present interpretted evidence. The actual facts are found in the primary literature. Sourcing review type articles is fine and I'll do it too, but this distinction is important to keep in mind.

My request of Waldoz to critique the work stemmed from his dismissing the post without providing any clue as to why he rejected it, as it turns out he didn't even read it. His dismissal was a deceitful.

Here's a link I referenced about common descent.

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

Douglas L. Theobald

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Theobald_2010_Nature_all.pdf

I don't think a surface level treatment of a subject is a waste of time because false and invalid claims are worth addressing.

Waldoz, your objection to evolution is really philosophical...

You are still missing the boat – Darwinism is philosophy dressed up like science and I reject mythology presented as science.

Now Waldoz, do I think I can convince you that Theory of Evolution is a fact?

I am not sure you could convince a Darwinist that the ToE is fact.

I like how you dodged the rest of my post.

{{{{removed personal attack please review ToS}}}}

No, there's simply no valid content to your posts about evolution. As I've repeatedly shown your objections are fallacious, shallow and unscientific.

As noted - we can settle the matter right here on this thread. Present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. Listen...the sound of silence...

Can you be more disingenuous and irrational?

I've presented research and as you admitted in a post above you didn’t even read it.

So audience here’s what we have….

Waldoz says provide evidence

I post scientific research providing evidence.

Waldoz refuses to read it

Waldoz then claims I haven’t presented evidence

That is Waldoz's level of discourse.

Waldoz, your objection to evolution is really philosophical, that's why you keep posting other people's opinions ad nauseum, but the trouble for you is that you fail to provide your case because your objections are fallacious. You can’t even present a valid philosophical objection to evolution, your appeals to authority, circular reasoning, appeals to popularity, etc… will never add up to a VALID argument, DON’T YOU GET THAT?

Now Waldoz, do I think I can convince you that Theory of Evolution is a fact? No, you’re deeply blinded with fallacious reasoning and incapable of objectivity. Those are facts that anyone reading these threads can verify.

Why should your objections be taken seriously?

No, there's simply no valid content to your posts about evolution. As I've repeatedly shown your objections are fallacious, shallow and unscientific.

No, it was about a school board letting IDers introduce a corrupt, unscientific concept into the science classroom.

YOU REALIZE THE LEAD WITNESS WAS A CHRISTIAN, RIGHT?

Again, you miss the irony here - the judge allows the corrupt Darwinian mythology that is passed off as science in the classroom and many Christians try (unsuccessfully) to blend the Judeo-Christian tradition of a Creator-God with the leading atheistic creation myth but it can't be done. There are no surprises there - what else do you have since you have failed to support your myth on this thread or is that about it?

What a hilarious and absurd interpretation!

Yes, you're smirk is a devastating blow to evolution.

You asked for facts about the Discovery Institute's deceit and I presented them clearly.

As already noted – Dover was all about politics, political correctness and the hijacking of a small and insignificant part of science by scientists of the atheist type.

No, it was about a school board letting IDers introduce a corrupt, unscientific concept into the science classroom.

YOU REALIZE THE LEAD WITNESS WAS A CHRISTIAN, RIGHT?

Your studies do not demonstrate common ancestry at all and it appears that you cannot present or defend your mythology on this thread. That’s what we already knew but you gave it your best. Next.

Oh the irony.

Oh, look what a mathmetician/philosopher says about the Theory of Evolution! You really love fallacies don't you?

LOL - you belittle a philosopher of science in matters of science but you hang your hat on a judge's ruling in Dover. You gotta love the irony. We can settle the matter right here on this thread. I have challenged you before to present the required evidence that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor. All you could do was hang your head down and run away with your pockets empty. So one more time--give us what you have but please don't embarrass yourself again by demonstrating you are in way over your head. You're up, amigo.

I belittle your continued appeals to authority - this is a fallacy, get that through your head. When you get an understanding of what fallacies are go back and read your posts and you will find them littered with fallacies.

You asked for facts about the Discovery Institute's deceit and I presented them clearly. This is not an appeal to authority, that was an actual trail in which the Discovery Institute (DI) attempted to pass off ID as science and THEY UTTERLY FAILED. The judge saw it for what it was, an attempt to insert religion into the science curriculum. DI FAILED to support their claim. They are not interested in science, they are interested in religion that is why they seek public appeal. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want about this but all you have to do is read their history and their association with the Wedge document to understand what they are.

I presented two studies that answered your common ancestry question - I did this twice; that you ignore them or hand wave them away is your problem. Search my posts and find them.

Are you an IDer? Are you a supporter of the Discovery Institute?

You really don't comprehend much do you? The purpose of the percentages was to debunk your deceitful inference that "many" or "hundreds" was a significant trend.

I comprehend that your ‘logic’ has slipped a cog, partner and the truth remains true—hundreds of PhD scientists have examined Darwinism and decided to become ‘scientifically informed doubters of Darwinian theories of evolution’. They have gone where the evidence leads and determined that scientifically Darwinism is a failed concept – the “great white elephant of contemporary thought”…

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought..it is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.” ~ David Berlinski, mathematician and philosopher of science

Oh, look what a mathmetician/philosopher says about the Theory of Evolution! You really love fallacies don't you?

{{{{ Removed video link: Please submit videos in the video forum for approval. Thank you. }}}}

I find it interesting that you keep avoiding talking about the videos I posted. Especially since the person addressing ID and the TOE is a Christian,

Look up the Dover Trial transcripts to read Behe's epic fail regarding the immune system.

The Wedge document I linked and quoted shows that science matters very little.

A video explaining this... Kenneth R. Miller again.

ID is not science...

From the ruling conclusion...

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts

of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the

Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the

seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and

moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,

antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock

assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory

is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in

general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the

theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the

scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the

existence of a divine creator.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,

and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order

permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school

within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or

disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to

a religious, alternative theory known as ID.

Are you an ID proponent? Do you sleep in the same bed as the Discovery Institute?

You misunderstand, he's not saying the people aren't serious. It's the percentage of scientists who are in opposition to evolution is an insignificant amount - 99.9% support evolution. .01% at best don't support it - this is not a serious opposition

All scientists that I deal with accept biological evolution (100%) but many reject Darwinism because it cannot be supported via the scientific method. It appears you believe in some silly notion that science is a ‘majority rule’ disciple – it is not. Think Galileo Galilei – he was once in the very small minority of scientists who disagreed with the majority, but guess what – he was correct.

Are you prepared to discredit each and every scientist who signed the “Dissent from Darwinism Statement”? You are not really capable of that – are you? You will just have to come to grips with reality – there are many scientists who correctly understand that Darwinism is a notion that cannot be supported with real science. Try to move forward.

You really don't comprehend much do you? The purpose of the percentages was to debunk your deceitful inference that "many" or "hundreds" was a significant trend. Nice try in your attempted red-herring of majority rule.

Ah, Galileo was right card and therefore you may be right? No grand logical leaps there.

I particularly like how you don't even address the videos I linked which debunk ID - these are even presented by a scientist who is a Christian.

My purpose in bringing up the Discovery Institute is to show they have a record for lying and that their ID is non-scientific.If you chose to lay with them, it shows your criteria for valid sources is really low.

Or can you easily forgive their representatives lying in court, their theistic inspired Wedge Document (see link below), their misrepresentation of science.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
  
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
  

And in case you think that the Wedge Document has nothing to do with the Discovery Institute or that the Discovery Institute is interested in science for the sake of science.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

Again, your posts are logically corrupt as are your sources.

There is no serious scientific opposition to evolution.

LOL – tell that to the hundreds of scientist who reject Neo-Darwinism because there is no science to support it. They sound pretty serious to me. You are just bewildered because you have bought into the atheistic creation myth that is passed off as science. Again, there are many repeatable scientists who reject Darwinism for the obvious reasons. You will just have to deal with it.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Why is it necessary to have such a statement?

In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of some supporters of modern Darwinian theory to deny the existence of scientific critics of Neo-Darwinism and to discourage open discussion of the scientific evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism. The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement exists to correct the

public record

by showing that there are scientists who support an open examination of the evidence relating to modern Darwinian theory and who question whether Neo-Darwinism can satisfactorily explain the complexity and diversity of the natural world.

Where have you been hiding, Dee - haven't seen you around lately.

You misunderstand, he's not saying the people aren't serious. It's the percentage of scientists who are in opposition to evolution is an insignificant amount - 99.9% support evolution. .01% at best don't support it - this is not a serious opposition,

Discovery Institute, the organization behind the letter I referenced and whom who seem to hold in high esteem, are known for their deceitful representation of science - see Dover trial. Their effort to shove Intelligent Design down the throats of public schools is a well-documented epic failure.

Here's a scientist who is a Christian shooting down ID Kenneth R. Miller. He was a lead witness at Dover.

Youtube videos here...

{{{{Removed video links: Please submit videos in the video forum for approval. Thank you.}}}}

You missed the point. I agree that scientific criticism does exist and I am happy to listen to it. Granted that criticism is about 1% of the entire scientific community but it is interesting to hear alternatives.

That is the point - many scientists reject parts of Darwinism because it cannot be supported via science. And why do you think we see hundreds of PhD scientists rejecting neo-Darwinism? We do not see them signing a document against Cell Theory. Why Darwinism?

An article related to this which states that the majority of those scientists who oppose evolution have no biological science background.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Wow, many, even hundreds! We're ripe for a revolution in the sciences.

So let's use 500 scientists, what percentage does that make it

if 10 million scientists .005

if 5 million scientists .01

Let's look at this the other way,

If 10 million scientists, 99.995% support evolution.

If 5 million scientists, 99.99% support evolution

It's a good thing you don't have a tendency to misrepresent information or make far reaching conclusions... oh, but you do...

The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell.

Of the 128 biologists who signed, few conduct research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life.

So let's re-do numbers with 128 biologists

If 10 million scientists, then 0.00127

If 5 million scientists, then .0025

Wow, this is overwhelming support.

If 10 million scientists, 99.999% support evolution.

If 5 million scientists, 99.998% support evolution

The opposition is not scientific opposition, it seems they find faith more persuasive.

Random quotes which debunk your far-reaching conclusion that opposition to evolution is because science doesn't support it.

"I think there's a lot of problems with evolutionary dogma," said Dr. Brewer, who also does not accept the scientific consensus that the universe is billions of years old. "Scientifically, I think there are other possibilities, one of which would be intelligent design. Based on faith, I do believe in the creation account."

Dr. Tour, who developed the "nano-car" — a single molecule in the shape of a car, with four rolling wheels — said he remained open-minded about evolution.

"I respect that work," said Dr. Tour, who describes himself as a Messianic Jew, one who also believes in Christ as the Messiah.

But he said his experience in chemistry and nanotechnology had showed him how hard it was to maneuver atoms and molecules. He found it hard to believe, he said, that nature was able to produce the machinery of cells through random processes. The explanations offered by evolution, he said, are incomplete

Scott R. Fulton, a professor of mathematics and computer science at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y., who signed the petition, said that the argument for intelligent design was "very interesting and promising."

I have an in-law with a science degree in microbiology who is anti-evolution. The curious thing is that he couldn't define what evolution is. Imagine that a scientist who is opposed to something which he has no understanding of; except the caricature that has been force fed by his theology.

His arguments are your typical fallacious arguments with no scientific basis - oh the irony.

Some of which you are intimately familiar with:

Arguments from authority

Arguments from ignorance

Arguements from incredulity

Circular reasoning

Arguments from popularity

By it's practitioners is the key element here... He's taking about his view of the New Atheists...

Why don’t you actually read what Ruse wrote? Those “practitioners” of evolution promoted evolution as a “secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity” IN THE BEGINNING, ie., the beginning of the Darwinian myth of the 19^th century and in the beginning there were only “old atheists”—the new hacks were not even born.

What you grossly miss is that our traits are inherited…

But inherited traits hardly prove man-chimp common ancestry. You remain very confused. Where is your science?

What you have to show, instead of an appeal to authority quotemine, is how the methods that are used to discover life's past are different than the methods used to discover the universe's past, the methods to discover quantum mechanics, or any scientific endeavor.

LOL – can you actually tell us what you think you might be trying to say here?

You really have selected reading don't you, i.e. Morton's Demon.

I thought you rejected a belief in demons? Are you admitting that you cannot tell us what you think you might be trying to say here?

You understand "figure of speech" don't you?

Let me put it in abc format for you. I presented two scientific papers and asked where the religion was in those documents, you replied with a quotemine from Ruse, a self-proclaimed Darwinian, this did not address my question. I then added to that, how are the investigative methods used in those papers different than the the methods used by cosmologists or physicists, etc...

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

Ruse

I am also a fanatical Darwinian —

By it's practitioners is the key element here... He's taking about his view of the New Atheists...

Why don’t you actually read what Ruse wrote? Those “practitioners” of evolution promoted evolution as a “secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity” IN THE BEGINNING, ie., the beginning of the Darwinian myth of the 19^th century and in the beginning there were only “old atheists”—the new hacks were not even born.

What you grossly miss is that our traits are inherited…

But inherited traits hardly prove man-chimp common ancestry. You remain very confused. Where is your science?

What you have to show, instead of an appeal to authority quotemine, is how the methods that are used to discover life's past are different than the methods used to discover the universe's past, the methods to discover quantum mechanics, or any scientific endeavor.

LOL – can you actually tell us what you think you might be trying to say here?

You really have selected reading don't you, i.e. Morton's Demon.

Tinky,

Comfort's argument is a variation of Paley's Watchmaker argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

• The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
  
• As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer.
  

In this presentation, the watch analogy (step 1) does not function as a premise to an argument — rather it functions as a rhetorical device and a preamble. Its purpose is to establish the plausibility of the general premise: you can tell, simply by looking at something, whether or not it was the product of intelligent design. In most formulations of the argument, the characteristic that indicates intelligent design is left implicit. In some formulations, the characteristic is orderliness or complexity (which is a form of order). In other cases it is clearly being designed for a purpose, where clearly is usually left undefined.

The argument conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.^[1]. In his argument, William Paley describes being on a deserted island.You presume no intelligent being has been there but you find a watch. As you look at the tiny cogs and springs, you get an idea of the watch. A watch cannot design and manufacture itself. It has to have a creator. A watchmaker. Our watchmaker, or world maker is God.

The use of the genome sequence in these and future analyses will promote a deeper understanding of great ape biology and evolution.

Biological evolution (science) recognizes the fact that man and chimp are genetically similar – this truth is what we would expect to see with a common designer who would use successful design methods over and over. Darwinian mythology states that man and chimp share a common ancestor—a notion that has never been proven via the scientific method.

Stating "the truth is" doesn't make it the truth.

What you grossly miss is that our traits are inherited and what the scientific data that I posted shows is that a common ancestry is 10 ^2,860 moreprobable than the closest competing hypothesis. Your special multiple origins (each according to its kind) would have to show a unique point of origin that was unable to come about through inheritance.

Did you even read either of the articles?

Now, how is evolution a religion and a myth again?

Again, you remain confused - biological evolution is science, Darwinism is promoted by its practitioners as a religion...

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

----

Michael Ruse

, atheist, Darwinist, former

professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada

Quote mine.

By it's practitioners is the key element here... He's taking about his view of the New Atheists...

See his article

http://www.aeonmagaz...anism-religion/

The New Atheists believe that science replaces the claims about the world that religion makes — and therefore makes religion redundant. Some of them think that a whole new moral system should be based on science. That’s sounding more and more like religion itself to me.

Let us agree that science itself is not a religion. But Humanism is a different matter, and in its most virulent form, it does try to make science into a religion.

What’s more, I think that religion has done and continues to do much harm to society. In the blog I write for the Chronicle of Higher Education I have taken on the Catholics, the Calvinists, the Mormons, and even the Quakers (perhaps a bit Oedipal, because I was raised a Quaker).

What you have to show, instead of an appeal to authority quotemine, is how the methods that are used to discover life's past are different than the methods used to discover the universe's past, the methods to discover quantum mechanics, or any scientific endeavor.

A challenge for you: the papers I posted are about evolution, where is the religion in those papers?

We are supposed to be very closely connected to chimpanzee's on the "evolutionary" scale.

How come then I wake up craving a cup of coffee and not a banana?

Sorry, just a random thought...

Maybe Occam's razor can help us here...

Maybe it's the caffeine

Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline xanthine alkaloid that acts as a stimulant drug and an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.

I take it the Catholic Church is atheist too. They accept evolution as a fact.

Biological evolution is fact--Darwinian mythology is just that--mythology. Many Catholics reject Darwinian myth.

Ah, the same old tired old canards, evolution is a religion and atheism is a religion. Same old tired fallacies with a side dish of an appeal to authority. You just can’t stop the fallacies now can you? You’re like a bull in a China shop. By the way, I find it curious that you would use the word religion as a pejorative.

Regarding the Darwnian evolution….

Waldoz states chimps and man are not genetically related. They were created independently.

His support

The bible states that God created man and woman

Fallacy: Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning is not an acceptable type of argument because it’s logically invalid.

The evidence for common ancestry

http://www.nature.co...nature10842.pdf

The introduction… and the science follows the intro.

Gorillas are humans’ closest living relatives after chimpanzees, and are of comparable importance for the study of human origins and evolution. Here we present the assembly and analysis of a genome sequence for the western lowland gorilla, and compare the whole genomes of all extant great ape genera. We propose a synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence consistent with placing the human–chimpanzee and human–chimpanzee–gorilla speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago. In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other;

this is rarer around coding genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression. A comparison of protein coding genes reveals approximately 500 genes showing accelerated evolution on each of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee lineages, and evidence for parallel acceleration, particularly of genes involved in hearing. We also compare the western and eastern gorilla species, estimating an average sequence divergence time 1.75 million years ago, but with evidence for more recent genetic exchange and a population bottleneck in the eastern species. The use of the genome sequence in these and future analyses will promote a deeper understanding of great ape biology and evolution.

Waldoz supports independent creation by the same methods as before.

Support: the bible says God created creatures according to their own kind.

What science says…

In Douglas L. Theobald’s research, “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry” published in Nature,

http://theobald.bran..._Nature_all.pdf

..universal common ancestor is at least 10 ^2,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis. Notably, UCA is the most accurate and the most parsimonious hypothesis. Compared to the multiple-ancestry hypotheses, UCA provides a much better fit to the data (as seen from its higher likelihood), and it is also the least complex (as judged by the number of parameters).

And a supporting article

http://132.181.26.35/~m.steel/Non_UC/files/research/steel_penny_nature.pdf

Notice the differences in approach?

One clearly states their findings and uses material that can be duplicated and/or retested.

One offers no scientific insight about their conclusion.

One is open to being falsified by contradicting evidence.

One states that any data that doesn’t support it is wrong.

One doesn’t ask you to accept the results blindly.

One approach says it is this way, because it says so.

One has no opinion in the way or another in regards to god or no god.

One states that God exists.

With one, you can refuse to accept its findings as true and not be threatened with eternal punishment.

With the other, you can refuse to accept its findings but you will be threatened with eternal punishment.

With one, you can refuse to accept its findings as true and won’t be refused the medical and technological advances that it brings.

With the other, you can refuse to accept its findings but you will still be threatened with eternal punishment.

With one, you can be of any faith to participate.

With the other, you must accept the specifics of that faith to participate.

Now, how is evolution a religion and a myth again?

Evolution merely states that man (and other life forms) evolve from a common ancestor or ancestors. That is a scientific (not metaphysical) claim.

You are quire mistaken my friend. Your statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion. You are welcome to try to convince us otherwise via the scientific method but you will most likely fail.

BFA is absolutely correct, the scientific theory of evolution is all about physical processes and doesn't delve into metaphysical claims. This is basic philosophy of science. You have to understand scientific theories in their proper place - all their claims are made on a physical plane and never on a metaphysical one.

Again, statement that all life evolved from a common ancestor via naturalism is a statement of religion (metaphysical).

You have several errors here.

The science behind evolution is not a process that hinges itself on a philosophy. Unlike religion, it doesn't put the conclusion first and then try to force fit the evidence to fit it. Like you do when trying to claim DNA as a common material for a designer.

Also, evolution is observable. Simply look at your parents and then look at yourself and then look at your kids. See the variation? or are you exact copies?

The processes that produce variation are observable and understood well enough to make predictions about likelihood of diseases, etc..- genetics.

And predictions can be made with a basic understanding of inheritance.

http://en.wikipedia....ian_inheritance

Also, we can trace our ancestry via DNA. Beliefs are superfluous to this investigation, simply take a DNA sample and read it.

Also, Natural selection, one of the fundamental mechanisms of evolution, is observable.

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_25

It takes zero faith, zero belief to understand or observe these, just as it takes it takes zero belief or faith to understand the mechanisms of the combustion engine. This makes faith or belief superfluous to understanding the process.

Waldoz, this is where you fall back on one of your many fallacies.

I'll give you your choice. You can use as many as you see fit...

Appeal to Ignorance.

False Dilemma

Appeal to Auhority

Negative Proof Fallacy

Of course you are always welcome to conflate evolution with abiogenesis to make your argument for a creator.

Overall, what your going to be left with is distorting evolution to somehow fit your specific religious view point, which is ultimately a God of the Gaps argument. Let me clarify what I mean by "specific religious view". By this I mean that there are other theists here on the forum who don't support Waldoz's viewpoint (Waldoz claims evolution is really a theist vs. atheist argument - this is clearly shown to be wrong), there are Christians (example the Biologos group) that don't support Waldoz's viewpoint, there are Christian scientists like Kenneth R. Miller who don't support his view and there are major Christian groups like the Catholic Church that don't support his view.

Genetic similarity can be used as evidence for common design as easily as it can be used for common ancestry, therefore it neither proves nor disproves either. Your notion regarding man-chimp common ancestry remains what it has always been - a religious belief. If you want to prove it is science then you will need to give us some real science to support your creation myth.

Waldoz,

If you speculated that you had family that originated in a specific small village in Europe and that they had lived there for hundreds of years but there was no written record, do you think you could narrow down who you were closely related to and who you weren't closely related to just through DNA testing?

I take it the Catholic Church is atheist too. They accept evolution as a fact.