The Instigator
AllUnpowerful
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JohnSmythe
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism is false.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 104419
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

AllUnpowerful

Pro

Introduction:
As a disclaimer, I do not think that evolutionary creationism can be proved to be false. Since there are multiple types of creationism and the focus of this debate is only one type of creationism, I will define the term creationism for this debate.
Definitions:
Creationism: The belief that the world was created as described in Genesis, in the Bible, and that humans did not evolve from nonhuman apes.
God: the Christian god.
All-powerful god: a being whose will can do literally anything.
Argument:
Premise 1: Chromosome 2, in humans, seems to be the result of a fusion of two chromosomes in nonhuman apes.
Premise 2: If chromosome 2, in humans, seems to be the result of a fusion of two chromosomes in nonhuman apes, it is sufficiently evident that humans evolved from nonhuman apes to warrant belief that humans evolved from nonhuman apes.
Premise 3: Therefore, it is sufficiently evident that humans evolved from nonhuman apes to warrant belief that humans evolved from nonhuman apes.
Premise 4: If something is sufficiently evident to warrant belief in it, it is true.
Premise 5: Therefore, humans evolved from nonhuman apes.
Premise 6: If humans evolved from nonhuman apes, creationism is false.
Conclusion: Creationism is false.
Argument form:
Premise 1: f
(Based on research.)
Premise 2: if f, e
(Based on logic.)
Premise 3: Therefore, e
(Supported by premises 1 and 2.)
Premise 4: if e, a
(Based on logic and phrased in a more general way to sound obvious.)
Premise 5: Therefore, a
(Supported by premises 3 and 4.)
Premise 6: if a, -c
(Based on logic.)
Conclusion: -c
(Supported by premises 5 and 6.)
Final notes:
The first part of my definition of creationism, namely "The belief that the world was created as described in Genesis, in the Bible", may not be false if an all powerful god willed it to not be false since an all powerful god's will, by definition, could do literally anything. Not everyone believes in an all powerful god, though.
Question to the contender:
If the Bible said, clearly, that 2 + 2 = 42 and not 4, would 2 + 2 = 42 and not 4?
JohnSmythe

Con

Just establishing, all I need to prove is that "It is not known that creationism is false", because you've made the positive claim that it is. Also, disclaimer, I do not necessarily believe that man has no primate ancestry. I am taking the strongest biblical creation position because Pro essentially asked that I do so.

Let's further define our terms:

Evolution: The unintelligent (involving no interference by a being possessed of libertarian free will in contravention of normal operation of biology) selection of traits that enhance survivability by the death of those who do not possess them, and against those traits whose possession worsened survivability by the death of those who possessed them.
"as described in Genesis": Genesis 1 is a heavenly, or spiritual creation. What else could it be, when God is counting by days before ever there was a "morning" or an "evening"? And what of Genesis 2:4-5 "4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew."

If the plant`s not in the earth, where is it?

As a consequence of this definition, only one species along the Homo chain needs to have originated in a manner highly dissimilar to the rest of life, as that would involve the evolution-breaking interference described above.


With our terms so defined, let`s consider the arguments.

Premise 1: I don't have a real objection, more a curiosity. I wasn't able to turn up an answer on the research I did, but how did species ever divide/change chromosomes, anyhow? Polar bears and grizzly bears can produce fertile offspring, having similar chromosome numbers, while horses and donkeys cannot. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd actually like to know how it could be that in a P. Fish colony with all members having 30 chromosomes, the P. mutated NewFish, with 29 chromosome pairs, would ever be able to create a new P. NewFish population, seeing as he has only P. Fish to mate with?
Premise 2: Does not follow. If I, the divine engineer, have discovered a genetic pattern that reliably results in bipedal mammals with primate features (either humans or apes first), why would I change it? It seems like I would only change it to the smallest degree to ensure no fertile offspring, and otherwise leave it be, so that humans resembling apes is no more compelling evidence of descent than knights and samurai both using armor means that one copied the other. Also, does not follow that no libertarian agency was availing of supernatural power outside of the normal biological order in working the dramatic and rapid transformation from ape to human.
Premise 3: If premise 2 were true, would be true.
Premise 4: Epistemic nitpicking, lots of things that appear to be true can, upon further examination, not be true, but I understand your point.
Premise 5: If 3 and 4 are true, is true.
Premise 6: Does follow from the definition of creationism

Answer to the question to the contender:
I actually don't believe in biblical infallibility, so if some ancient scribe stuck that in there, I wouldn`t necessarily believe it. But, from an infallibilist perspective, you've proposed a nonsensical situation. It is as if you asked someone who believed that all bachelors were unmarried what his perspective would be if there was conclusively proven the existence off a man who by some means was a bachelor whilst married. A married bachelor is inconceivable, and from the perspective of the infallibilists, the Bible stating an incorrect fact is also inconceivable.

Debate Round No. 1
AllUnpowerful

Pro

Introduction:

Welcome, contender. Thank you for accepting this debate.

Clarification:

"It is known that creationism is false" is not the topic at all. "Creationism is false" is the topic; as is clearly stated in the topic section of this argument. So your goal is to prove that creationism is not false, or -- described more simply -- that it is true. (not true == false; not false == true) Regardless of whatever claims I may or may not have made, the point still stands that the goal of a debate, like this one, is to either prove or disprove the topic.

Refutation:

Genisis 1 is a heavenly or spiritual creation? Well, if you assume it's a factual text and not just made up. What else could it be? Made up. If it can't be made up, then non-Christian religious texts can't be, either, and Christianity isn't the only true religion. If other religious texts could be made up, so can the Bible (including Genisis 1). You can't have it both ways; you can't have it so that the religious text you believe in must be right, but all other religious texts must be wrong. You can believe you have it both ways, but you don't have it both ways.

You basically seem to be arguing:

Premise a) God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes.

Premise b) If God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes, humans did not evolve from nonhuman apes.

Conclusion) Humans did not evolve from nonhuman apes.

The question is, what do you have in support of premise a or premise b? Do you magically know that God exists when the rest of us don't? Also, addressing premise b, God doesn't need to do anything; or even exist. Even if God doesn't make humans evolve from apes, nature could have made humans evolve from apes.

> Premise 4: Epistemic nitpicking, lots of things that appear to be true can, upon further examination, not be true,

Yes, you can be wrong about things; but if something warrants belief, it's very unlikely that it's not true; so, generally, it is true.

What I see in your argument is several assertions. You haven't justified many of them, so no one in their right mind should believe them just because you say or personally believe them. If they believe what you say, it should be through logical justification; which you have not provided. Please provide some logical justification.

> Also, does not follow that no libertarian agency was availing of supernatural power outside of the normal biological order in working the dramatic and rapid transformation from ape to human.

1. Evolution usually only does the same thing once.

2. I think it took millions of years for nonhuman apes to become human.

Side note: Humans are already a species of ape.

My argument:

Premise 1: Scientists have proved that humans evolved from nonhuman apes.

Premise 2: If scientists have proved that humans evolved from nonhuman apes, humans evolved from nonhuman apes.

Premise 3: Therefore, humans evolved from nonhuman apes.

Premise 4: If humans evolved from nonhuman apes, creationism is false.

Conclusion: Creationism is false.

Argument form:

Premise 1: p

(Based on research.)

Premise 2: if p, a

(Based on logic.)

Premise 3: Therefore, a

(Supported by premises 1 and 2.)

Premise 4: If a, -c

(Based on logic.)

Conclusion: -c

(Supported by premises 3 and 4.)

Final notes:

Do your own research, please. You can research premise 1 yourself. That way, you know the research wasn't cherrypicked by me.
JohnSmythe

Con

Well, I had hoped from your coherent, cool-headed, first argument that you'd be reasonable and not impassioned about the subject. Clearly I was wrong.

"If it can't be made up (P), then non-Christian religious texts can't be (Q), either, and Christianity isn't the only true religion."

Q simply does not follow from P.

"You basically seem to be arguing:

Premise a) God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes."

It follows from my definition of evolution that if a being possessed with libertarian free will had to intervene to "make" a result, it is not evolution. Why are you questioning this premise, anyway? Your whole case rides on the fact that divine agency and evolution are opposed.

"1. Evolution usually only does the same thing once."
What does this have to do with anything?

"2. I think it took millions of years for nonhuman apes to become human."

At best, it took one million years. The most difficult part to explain for natural process evolution is Homo Sapiens tremendous capacity for abstract thought. Homo erectus, the second on the chain, does not seem to have been nearly so gifted. Homo Sapiens himself went from stone-age hunter gathering to Greek philosophy in only ~200,000 years. There are several unfalsiable theories as to why humans would develop through natural selection a stupendous capacity for thought totally beyond what could be beneficial for survival.


But since you insist I prove creationism, you must permit we go beyond the primate origins of man, and go to the origin of all life. You can make all sorts of reasonable sounding conjectures to explain why humans are so superior to the rest of animals in terms of their intelligence and nobody can prove you wrong, but what about the origin for life?

RNA, the essential storage unit of genetic information, is both very complex, and very unstable.

Ribose, its backbone, lasts all of 73 mins (half life) in boiling water.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Cytosine, a component of RNA, is also highly unlikely to have formed in primordial conditions:

http://www.pnas.org...

"To favor cytosine formation, reactant concentrations are required that are implausible in a natural setting. Furthermore, cytosine is consumed by deamination (the half-life for deamination at 25°C is ≈340 yr) and other reactions. No reactions have been described thus far that would produce cytosine, even in a specialized local setting, at a rate sufficient to compensate for its decomposition. On the basis of this evidence, it appears quite unlikely that cytosine played a role in the origin of life."

Likewise, adenine is also unlikely to have formed in prebiotic conditions:
https://link.springer.com...

" (1) Adenine synthesis requires HCN concentrations of at least 0.01 M. Such concentrations would be expected only in unique circumstances on the early Earth. Adenine yields are low in prebiotic simulations, and if a subsequent high-temperature hydrolysis step is omitted, the reported yield does not represent adenine itself, but 8-substituted adenines and other derivatives. (2) Adenine is susceptibile to hydrolysis (the half life for deamination at 37 °C, pH 7, is about 80 years), and to reaction with a variety of simple electrophiles, forming a multiplicity of products. Its accumulation would not be expected over a geological time scale, and its regioselective incorporation into a replicator appears implausible. (3) The adenine-uracil interaction, which involves two hydrogen bonds (rather than three, as in guanine-cytosine pairing) is weak and nonspecific. Pairing of adenine with many other partners has been observed with monomers, synthetic oligonucleotides and in RNA. The hydrogen-bonding properties of adenine appear inadequate for it to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a prebiotic soup."


So you have to have RNA, which consists of the A-U base pair, G-C base pair, and its backbone Ribose (to say nothing of the proteins needed for synthesis), without either A, C, or Ribose!

Not a single instance of life based upon another information carrier other than RNA exists. Not one. As if the case for abiogenesis weren`t intractable enough, not a single instance of any of its proposed alternatives has been found in nature, let alone life based on it!

So there you have it, the "worst theory of the early evolution for life" (except all the others, the author is quick to add. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...).

To adapt your structure:

Premise 1: No life has been found based on any other nucleic acid (barring DNA, which needs RNA too, so that point is moot).

Premise 2: If no life has ever been found without RNA, it is reasonable to believe that life could not have developed without RNA.

Premise 3: Life developed from RNA. (From 2 and 1, and your "justify belief" premise)

Premise 4: It is reasonable to believe prima facie (meaning, until proven otherwise) that which large numbers of persons of unimpeachable character tell us. (Support: Negation of this premise would lead to the collapse of law, business, science, and society as we now know it).

Premise 5: As no theory for the origin of life has more scientific evidence than the other, barring those that propose RNA alternatives, which have plenty of evidence against, we should believe the one which seems prima facie to be true. (from 2, 4, and research)

Premise 6: Martin Luther King Jr, Kurt Gödel, Renee Descartes, Immanuel Kant, George Washington, Sir Francis Bacon, Francis Collins, and hundreds of great minds, each being a person of unimpeachable character and upon some of whose work we base much of our understanding of everything, have all claimed sensory (the actual five senses, or else intuition) experience for the existence of the Christian God.

Premise 7: It is reasonable to hold a prima facie belief in God (from 6).


You asked if I somehow knew that God exists. Of course I do. I've had sensory experience, and I'll trust it until proven otherwise. My question to you is: If someone has had repeated sensory experiences with God, is that person justified in believing in God until proven otherwise?


Debate Round No. 2
AllUnpowerful

Pro

Refutation:
> Well, I had hoped from your coherent, cool-headed, first argument that you'd be reasonable and not impassioned about the subject. Clearly I was wrong.
You were wrong about one thing; I'm not passionate about the subject. I'm just blunt when I think someone is talking nonsense. It's in my personality. I try to add a bit of personality to my work. Maybe you mistook that for passion.
Also, in what way was I not reasonable?
> "If it can't be made up (P), then non-Christian religious texts can't be (Q), either, and Christianity isn't the only true religion."

Q simply does not follow from P.

1. Are you serious? What are you on? I'll tell you what you're on; religion.
2. How does it not follow? The form of the argument is correct. Here's another argument with the same form.
Prerequisite: There is no known difference between the validity of teacher a and another teacher.
If teacher a can't be wrong, another teacher can't be wrong. Either teacher a isn't the only right teacher or teacher a can be wrong.
If you disagree with that or my point; you're talking moonshine.
However, whether your religion is true or a load of bull is not the point. The point is that scientists have proved that humans evolved from apes, so humans evolved from apes, so creationism is false.
People would accept that the milky way galaxy is about 100 thousand lightyears across if they googled it; or at least they would not deny it -- on the grounds that it's not their area of expertise -- but when it comes to something like the very well established theory and fact of evolution (just as gravity is both a theory and a fact), they think they know better than scientists. Hilarious.
Why shouldn't you accept the fact of evolution? Because it conflicts with your precious belief system? You'd sound like a tribesman saying that their gods must live atop the distant mountain because it was passed down as truth through generations.
To be honest, the only reason I'm so informal with this half of the argument is because it has absolutely diddly squat to do with creationism being false; it's purely there to add flavour.
> "1. Evolution usually only does the same thing once."
What does this have to do with anything?

The inability to reproduce humans evolving from apes through evolutionary means; which you seemed to be talking about when you said:

>Also, does not follow that no libertarian agency was availing of supernatural power outside of the normal biological order in working the dramatic and rapid transformation from ape to human.
I assumed you were using bad grammar and talking about an organisation when you said "agency". I guess you weren't.
> Premise a) God would not make humans evolve from nonhuman apes."

It follows from my definition of evolution that if a being possessed with libertarian free will had to intervene to "make" a result, it is not evolution.

Then we've got crossed wires; I personally define evolution as the meaning of the word "evolution" when scientists use it. Also, we never established that any supernatural being has to intervene with anything. You seem to be making stuff up, here. Are you living on another planet?
> Why are you questioning this premise, anyway? Your whole case rides on the fact that divine agency and evolution are opposed.

No, it doesn't. My case has nothing to do with the existence or lack of existence of supernatural, magical or otherwise ridiculous beings. If you think otherwise; please point out the part of my case that does.
> At best, it took one million years. The most difficult part to explain for natural process evolution is Homo Sapiens tremendous capacity for abstract thought.
Easy; bigger brain.
> Homo erectus, the second on the chain, does not seem to have been nearly so gifted. Homo Sapiens himself went from stone-age hunter gathering to Greek philosophy in only ~200,000 years. There are several unfalsiable theories as to why humans would develop through natural selection a stupendous capacity for thought totally beyond what could be beneficial for survival.
Where's your proof that homo sapiens' capacity is greater than is evolutionarily beneficial? Just because it seems to be to the layperson?
> But since you insist I prove creationism, you must permit we go beyond the primate origins of man, and go to the origin of all life
Why? The defnition of creationism I'm opposing has nothing to do with the origin of life. You're putting words in my mouth; attacking a strawman of me.
My argument in argument 2 (under the section "My argument") still stands:
The rest of what you said seems to be a completely irrelevant tangent and doesn't seem to add flavour by being discussed, so I will not discuss it; there's no point discussing something that has nothing to do with the topic unless discussing it has other benefits that are worth its downsides.
I will add this, though: even if you proved that human existence would be so improbable that it was almost impossible to follow from the early universe, the key term is "almost impossible". Given an almost infinite multiverse of universes, it would be almost certain to happen somewhere; whether that multiverse is natural or artificial.
Recommendation to everyone:
I recommend you take a look at the website Talk Origins.
JohnSmythe

Con

To close:

"Why shouldn't you accept the fact of evolution? Because it conflicts with your precious belief system? You'd sound like a tribesman saying that their gods must live atop the distant mountain because it was passed down as truth through generations."

Read what I said:
"Also, disclaimer, I do not necessarily believe that man has no primate ancestry. I am taking the strongest biblical creation position because Pro essentially asked that I do so. "

Basically, this debate was hindered from actually being productive by my opponent's poor command of the English language. Here follow some examples:
"I assumed you were using bad grammar and talking about an organisation when you said "agency". I guess you weren't."

One of the definitions of agency is

"A thing or person that acts to produce a particular result." from the Latin agentia or "doing"

But I'll bite. How did the idea of an organization make you think that irreproducibility of evolution was the basis for my objection?

"Then we've got crossed wires; I personally define evolution as the meaning of the word "evolution" when scientists use it. "

Wires uncrossed then. Darwinism, the theory of evolution upon which all others are built is defined:

"the theory of evolution by natural selection of those species best adapted to survive the struggle for existence"

Natural selection by definition cannot involve an agency molding its results. That would be the definition of artificial selection.





Now, back to substantive refutation:

"Why? The defnition of creationism I'm opposing has nothing to do with the origin of life. You're putting words in my mouth; attacking a strawman of me."

Perhaps not, but how can one prove creationism as you asked I do without proving the creator?

"If it can't be made up (P), then non-Christian religious texts can't be (Q), either, and Christianity isn't the only true religion."

Q simply does not follow from P.

1. Are you serious? What are you on? I'll tell you what you're on; religion.
2. How does it not follow? The form of the argument is correct. Here's another argument with the same form.
Prerequisite: There is no known difference between the validity of teacher a and another teacher.
If teacher a can't be wrong, another teacher can't be wrong. Either teacher a isn't the only right teacher or teacher a can be wrong."

In other words, exactly what I said. Q does not follow from P, unless you introduce another premise. That's precisely what "not following" means.


Finally, my opponent reveals himself for the zealot he truly is.

"Given an almost infinite multiverse of universes, it would be almost certain to happen somewhere"

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? ... [I]nvoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith" - Paul Davies

Religion, you see, is an unavoidable part of the human psyche. Man will worship. If you quash one form of it, another will appear. If a man will not believe in God, whom he cannot see, touch, or smell, it may be that he believes in gaiaism, anthropomorphizing the earth and fearing the impact of human behavior beyond what good science calls for like an Aztec with a beating heart held over the altar, trying to ensure the sun rises another day. If he will not believe in the Creator who resembles man, he will believe in one that resembles a turtle, or in the case of my opponent, who believes one who resembles the cosmos. Who then, pray tell, is more blind, between the man who knows he is blind, knows that there is that which he cannot see but must recognize, or the blind man who doggedly rejects the existence of blindness while groping ever in the dark?
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JohnSmythe 2 months ago
JohnSmythe
Out of curiosity, Magic, have you ever voted FOR the theist side of the debate? Even once?
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 months ago
MagicAintReal
The power to remove something from those without consent of those involved surely is great power, no?
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MagicAintReal// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD In comments

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has called for the removal of his own vote. Moderation obliges.
************************************************************************
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 months ago
MagicAintReal
RFD Below
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 months ago
MagicAintReal
Since there's no opt-in, I can lie and quote dishonestly to vote my opinion, and it shall not be removed by the moderators. Con uses a source that clearly says "The problems with the RNA world are well known." even though this directly helps Con in refuting one natural explanation of the origin of life and there's no real pushback from Pro on this source, I'm going to say that this works against Con because the rest of the source shows that even though RNA wasn't first, proteins were, and this works against Con as the topic of the debate is the falsity of creationism and proteins first would work as a falsification of creationism. Con's sources fall short because Pro wasn't debating creationism is false, Pro was debating creationism isn't true. Yes, my reasoning for docking Con's source point is that *Pro* didn't fully debate his burden, but, hey no opt-in, so sources to Pro. Con's sources weren't sufficient enough to refute that "not creationism" is true, my personal burden assessment

I also gave pro source points bc he did a *superb job* throughout the debate in finding sources that *related to his arguments*, like talk origins, I think he did this *masterfully* and ended it with a *boom* seeking out a source like talk origins *perfectly simplified* pro"s arguments... it appears pro did a good job by *going straight to the source,* talk origins.
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
Magic, it's not the exact same RFD. You modeled it off of one of the parts of that RFD, and ignored a large amount of what went on with that same RFD. If you want to get into this, then stop posting RFDs you know don't meet the standards, and let's talk about it.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 months ago
MagicAintReal
Whiteflame....
You allowed this EXACT RFD for source points without removal in another debate...I merely modeled the RFD after that and somehow it wasn't ok in this debate, but it was ok in the other debate...explain yourself whiteflame.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by whiteflame 3 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MagicAintReal// Mod action: Removed<

2 point to Pro (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Since there's no opt-in, I can lie and quote dishonestly to vote my opinion, and it shall not be removed by the moderators. Con uses a source that clearly says "The problems with the RNA world are well known." even though this directly helps Con in refuting one natural explanation of the origin of life and there's no real pushback from Pro on this source, I'm going to say that this works against Con because the rest of the source shows that even though RNA wasn't first, proteins were, and this works against Con as the topic of the debate is the falsity of creationism and proteins first would work as a falsification of creationism. Con's sources fall short because Pro wasn't debating creationism is false, Pro was debating creationism isn't true. Yes, my reasoning for docking Con's source point is that *Pro* didn't fully debate his burden, but, hey no opt-in, so sources to Pro. Con's sources weren't sufficient enough to refute that "not creationism" is true, my personal burden assessment

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voters are required to assess the debate as it is presented. They are allowed to supplement that assessment with some deeper dives into the source materials given in the debate, but even if the voter is solely awarding source points, there must be some assessment based on how they"re actually used. (2) The voter is required to specifically assess sources given by both sides. Establishing who has the burden of proof is not sufficient reason to solely assess the sources of a single side.
************************************************************************
Posted by CreationGuy 3 months ago
CreationGuy
@ levi_smiles

"I wondered how a physicist who maintains that the Earth is 6,000 years old kept his job."

Really? this is the most absurd statement I ever read before....

Today there are many other PhD scientists who reject evolution and believe that God created in six days, a few thousand years ago, just as recorded in Scripture. Russ Humphreys, a PhD physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields, which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. John Baumgardner, a PhD geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global flood recorded in Genesis. Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan which was developed by Dr. Raymond Damadian, a creationist.

"Fair enough, but I thought you were quoting a scientist"

Really? Again, another absurd statement... so, if you have a PhD and hold to a biblical creationist's view, you can't do real science at all? I would like for you to explain this to those who hold to this position and have PhD's....

I would again disagree with the supposed human to chimp similarity....
Posted by levi_smiles 3 months ago
levi_smiles
@CreationGuy

I see the confusion - it looks like your guy is not THE Dr Thomas Seiler who lectures on the evolution of human thought at Technical University but rather A Dr Thomas Seiler who got his degree there. I wondered how a physicist who maintains that the Earth is 6,000 years old kept his job & I see now that he does not work as a physicist, but as an engineer for a tool company. Fair enough, but I thought you were quoting a scientist

Thanks for the link about the article in Science, it allowed me to find the actual article:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

Which confirms the 1.23% difference in base pair analysis estimated by Wilson & King in 1975 while simultaneously noting that the story of genetic difference has become more complicated since that time. The article clearly affirms the common ancestry of chimps & men.

Quibbling about the degree of genetic overlap does not refute the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. Few serious biologists would say that chimps & men are not more genetically related than mice to rats. Men and chimps are about as genetically related as horses are to donkeys or wolves to dogs, species that are similar enough to interbreed and shared common ancestry 6 million years ago. In other words, quite closely related.
No votes have been placed for this debate.