[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.

But what is the proof of evolution?

Quick article I just found....

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations. To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!
Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference. However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

*****WELCOME to the FACTS of science that most don't want to talk about.

We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?

Depends, on what are you basing that Zeus cast Thunderbolts. I love Greek Mythology -- but what specific writing are you basing this information on?

We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.

We have some evidence of our origin as it was written in some of the oldest writings we have.
Maybe we are just so much smarter now than the humans back then.
Maybe aliens did deposit us on this planet -- doesn't change the real concept though. Who made the aliens?
We have nothing but problems stemming from the idea that we came from apes. Of course if the other alternative is intelligent design -- then man isn't really in control -- we might have to answer for our actions -- and oh my--- there might be a God.
So lets teach it the way of coming from apes -- at least we don't have to answer for our actions that way and we are large and in charge.

Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.

yes I read what you said before. It just didn't hold water.
Science claims to be able to date based up radioactive decay -- I understand.
They can date rock via other elements than carbon -- I understand.
ALL life on earth is Carbon Based -- I understand.
They can only date anything that was living via carbon dating because it is a carbon based being -- YES I understand.
They can date the rocks, etc they think -- even though they can't prove it -- if they make enough assumptions with atmosphere, and standard rate of decay -- yes I understand.

What I don't understand is if I don't make these assumptions -- how it would ever work, because it doesn't and can't. I don't assume the decay rate stays the same when we can make the decay rate on everything change based upon outside conditions. We can only date rocks etc with the "other" dating methods. Yes some fossils they try to date, after the carbon has been changed to rock, but they still make many assumptions on decay rates and time to convert to the fossil, etc. -- before they make more assumptions on radioactive decay rates being constant based upon the atmosphere it was in at that time. The best scientific method they have at this time for the dating of anything living is radioactive carbon dating, and that only leads back to what I wrote before -- it maxes to thousands of years which is the life of carbon. Science has NO proof of anything longer than this, and this is if I agree to the assumptions that the decay is constant and the atmosphere it was in is the same today as it was then.

I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.

What a video. Basically they say 93% of all scientist don't believe in God and we have taught evolution since the 1950's --- so it all must be true. I mean opinion, opinion, no proof, none. Isn't this exactly what scientists claim that religion says? ( Believe me and I don't need proof and if you don't believe me you are just not as smart (evolved) as I AM )

Just remember the stuff that was taught up till the 1950s is all wrong, we are right -- get on board or your just stupid and wrong.

Science is just another form of religion. Only in Science - man is in charge and knows it all, or can figure it all out.

---------------------------------------------------------

now back to Evolution and God.

Most don't realize that this is THE question. Logic does though.

Evolution has a logical end. The laws of nature have a logical end, but not a logical design.

Have science explain why water -- the building block of life..... is less dense when in both solid and gaseous forms.

Explain why -- if there was a Big Bang -- with all life starting at a single point and goes outward -- that some objects in outer space rotate in opposite directions (You cannot do that here on Earth - I've seen the experiment) Spin something and cause it to explode outward and the inertia causes all things to spin in the same direction. (Same reason that toilets flushed in the northern hemisphere circle one direction when they go down and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere -- the Earth still spins only one direction)

Science has all kinds of problems it can't solve and its hypothesis just don't work in most instances. The answer for science is just throw out ideas, call them fact, make assumptions, teach it and try as much as possible to get public opinion on their side.

--------------------------------------------------
Now Let's say I am extremely irrational and you are correct. There is no God. Logically there is no afterlife. Hence we live and we die and that is it. Why do we have a conscience? Why is there a right and a wrong? Why shouldn't I just rape, steal, murder? The end is the end no matter what, and we do not have to answer to anyone. Might is always right because if you don't like it, then I'll just kill you. Why would there be Love? and why would anyone offer their own life for someone else? Why would what Hitler did be wrong? Why would the killing of millions be wrong? Who decides right and wrong? Who decides what is fair? Since the planet according to scientist is only able to truly support 500 million or so, and we have 6+ billion on the planet now -- why don't we just commit mass genocide and kill off the rest that are hurting the planet. I am man and can justify this with mans thinking. If man is in control then what makes it wrong for this to happen?

If you don't believe in a God, then why don't you just kill yourself because there isn't anyone to answer to and really you are just hurting the planet anyway.


Can you follow the logic of a world without a creator?


I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
If I don't, and there isn't, then the alternative is screw you and your courts, your government, and your life -- I'll take it when I want to and I will rape your women, and steal your food and everything else, and if you don't like it then kill me - because logically that is where we are going to end up either way and none of this matters anyway. Why wait to die, and why try to live at an older age since basically it physically sucks when you start to get old (just trust me on this one). Why try to help others -- if there is nothing for you?

Thinking gets a little deep when you get into it.


Science is a way to try and find the truth -- It just gets itself way off with assumptions, etc that doesn't meet its agenda.
True science is great in my opinion -- just not what is put out there as science today.