5 ms·

I am a bioinformatician with a background in genetics. The argument against evolution in the article, mainly the piltdown man hoax and new sequencing data on n

by daemonk 12y ago

I am a bioinformatician with a background in genetics. The argument against evolution in the article, mainly the piltdown man hoax and new sequencing data on neanderthal is extremely weak. I don't think a single example of scientific fraud is enough to discredit the entire community. I actually think the fact that the fraud was found out as a hoax shows that evidence is constantly being scrutinized and re-examined; which is exactly what science should be all about. The point about sequence similarity/dis-similarity being not the ultimate evidence for common ancestry is actually an insightful point; however, I doubt the author of the article realized the insight. He was probably just parroting a statement he read in another article. I don't think you can make a strong statement about homology between genomes using only 65,000 bases of sequence from potentially heavily degraded sample. I think it is just an interesting starting point for further analysis with more data. The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit with current undeniable understanding of the universe. IE. Man is made from dust is consistent with humans being consisted of elements found in dust (crust) of the earth. I am sure it sounds nice to people who believe in the bible. But it makes me wonder what these interpretations will look like in a hundred years. Are these interpretations going to change with new understandings of the universe? Is the bible just full of vague statements that can constantly adapt to new understanding of the world? What good is that really? I've always wondered what a creationist view of biology would look like. There are plenty of attacks against evolution, but never any clear explanation of how their belief system is in accordance with current data. Do new species suddenly pop into existence from nothing by god? Do god specifically implant new species into the womb of a surrogate specie? Why does god invent bunch of new species in the first place? Why not modify the environment to suit the species rather than modify species to suit the environment? I think creationism hides behind a wall of hand-wavy and foggy ideas that breaks down when explicitly examined.

philcoders 12y ago
"The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit the current undeniable understanding of the universe.", (How do i correctly put a quote here in the replies?) In Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong.
- mikevm 12y ago
  > This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong. The Earth was considered to be a flat disc, so there's nothing of value there. Please do some research before coming here with your bullshit.
- rescendent 12y ago
  Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
- Lambdanaut 12y ago
  The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. That's not a nitpick either. They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then. Regardless. Even if you were dumbly granted that the Earth was a flat disk, how would that have any barring on the rest of the Bible's arguments? Plato was right about a lot of things, but does that mean he was also right about the elemental nature of the universe? (Everything being created from the base elements of fire, earth, wind and water) Your argument is bad even if it were correct.
  - meepmorp 12y ago
    > The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. The earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.
    - grkvlt 12y ago
      > The earth is an oblate spheroid To a first order approximation, such as would be suitable for a discussion on an Internet forum, the earth is basically a sphere...
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
I sympathize with your problem. But the problem is, you have confused creationists with theistic evolutionists! They are the ones that say that evolution occurred, but God guided it. He didn't. He created EX NIHILO, from scratch, in the beginning (that's pure creationist thinking; theistic evolution is merely a compromise position by those who have departed from their Bible). For a view of what creationist biology might actually look like, I suggest you start here. I believe you will find it quite interesting: http://creation.com/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-about-evolution http://creation.com/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-ab... God bless.

by daemonk 12y ago

philcoders 12y ago

"The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit the current undeniable understanding of the universe.", (How do i correctly put a quote here in the replies?) In Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong.

mikevm 12y ago
> This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong. The Earth was considered to be a flat disc, so there's nothing of value there. Please do some research before coming here with your bullshit.
rescendent 12y ago
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Lambdanaut 12y ago
The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. That's not a nitpick either. They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then. Regardless. Even if you were dumbly granted that the Earth was a flat disk, how would that have any barring on the rest of the Bible's arguments? Plato was right about a lot of things, but does that mean he was also right about the elemental nature of the universe? (Everything being created from the base elements of fire, earth, wind and water) Your argument is bad even if it were correct.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  > The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. The earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.
  - grkvlt 12y ago
    > The earth is an oblate spheroid To a first order approximation, such as would be suitable for a discussion on an Internet forum, the earth is basically a sphere...
- thaumasiotes 12y ago

PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago

I sympathize with your problem. But the problem is, you have confused creationists with theistic evolutionists! They are the ones that say that evolution occurred, but God guided it. He didn't. He created EX NIHILO, from scratch, in the beginning (that's pure creationist thinking; theistic evolution is merely a compromise position by those who have departed from their Bible). For a view of what creationist biology might actually look like, I suggest you start here. I believe you will find it quite interesting: http://creation.com/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-about-evolution http://creation.com/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-ab... God bless.