Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

I daily pass a sign that invites me to repent "for I know not the hour when the Lord cometh". And it is perfectly true that I am ignorant of this piece of information. The same warning would have been given to people some 2000 years ago, and regularly since then. People would have lived their three score years and ten to depart frustrated. What's he waiting for?

That's just since this deity felt an appearance was apropos of course, what about the other 200,000 years of human existence one wonders? Well one wonders if one isn't denying known facts from almost every field of science of course, otherwise you can smile happily and knowingly smile at the stupidity of those who refuse to accept that the light from distant stars was created 'en route' roughly when the Ancient Sumerians were inventing glue.

Having said all this I am happy to vote for Christmas, ox, donkey, singing sheep and drunken kings and five gold rings presented to a stable-boy. This is harmless, even if it costs a little more than usual in the shops, and even though turkey and Christmas pudding oppose one's dietary regimen. I still have a liking for carols, especially Christina Rossetti's Bleak Midwinter that herald an impossible event but with mirth and good-will. I worry that in my lifetime they will be replaced by verses chanted by black-robed folk whose god is a practical sadist that hates women and non-believers. We're not going to get naughty old Zeus back so the meek and mild babe will do. But I fear that we are entering the twilight of the Christian gods - son, dad and uncle Tom - for a darker dawn. At least pigs can draw some comfort.

Again I feel we are in complete agreement, though I think it behoves us to recognise that the Muslim is not a generic term, yet the Koran is an appalling and sadistic amoral tome, as of course is the bible. Still we live in hope rather than expectation.

marcolucco,
When you enjoy your Christmas I hope you give a little thought to who provided all the means to enable you to do so, along with a prayer for all those not so fortunate due to mans inhumanity to man.

I do not mean the farmer or the baker but the creator.

I know you will maybe deny it but I have a feeling that you still have doubts about many things and hope and pray you will come to the right conclusions.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
               When you enjoy your Christmas I hope you give a little thought to who provided all the means to enable you to do so,

Science.

along with a prayer for all those not so fortunate due to mans inhumanity to man.

Which a being with omnipotence could instantly will away, but chooses not to apparently.

I do not mean the farmer or the baker but the creator. I know you will maybe deny it but I have a feeling that you still have doubts about many things and hope and pray you will come to the right conclusions.

If you ever read what people write, instead of endlessly proselyting you might realise how condescending that is, marcolucco is clearly an intelligent and educated man, and he couldn't have made his lack of belief in a deity any clearer, or the reasons why. Why don't you try addressing his posts honestly instead of ignoring them, and preaching at him as if he hasn't said anything.

Dr, Sheldon,
You remind me of a quote, I think heard somewhere along the line.

You compress so many words that in the end have little or no meaning and even less thought.

               "When you enjoy your Christmas"
I will. I see nothing wrong in reading the Brothers Karamazov, watching G&S's Pirates or enjoying a good film: I can move from the grime of reality into another world. Christmas does the same - I can enjoy Bing and Danny hoping for snow in Vermont. The sentiment "goodwill to all men" is wonderful. If Christmas didn't exist we would have to invent it - to paraphrase Voltaire. We annexed an old Roman feast so that new Christians wouldn't feel cheated.

If you want to move into factuality, I cannot see that the parthenogenic birth did much for mankind -it certainly didn't bring peace on Earth, as our lovely carols claim. This gave Muhammad an excuse to appear as a second emissary from God, to do the job properly. I find it sad and strange that a man, hypostatically linked to divinity, didn't hint at the theory of gravity, penicillin, cures for leprosy... or give a few pointers in mathematics or astronomy or even aviation. To be honest I think our young god didn't know anything about things other than Scripture. He was botanically unsound on his mustard seed parable. I also find it suspicious that, after thirty years of obscurity -presumably learning Jewish doctrine - he emerged for a few years to preach a few homilies and cure a select few of blindness, deafness and what else. The cult that followed says much for people's credulity rather than the strength of his message. I find that the Greek philosophers and the Roman writers said things as wise and good as Christ. Apart from all this, the historical details of the nativity strike me as bordering on impossible. The Romans would not have required Jewish peasants to travel vast distances to somewhere they were born. Bethlehem was chosen to keep in line with Scripture, however tenuously; and unrecorded eastern potentates coming to pay homage is a fairy tale.

But I accept that Christmas, and the idea of love, sharing, giving, wishing all humans joy - all this is good.

And yes, polyglide, I would be an idiot to imagine that my present state of thought is fixed in gold chains; I have doubts because I am fallible; the path I have chosen is the one that best fits my reasoning powers, which are far from perfect, however. Best wishes.

             

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 You remind me of a quote, I think heard somewhere along the line.

                 You compress so many words that in the end have little or no meaning and even less thought.

Jesus, is that the best you can do? Another pointless childish ad hominem. If my post is so poorly thought out try answering it for once with something approaching erudition or even halfway cogent thought.

Now are we done with ad hominem? I only ask as you're not even good at that, genuinely embarrassed for you. Clearly logic, reason and facts are anathema to you, but you could just button it if you don't have the smarts to give any kind of salient, erudite, cogent response, beyond your usual repetitive mind numbing proselytising of course.

I find it sad and strange that a man, hypostatically linked to divinity, didn't hint at the theory of gravity, penicillin, cures for leprosy... or give a few pointers in mathematics or astronomy or even aviation. To be honest I think our young god didn't know anything about things other than Scripture. He was botanically unsound on his mustard seed parable. I also find it suspicious that, after thirty years of obscurity -presumably learning Jewish doctrine - he emerged for a few years to preach a few homilies and cure a select few of blindness, deafness and what else.

A point I've made more than once, it will bead up and roll off Poly. Apropos your point, if Jesus had shown how to build a flushing toilet, or mosquito net I'd be more impressed than blithe platitudes about meekness being a panacea for all ills, just before getting tortured to death deliberately to appease it's own anger over a curse it levied itself over a mistakenly eaten piece of fruit.

Dr, Sheldon,
You miss the whole point once again.

Had mankind taken the Godly way forward he would not have neede all the so called discoveries and aids to a better life, God gave in the beginning all that was needed for mankind to enjoy a full and happy life, plenty of food untarnished now contaminated in mnay ways, everything for mankind to enjoy in the natural world and everything that one could possibly need along with no illnesses or problems.

However, mankind decided otherwise and has gone along the path of discovering and abusing evrything possible and the state of the world is indicative of mankinds actions.

There are numerous seeming anomolies regarding God and creation but there are far more problems for any other answer.

polyglide wrote:Had mankind taken the Godly way forward he would not have neede all the so called discoveries and aids to a better life,  

Evidence please?

Polyglide wrote:God gave in the beginning all that was needed for mankind to enjoy a full and happy life, plenty of food untarnished  now contaminated in mnay ways, everything for mankind to enjoy in the natural world and everything that one could possibly need along with no illnesses or problems.

No he didn't, not only do you offer zero evidence for your claim, all the evidence refutes it. You keep making these claims but never offer any real evidence, you surely must realise by now we're not going to simply accept such strident unevidenced claims.

Polyglide wrote:However, mankind decided otherwise and has gone along the path of discovering and abusing evrything possible and the state of the world is indicative of mankinds actions.

Another un-evidenced claim, there are perfectly natural explanations for the state of the world, and nothing supernatural is required for those explanations.

Polyglide wrote:There are numerous seeming anomolies regarding God and creation but there are far more problems for any other answer.

I don't know what you mean by anomolies, but there is no evidence for a start, and what evidence we have refutes traditional religious claims for how the world and universe was formed and how life became so diverse, these are well evidenced, and evolution despite your refusal to accept it is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt. I have explained every single time you use argumentum ad ignorantiam what it is and why your argument is based on it, you use it here again, with your 'far more problems for any other answer' argument. Even if we have no other answer at all that doesn't validate deciding your a priori beliefs are the right answer, only proper evidence justifies this.

Dr, Sheldon,
I recently watched a programme regarding a Tribe who lived in the jungle.

They had none of the trappings of the so called developed world, had a clear cut means of conducting their affairs, ample natural food and their conduct from birth to death leaves our so called developed world to shame.

A perfect example of what mankinds life could have been like from the start.

What evidence do you need to see the manner in which mankind has ruined the earth, just the climate problem should be enough not to mention thousands of children having not even clean water nor food nor medical attention etc;

Of course killing each other on a daily basis is par for the course.

There is no evidence whatsoever of how the universe was formed, the last but one theory, the Big Bang, has been ridiculed on several grounds not least of which was what went Bang and what was before the Big Bang.

Evolution as I have explained several times has never explained the origin of life all it has done which anyone with common sense would appreciate is say that anything will change according to circumstances by adaptation if there is enough time to do so before that in question becomes extinct.

A typical recent example being a bird that relies on nuts for it's food for existance had to adapt when the nuts became harder to break, the ones with the strongest beaks survived and the ones with the weaker beaks died and subsequently all the birds would have hard beaks.

I watched a dinosaurs eyes being removed and subjected to in depth examination, the complexities involved should be enough to prove to anyone with common sense that not taking into consideration all the other vital organs etc; that intelligence far beyond our understanding must have been invloved in it's creation.

This clearly indicates that there must be a power beyond our understanding.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I recently watched a programme regarding a Tribe who lived in the jungle. They had none of the trappings of the so called developed world, had a clear cut means of conducting their affairs, ample natural food and their conduct from birth to death leaves our so called developed world to shame. A perfect example of what mankinds life could have been like from the start.

So your 'evidence' that "Had mankind taken the Godly way forward he would not have neede all the so called discoveries and aids to a better life," is a tribe that isn't remotely religious, and certainly lives in entire ignorance of your own religion? For whom a scratch could be a death sentence from blood poising, and a burst appendix would be the end. That's ludicrous reasoning by any rational standard, and it certainly doesn't come close to evidencing your strident claims for your religion being a panacea to the world's ills.

Polyglide wrote: What evidence do you need to see the manner in which mankind has ruined the earth, just the climate problem should be enough, not to mention thousands of children having not even clean water nor food nor medical attention etc;

The climate change that you have consistently denied on here you mean? The climate change we'd be unaware of but for science you mean? The climate change that can only be tackled by using scientific knowledge you mean? So you think living like a tribe devoid of any scientific knowledge or help is a recipe to solve all our ills, but then cite a lack of medical aid as a massive problem? You're making ever more bizarre and contradictory claims I'm afraid.

Polyglide wrote: Of course killing each other on a daily basis is par for the course.

Hardly, the vast majority of people live perfectly long happy lives, and most conflicts seem to gather around religious fractions.

Polyglide wrote:  There is no evidence whatsoever of how the universe was formed,

Yes there is, don't be ridiculous, what is it you think physicists base their work on if not evidence?

polyglide wrote: the last but one theory, the Big Bang, has been ridiculed on several grounds not least of which was what went Bang and what was before the Big Bang.

You're embarrassing yourself here I'm afraid, seriously where do you get this guff?

Evolution as I have explained several times has never explained the origin of life

No it doesn't, but then it was never meant to was it, and you know this as I explain it every time you dig out and rehash this tired old creationist cliché. So given you know this is a very dishonest piece of creationist propaganda why do you object when I call you dishonest for repeating it endlessly when you know the theory of evolution explains the origins of species, not the origin of life? If you don't have the integrity to even acknowledge this simple fact then you can hardly object when I call your posts dishonest.

Polyglide wrote:nonsensical rubbish misrepresenting evolution has been removed here.

You are not an evolutionary biologist Polyglide, and your lack of knowledge of evolution is just simply embarrassing sorry.

Polyglide wrote:I watched a dinosaurs eyes being removed and subjected to in depth examination, the complexities involved should be enough to prove to anyone with common sense that not taking into consideration all the other vital organs etc; that intelligence far beyond our understanding must have been invloved in it's creation.  

 
Those will be the dinosaurs you claim never existed? That aside, this is another well known and widely debunked creationist lie, called irreducible complexity. It shows anyone using has a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution. What's more I have given expansive links and explanations of why it is nonsense, and how scientific evidence has utterly refuted it. Unfortunately you don't care to read these, or try to understand them and prefer to simply dishonestly and endlessly rehash this creationist propaganda. I've even given a number of seminal works by the foremost experts on evolution that comprehensively explain why irreducible complexity is erroneous. The Blind Watchmaker by professor Richard Dawkins would be a very good start.

Here's a textbook definition of irreducible complexity (note the phrase pseudo-science)
"Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot be evolved by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

Polyglide wrote: This clearly indicates that there must be a power beyond our understanding.

no it doesn't, and I really don't know how anyone can make a claim of existence for something in the same sentence they claim that something is beyond their understanding, but if you can't see the irony of misrepresenting scientific evidence like the big bang theory because it is incomplete, as somehow invalidated, but then make this claim that something exists that you can't understand, because you have no others explanation, then unfortunately your grasp of basic logic is as I have said many times deeply flawed. It's called god of the gaps or argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Dr, Shedlon,
I gave you the reference, Henry M, Morris, Ph. D.
read it.

By the way I was reading a book about anti gravity and found I could not put it down.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, I gave you the reference, Henry M, Morris, Ph. D.
read it.

Why? If he had any valid scientific evidence that evolution had been refuted it would have been falsified, do you seriously think this has happened and the world just missed it? Anyone who would make such a claim is so blinkered and biased, that they'd believe literally anything if it favoured their a priori religious beliefs, no matter how much evidence refuted them, exactly as you have done in post after post in fact.

The theory of evolution is a scientific fact, it is validated by 150 years of scientific scrutiny and evidence, peer reviewed evidence that the entire scientific world accepts. What an individual chooses to believe based on their religious beliefs without one single shred of scientific evidence they can get published in a worthy peer reviewed scientific journal is irrelevant, even if they have a doctorate, though it's probably in engineering like the last scientist you laughably used. In fact lets take a look...

"Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. "

Hahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha hahahahahah  he's not even a biologist, and knows less about evolution than you. Hilarious fair play......

Dr, Sheldon,
Funny how everyone who proves evolution is not the answer and all the ones you quotw are geniuses.

Try Scienceagainstevolution.info^

Just click onto science against evolution and you will find numerous such sites ALL OF WHICH HAVE VALID CLAIMS AGAINST EVOLUTION.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Funny how everyone who proves evolution is not the answer and all the ones you quotw are geniuses.

You cited an Engineer you clown, that's hardly my fault. Any more than it's my fault you can't see that proper scientific evidence must be falsifiable and peer reviewed, your grandiose claims to be up to date with science are embarrassing when made alongside such claims. No scientific evidence refutes evolution, or validates creationism, if it did then evolution would have been falsified, and we'd certainly know it. Citing creationist blogs with the word science in the url is as hilarious as citing young earth creationist with doctorates in engineering offering their religious beliefs to refute scientific facts in biology. It's terribly sad you don't know this, and can't see how absurd it all is, but I can do no more than explain it to you, if you choose to delude yourself that creationist mumbo jumbo is genuine science that's your call.

"Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young Earth creationist, Christian apologist, and engineer. "

Hahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahha Laughing Laughing hahahahahah Laughing Laughing  he's not even a biologist, and knows less about evolution than you. Hilarious fair play......that isn't getting any less funny fair play

"“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted"

That hilarious garbage is taken off Scienceagainstevolution, I rest my case, they don't even know what evolution is, or what it is not, that Polyglide is someone who is scientifically illiterate at least as far as evolution is concerned, and you yourself parrot this garbage all the time.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am not talking about an animal or plant evolving due to changed circumstances which is basically what Darwin is all about with large leaps and bounds which cannot be verified etc;

There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is taking place at the present time in the manner quoted by Darwin and the gaps in his theory. THEORY, are so large as to be uncermountable and many scientists agree with this, I have given you the site to go to and there are numerous different scientists who disagree with Darwin and other evolutionists and are better qualified in some instances.

There are so may gaps in the theory that the whole universe could fall through, if it was fact then there would be no one against it but there are just as many against as for.

It is funny what you find funny but then again???????

Dr, Sheldon,
If evolution was a fact then humans could control their everything and have wings and fur coats when they were born, the fact is that with all the technology etc; mankind is going down hill fast in every respect health wise and cannot with all the SCIENTIFIC knowledge do anything about it, so where is evolution taking mankind and how??????????.

Evolution is a scientific fact,  as is your ignorance of it,  amply demonstrated here again. The hilarity of claiming the best scientific minds in the world of biology and  evolution, whose expertise wins Nobel prizes and adorns the most worthy peer reviewed journals, have been secretly refuted by an engineer,  whose religious mumbo jumbo is available on a creationist blog, speaks for itself. We're all aware the hilarity is lost on you, but we're left wondering if you take your car to the doctor and seek medical advice from a mechanic, as that's the level of stupidity your claim exhibits.

The simple fact is that our knowledge of how life started on this planet is incomplete at best. What we do know requires no supernatural explanations at all. What's more religious creation myths have been exposed by science and evolution as completely erroneous. Evolution is as well evidenced now as the rotundity of the earth, and it explains all the diversity of life with a thorough elegance that matches all the evidence. The crass ignorant bullying of creationism by comparison, is like an annoying smell that whilst entirely useless, unpleasant, and unwelcome lingers on for no good reason. The young earth creationists movement is as silly as it is dishonest, and its constant propaganda though laughable, struggles even now to perpetuate ignorance and destroy the pursuit of reason and knowledge. It espouses its ridiculous propaganda with all the loud overbearing brash crass idiocy that only blind superstition can be proud of. 

Sensing its end is being hastened by knowledge and education it sickeningly tries to distort and sabotage the education of the young with its risible doctrine. Where religions have the upper hand this is completed with violent force. 

Evolution by comparison goes quietly about its business with objectivity grace and humility, deriving these from the mass of overwhelming evidence that floods into support it every single year and from every single major branch of science. Reason will win, reason must win. Else blind superstition will return us to the dark ages.
The fact that evolution doesn't explain how life started is of no more significance than any other scientific theory not explaining this. As evolution does not, nor never has claimed to form any explanation for this. It deals entirely and exclusively with the devolopment and diversification of that life 'after' it started. 

Creationism has failed to produce once any single shred of evidence that will support it and that can be objectively verified.

Dr, Shedlon,
No scientific information has ever or ever will explain how life began, the Bible does.

Then it matters not how far scientists can explain evolution because the only thing that matters is how life began.

There is NO present evidence that evolution is happening now, just read the applicable references.

I have said numerous times evolution occurs when circumstances change and to survive that or those concerned have to either perish or change.

There is no evidence whatsoever that one form of life changed into another with different DNA etc; the only changes have occured as I have pointed out above.

Mankind, if God did not interfere, would in all probability die out as there would be no time for adapting to the obvious changes that will occur unless of course there was a big leap and man had wings and could breath under water and eat anything by some scientific miracle.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                No scientific information has ever or ever will explain how life began, the Bible does.  

I just said that scientific knowledge of how life began is incomplete. No one can claim what science may know in the future, such a claim is absurd. The bible's creation myth has been shown to be errant nonsense, and there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support it, and nothing we have learned requires any supernatural explanation.

Polyglide wrote:Then it matters not how far scientists can explain evolution because the only thing that matters is how life began.

So you keep claiming, but there are three problems with your claim that you seem determined to ignore no matter how many times they're pointed out.

1. Evolution is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, and utterly refutes the creation myth in the Christian bible.
2. We do not know how life started, so making claims based on not knowing anything is argumentum ad ignorantiam, or god of the gaps polemic, this is a common logical fallacy, and you've been told this every time you play the 'science doesn't know' card.
3. You are attaching significance to what science doesn't know, and ignoring what it does know, precisely because you are biased in favour of your own beliefs, this is not an objective way to validate what is true or correct.

Polygide wrote: There is NO present evidence that evolution is happening now, just read the applicable references.

Nonsense, all the evidence supports evolution, this is a fact that no rational remotely objective person can deny. Creationism has never managed to get one single piece of evidence scientifically validated, we know this as a fact, because if it had managed to falsify evolution it would have been discarded, it's beyond absurd to suggest this has happened and the entire scientific world, indeed the entire world, has not noticed. Laughable nonsense, but by all means prove me wrong at last and show the Nobel prize winning scientists who achieved this, citing his or her peer reviewed work. You know you can't as we've been over this every time you tout this lie.

Polyglide wrote:
I have said numerous times evolution occurs when circumstances change and to survive that or those concerned have to either perish or change.

This is true, though why you bother giving your own laughably silly and completely erroneous opinion when it is completely refuted by a known scientific fact isn;t clear, care to cite your qualifications? The last expert you offered was a creationist with a Ph.D in engineering, do you really not see how risible such claims are?

Polyglide wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever that one form of life changed into another

There is nothing but evidence to support this, converging evidence from every major scientific field, and again simply denying facts that are as well evidenced as any science has produced only show how utterly delusional creationists are.

I'm sorry to say it again, but you're simply embarrassing yourself with the nonsense you espouse about evolution as it merely shows the startling ignorance of evolution I have come to expect from creationists, lets not forget you claimed on here that humans shared over 90% of their DNA with bananas, and championed the opinion of a creationist whose only qualifications were in engineering. Evolution is a scientific fact and it's as well evidenced now as the rotundity of the earth, and it explains all the diversity of life with a thorough elegance that matches all the evidence. From every major branch of science, deny it till you croak, but every day new evidence broadens our knowledge of it, and of all life, and it'll never stop being a fact as long as the evidence supports it. Unlike creationism which is entirely based on superstition and the young earth creationists movement is as silly as it is dishonest, and its constant propaganda though laughable, struggles even now to perpetuate ignorance and destroy the pursuit of reason and knowledge. It espouses its ridiculous propaganda with all the loud overbearing brash crass idiocy that only blind superstition can be proud of.

Dr, Sheldon,
Bananas do in fact have 90% of the DNA of humans and all manner of life has to some extent also have the same.

What evolution actaully shows is that there has been several stages of life on earth since God created it.

The gaps are when God destroyed that which existed at the time and had become abhorent to him when the evil Satan and his fellow evil spirits had contaminated what God originally intended.

The beginning so far as the present earth is cocerned is the last chance hotel for mankind to prove there are enough true believers who accept God's wishes and want a new world as promised.

What good has mankind actually done to improve the earth and mankind in general?.

The world is in a worse state than ever before and what good is going to the moon and chasing commets etc; for that matter many of the so called improvements have proven to be detrimental eventually and mankinds health etc; is more under constant threat than at any time from both illness and war etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Bananas do in fact have 90% of the DNA of humans

Not even close, humans share around 50% of their DNA with bananas, though I'm starting to think you might share 90%, and the really sad thing here is you Google this in a few seconds and avoid making such a ludicrously stupid claim. The fact you're repeating this makes it doubly embarrassing for you.

Polyglide wrote:What evolution actaully shows

You have no clue what evolution shows, your claims are embarrassingly stupid, as we see again above. The rest of your post is so absurd it's not worthy of debate, you can believe whatever you wish, but your making asinine claims about a scientific fact that have no basis in reality. All the scientific evidence validates evolution and shared ancestry, and I'm talking about the scientific theory not your absurd ravings. Creationism has never ever managed to get a single piece of evidence validated by science, and despite your efforts to ignore this it says everything we need to know about absurd creationist lies to have scientific evidence.

Dr, Sheldon,
The most recent scientific information regarding DNA say that mice have only 2.5% different DNA, and Chips 1% does this make a mouse one of our closest relatives?. [according to my latest research] there is also a dispute regarding bananas, however, one thing is certain, if you are not bananas I cannot think of anyone who is.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The most recent scientific information regarding DNA say that mice have only 2.5% different DNA, and Chips 1% does this make a mouse one of our closest relatives?. [according to my latest research] there is also a dispute regarding bananas, however, one thing is certain, if you are not bananas I cannot think of anyone who is.

Chips? Dear oh dear this must be a windup.

"Humans share 50% DNA with bananas"

"he chimpanzee and another ape, the bonobo, are humans' closest living relatives. These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related, scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that's the instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar--and yet so different?

So Much Alike...
Human and chimp DNA is so similar because the two species are so closely related. Humans, chimps and bonobos descended from a single ancestor species that lived six or seven million years ago. As humans and chimps gradually evolved from a common ancestor, their DNA, passed from generation to generation, changed too. In fact, many of these DNA changes led to differences between human and chimp appearance and behavior."

"Seeing Red
Most genes in humans and chimps are nearly identical. Both species have the OPN1LW gene, which allows them both to see the color red. But mice lack OPN1LW--and have trouble seeing red.

... And Yet So Different
If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 percent the same, why are we so different? Numbers tell part of the story. Each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences. Some of these have a big impact, others don't. And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently--they can be "turned on" in different amounts, in different places or at different times."

LINK

Dr, Sheldon,
S. Hawkins, Humanity is at risk from a series of dangers of our own making.

Nuclear War, Global Warming, and genetically engineeered viruses [ being just three mentioned along with many others ceated by science that he did not mention].

Funny how I have being saying exactly the same thing which you have refuted.

Dr, Sheldon,
The fact that there are any kind of links between a mouse and a monkey and a banana regarding DNA shows that it is no basis for any claims regarding evolution or there would be a distinct lineage, which there is not.

God obviously used the same method of creation for all things [ which I feel to be a reasonable conclusion] and in doing so it matters not how close the DNA is the fact is it is not the same and it is obvious with all that he created DNA would be closer to some than others, closeness is meaningless, you can miss a thing by a fraction of an inch but it just might as well have been a mile etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The fact that there are any kind of links between a mouse and a monkey and a banana regarding DNA shows that it is no basis for any claims regarding evolution or there would be a distinct lineage, which there is not.

The DNA shows the link, you simply don't understand genetics or what it means, so you're wrong, you need to read some basic works on evolutionary genetics. Professor Dawkins has some seminal works in that field of evolutionary biology. You also need to get a basic grasp of the scientific process and how it works, and what this means. A scientific theory is the pinnacle of any scientific idea, and species evolution has been explained by the theory of evolution for over 150 years, if your denials were valid this couldn't be the case.

polyglide wrote:God obviously used the same method of creation for all things [ which I feel to be a reasonable conclusion]

I don't care whether you feel it is a reasonable claim as it clearly isn't, as you have no evidence for it at all beyond religious belief and faith, and it is roundly contradicted by the scientific fact of species evolution, which has masses of scientific evidence to support it, and continues to amass more all the time.

Garry Trudeau always nails it.

Very good. I wish we could insist that all creationists are only allowed medical treatment that has not been developed based on evolutionary science. There'd be a lot less creationists in no time, and it's not like they'd have any rational objection. I'd add the caveat that children are exempt, as unlike Christianity I don't think anyone should be punished for the misdemeanours or stupidity of others.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  S. Hawkins, Humanity is at risk from a series of dangers of our own making.  Nuclear War, Global Warming, and genetically engineeered viruses [ being just three mentioned along with many others ceated by science that he did not mention]. Funny how I have being saying exactly the same thing which you have refuted.

I have never denied those claims as they are demonstrably true? You seem to be either blatantly lying about what I have posted, or have grossly misinterpreted what I meant. Though I fail to see your point here, as those facts are fairly self evident, and again I have never denied any of them? It's Stephen Hawking by the way, assuming you are referring to world famous scientist. I have no idea who S. Hawkins is?

He made the remarks in answer to questions from the audience in a lecture he was giving, and was of course offering his own opinions in that instance, and not any scientific claim. The article I found from the BBC went on:

"Humanity is at risk from a series of dangers of our own making, according to Prof Stephen Hawking. Nuclear war, global warming and genetically-engineered viruses are among the scenarios he singles out. And he says that further progress in science and technology will create "new ways things can go wrong"."

"But he insists that ways will be found to cope."

"We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we have to recognise the dangers and control them. I'm an optimist, and I believe we can."

"But he also said that future generations of researchers should be aware of how scientific and technological progress is changing the world, and to help the wider public understand it."

I couldn't agree more, public misconception of science is something that desperately needs to be tackled with education, as your bizarre misunderstanding and distortions of it show all too clearly. Nothing scares me more than 21st century technology in the hands of religious belligerents gleefully anticipating being key players in bringing about the end of the world, in line with archaic superstitious myths. The answer is not to jettison knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge, but to eradicate the superstitious hokum that indoctrinates people to believe the end of the world is somehow desirable some time soon, and that it is a good thing.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  The fact that there are any kind of links between a mouse and a monkey and a banana regarding DNA shows that it is no basis for any claims regarding evolution or there would be a distinct lineage, which there is not.  

Wrong again I'm afraid. The lineage is clear and well evidenced, and has been meticulously researched.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life

http://static.bbci.co.uk/naturelibrary/3.1.41//images/tree_of_life_full.gif

The taxonomy of Homo sapiens as one species of a family of Hominidae or great apes has been a well established scientific fact for decades, it's a sad indictment of our educational system that anyone remains ignorant of this fact into the 21st century.


http://www.pasttime.org/

It is a good theory , unfortunately the transitions, the supposed in-between stages of humans from apes are pretty non existent so far as I know... no missing links plural let alone there being just one. These are pretty big jumps between the types.

From a creationist perpective I dare say ; all this shows is there is a "common design" from the same maker / source.  Borrowing this example from someone (can't remember who to credit at the moment) There are different model cars from a manufacturer. All these cars look similar or some look almost the same yet they are individually designed from the same maker.

Jsmythe wrote:It is a good theory .

It's not a "good" theory it's a scientific theory, the same as the one's that explain gravity, germs, and relativity. Evolution is a fact, the theory of relativity explains that fact. ALL species and ALL fossils are transitional, this is a scientific fact that the species evolution is based on, and the theory of evolution explains.

Jsmythe wrote: the supposed in-between stages of humans from apes are pretty non existent so far as I know

Humans are apes, there is no "in between" stages. It is precisely this level of ignorance of the science of evolution that creationism hopes to perpetuate. What's astonishing is you could simply Google taxonomy of humans and apes, then see for yourself.  

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=taxonomy+of+humans+and+apes&rlz=1C1CHWA_enGB609GB609&oq=taxonomy+of+humans+and+apes&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Jsmythe wrote:These are pretty big jumps between the types.

What are you expecting to see between "types", what are these "types" you are talking about, and why are you expecting gaps?

Spanish and Italian evolved from Latin, but Latin speakers didn't give birth to Spanish or Italian speakers, yet there was no gap, geddit?


A more salient question is why you think your misconceptions have never cause science to alter, let alone abandon the scientific fact of species evolution in over 150 years of scientific scrutiny? Just check any news channel    

Source: Twitter

I worked real hard for the dear old firm,
I learned most every advertising term.
I said to the men in the dark gray suits,
"Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes."

Allan Sherman, about sixty years ago.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Humans are apes, there is no "in between" stages. It is precisely this level of ignorance of the science of evolution that creationism hopes to perpetuate. What's astonishing is you could simply Google taxonomy of humans and apes, then see for yourself.  

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=taxonomy+of+humans+and+apes&rlz=1C1CHWA_enGB609GB609&oq=taxonomy+of+humans+and+apes&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So this means we (should) have fossils of gradual changes from apes to humans?

What are you expecting to see between "types", what are these "types" you are talking about, and why are you expecting gaps?

Spanish and Italian evolved from Latin, but Latin speakers didn't give birth to Spanish or Italian speakers, yet there was no gap, geddit?

Theories get updated  as you know - the 98% DNA common link with humans and apes is still debateable for example.

Jsmythe wrote:So this means we (should) have fossils of gradual changes from apes to humans?

Fossilisation is an extremely difficult and rare occurrence,  requiring a very specific set of environmental circumstances to converge. So I'm not sure we should have any expectations of what it "should" show. However I already linked a page illustrating skull fossils charting the evolution of early hominid species.

I also already explained that humans ARE apes. We share common ancestry with the other extant great apes.

Jsmythe wrote:"Theories get updated  as you know - the 98% DNA common link with humans and apes is still debateable for example."

It's part of the requirements of a scientific theory that it leads to new areas of research and expands the knowledge of the  scientific field it belongs to. So yes they get updated. The scientific theory of evolution has been expanding for over 150 years of intense scientific scrutiny. The creationist lobby have tried constantly to dishonestly discredit it and pour huge sums into this propaganda campaign. Yet species evolution remains a scientific fact that the entire field of biology and ALL medical research is based on.

I have no idea what you mean by the shared DNA between humans and other great apes being "debateable"? However the head of the human genome project is a devout Christian who has stated that without a single fossil or any other evidence, genetics alone evidences species evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.