Perfect sense, as one has at least some evidence to back it up, the other has nothing.
Evidence? What evidence? At least I have the Bible, all you have is your blatant denial of the law of biogenesis (and every other law of nature for that matter).
Perfect sense, as one has at least some evidence to back it up, the other has nothing.
Megabyte, we don't attack people personally. Calling someone stupid, or ignorant of the topic goes against our rules.Oh, I apologise then, Trigger, Justified. I may have been a little agressive in here.
Thank you, Justin.
All you can really say about experiments is that they prove that certain processes CAN OCCUR. They say nothing about WHEN they occurred or IF they occurred at all in the past. History is forever buried in mystery. There is no possible way (short of breaking Einstein's laws of relativity and going back in time) for us to objectively know what happened in the distant past of origin "science".
The appeal to authority works in the science case because... science has been shown to be reliable.
>Proofs in science
Clearly, we have a person well versed in philosophy (of science) here.
And your statement is blatantly false, because both sides use similar evidences and in many cases even SHARE the same evidence. Grand Canyon anyone? Evolution claims it as evidence of a river that existed for millions of years, slowly cutting through layers of rock to form the canyon, while creation claims it as evidence of the biblical Flood that cut the canyon into the soft sediments as the water retreated from the land. Neither side can be proven. Both sides are speculating on what happened in the past; the difference is evolution takes known processes and extrapolates them backward in an attempt to explain things (assumption: "processes never change"), and creation uses the Bible or other religious works as a basis and works science into them (assumption: "these documents are accurate"). Both sides are ASSUMING things and using available evidence to back up their arguments.
As I've said many times, neither evolution nor creationism can be scientifically "proven" -- look at Bacon's scientific method if you need proof of that. Both sides can use existing evidence in our present time to say "see? this backs up my argument", but in the end, neither evolution* nor creation is observable, repeatable fact. Origin "science" is more faith than science.
I might also add that there are some evolutionists who believe in a radical non-Darwinian form of evolution. The name of the "theory" escapes me at the moment, but in short, they believe that two reptiles mated, laid an egg, and a bird hatched -- that all the necessary beneficial mutations that would morph reptile DNA into bird DNA occurred in a single miraculous step. If you thought creation was weird...evolution can be just as weird.
[SIZE="1"]*Micro-evolution IS observable and repeatable. It is genetic variation built into existing DNA, and both evolutionists and creationists believe in micro-evolution. This is not the generic "evolution" I am speaking of.[/SIZE]
The gist of the argument:
(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.
(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.
(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).
(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.
(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.
(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.
In terms of a scientific statistical analysis, the "null hypothesis" is that the identity of non-essential amino acids in the cytochrome c proteins from human and chimpanzee should be random with respect to one another. However, from the theory of common descent and our standard phylogenetic tree we know that humans and chimpanzees are quite closely related. We therefore predict, in spite of the odds, that human and chimpanzee cytochrome c sequences should be much more similar than, say, human and yeast cytochrome c - simply due to inheritance.
...
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^-93 (1 out of 10^93). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10^-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10^-25.
...
The point of this prediction is subtly different from prediction 1.3, "Convergence of independent phylogenies". The evidence given above demonstrates that for many ubiquitous functional proteins (such as cytochrome c), there is an enormous number of equivalent sequences which could form that protein in any given organism. Whenever we find that two organisms have the same or very similar sequences for a ubiquitous protein, we know that something fishy is going on. Why would these two organisms have such similar ubiquitous proteins when the odds are astronomically against it? We know of only one reason for why two organisms would have two similar protein sequences in the absence of functional necessity: heredity. Thus, in such cases we can confidently deduce that the two organisms are genealogically related. In this sense, sequence similarity is not only a test of the theory of common descent; common descent is also a deduction from the principle of heredity and the observation of sequence similarity. Finally, the similarity observed for cytochrome c is not confined to this single ubiquitous protein; all ubiquitous proteins that have been compared between chimpanzees and humans are highly similar, and there have been many comparisons.