Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'research'.
-
High Altitude Balloon Proves Small & Close Sun
-
"A new study proves once again that the transgender movement is scientifically wrong and is denying the truth. Scientists in Israel from the Weizmann Institute's Department of Molecular Genetics have done exhaustive research which reveals over 1,500 differences between men and women – not just in reproductive organs, but also in differences in the heart, brain, and skin..." "...The LGBT movement, he says, wants to convince people – irrespective of definitive studies – that they are born in a body opposite their born gender, but mental health experts say it's a mental problem called "gender dysphoria" and that counseling is available."
-
I recently made a claim in another topic; "There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry." [The topic was locked before I had a chance to respond. I think this specific topic is worthy of discussion so I decided to post my response here. I considered the arguments in the initial post to be somewhat typical, so I included them for context (i.e. not to personally attack the poster - so I sincerely hope no offense is taken, as none is intended). And if anyone knows how to let the poster know about this topic, I would be greatful if you could - as a right of reply is deserved. In response to my original statement (quoted above), the poster replied; “There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are” It is a pity then that you could not find any words to express a single specific example of my supposed copious error. Unsupported Assertions and Innuendo are common strategies used to support the secular models, but they are logical fallacies; rendering such strategies to be technically irrational. “I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies” I also have “personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab” specifically dealing with bacterial genetics. Anyone who researches bacteria should be aware that they are prokaryotic cells which engage in lateral gene transfer. It is this trait which makes them so useful in experiments pertaining to genetic manipulations. And it is this trait which logically disqualifies them from being used to support genetic-inheritance-based models such as Common Ancestry. “I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution” Until you provide an argument I can examine, your claim here simply represents another Unsupported Assertion. It doesn’t actually contribute anything to the discussion. In order to properly respond, I would also have to know how you are defining “evolution”. Do you mean the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), or do you mean the suite of concepts that tend to find themselves under the general umbrella of "evolution" (i.e. Natural Selection, genetic mutations, speciation etc., as well as Common Ancestry), or do you just mean any heritable change in a population? Of all these options I, as a creationists, reserve my right under the scientific method, to scrutinize the claim that Common Ancestry is the only valid interpretation of the evidence. That is, I only dispute evolution when it is defined to mean the Common Ancestry of all life on earth (including its associated time frames). And this is why my claim was specific to Common Ancestry. I encourage the use of specific terminology rather than the vague term “evolution” – because “evolution” is so equivocal that it muddies the debate. For example, people providing evidence of Natural Selection as evidence of evolution – not realising they have contributed nothing to the debate (since I have no issue with Natural Selection, and since the concept of environmental selection existed in the scientific literature before Darwin incorporated it into his hypothesis – so contrary to what is implied, there is no secular 'ownership' of Natural Selection). If evolution equals Natural Selection, then I, as a Biblical creationist, am also an evolutionist - so you see how such use of terminology could contribute to a confusing debate. “Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine.” This statement doesn’t really make sense. There is no argument linking the premise to the conclusion. Why would the belief that “evolution [or more correctly, Common Ancestry] has nothing to do with medicine” produce the conclusion that I “don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle”? I would consider the opposite to be true. Since the science is not reliant upon secular assumptions, I can trust that the medical advice stems from objective scientific investigation.
- 25 replies
-
- natural selection
- medicine
-
(and 4 more)
Tagged with: