We seem to have wandered far from the topic, which was something about the Catholic Church.
See you in another thread!

waterboy,
I don’t believe we’ve wondered off topic. Brian Holden’s article included the contention that the findings of evolutionary science would bring the immanent death of the church. If he’s going to say such outlandish things, then it’s reasonable that they should be discussed here.

You claim I don’t get your point. If your point is that ‘it is impossible to construct any experiment which could disprove creation’ then I not only get it, but I’ve openly stated it myself. Several times I’ve spoken of the difficulty in proving or disproving any claim of history. The problem for evolution is that it falls into the same category. In both cases, evolution and creation, they’re both impossible to falsify. If you know of a way then please, suggest a test.

Your other comment, ‘the creation hypothesis cannot generate scientific work of any sort.’ Yes we can investigate claims and make predictions surrounding the evolutionary hypothesis, but we could say the same for both views. The creationist hypothesis establishes a framework for investigating the natural world. A simple example from geology: ‘investigate the boundaries of flood catastrophism and post-flood erosion of the coastlines’. Last post I raised another example from medicine, demonstrating how your philosophical view of origins affects your scientific investigations. Yet you didn’t make any comment on ‘vestigial organs’.

If I take Genesis as straightforward history, that is because that is what is suggested by the language. I can appreciate that we must take literature for what it is, but I would disagree with you about the meanings some of those Hebrew words. For someone who claims to know a fair bit about the Bible, I am amazed that you would suggest that the Bible anywhere says the earth is flat. I remember one or two places in (I think) Isaiah where it specifically talks of the roundness of the earth.

Shadow,
There is much evidence offered by creationists beyond the gaps in the fossil record.

As far as people and chimpanzees sharing a high percentage of genes, this is only logical and expected as we share many other commonalities, such as both having eyes, ears, limbs, brains, etc. The key is found in the differences, not the similarities. We’re share 50% of the genes of a tomato, but when we eat a tomato we’re not 50% guilty of cannibalism.

DSM,

If you look at the microbial world there is huge genetic diversity, more so even with similar bacteria than between us and tomatos.

Simple development of microcondria enabled the formation of multicelled organisms and thus all plants and animals have a common ancestor and thus the same genetic heritage.

There is no creationist reason why the tomato should have 50% of the same genetic heritage, while it evolution predicts it.

As much of the DNA is redundant, the similarity in form could be done with less than 25% of similar genetics.

Dan,

<<I don’t accept that evolution is occurring. >>

Then how do you explain speciation?

<<Microevolution is your [Waterboy’s] word, not mine.>>

No. “Microevolution” is the entire scientific community’s word.

<<I thought we had established that it was impossible to directly observe a past, historic event. >>

No. You merely presented a strawman argument that was shown to be irrelevant to the topic.

<<How could we ever know what the chemical constitution of that soup was, its physical conditions, temperature, pressure and so on? It could only be guess upon supposition.>>

Wrong.

I refer you back to my five questions about abiogenesis earlier – and that’s just one of many plausible theories.

<<Wouldn’t it [scientists creating synthetic life] suggest the opposite [that an intelligent agent was required]?>>

And this is what I mean by shifting the goalposts. As soon as it happens, Creationists will simply change their claim from “It can’t be done”, to “It proves an intelligent agent was required”.

If humans can create synthetic life, then it shows that a God wasn’t required, and therefore, nature would've been capable of doing it too, given the time.

<<…creationists would enter into more experiments than they do if they had access to some of the government funding that is devoted to attempting to solve evolutionary related problems.>>

And what would they do with this funding? Continue to try and disprove evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang theory? That’s all they’ve done so far.

To receive government funding, some evidence for their theories would need to be presented. So far, every argument Creationists have ever presented has been debunked immediately and repeatedly.

<<Yet despite lack of resources much creationist theory has been established and many problems resolved upon the science already conducted.>>

Again, every argument ever put forth by Creationists has been debunked immediately and repeatedly.

<< I would say that the experiments investigating the emergence of the first living cell from purely natural processes have done much to confirm the impossible nature of such occurrence.>>

Then you would be wrong.

Replicating long time spans is difficult with limited technology.

Continued…

…Continued

<<…the classic drop the ball, fumble on the evolutionists’ part was when they were suggesting people had many vestigial organs.>>

Do you know what “vestigial” means?

<<If we don’t know the function of an organ why not presume that it might be a useless evolutionary leftover?>>

Obviously not.

‘Vestigial’ doesn’t necessarily mean the organ is entirely “useless” – Just that it’s function is reduced.

<<However, if we were designed, it would make sense to seek each organ’s true function.>>

If we were designed then it would mean that God is a pretty bad designer. Complexity in design only comes about by either necessity or carelessness, and a God with infinite power would hardly need to make life so complex and faulty – just as it would be if it had occurred naturally.

<<Here creationist thinking inspires investigation. Similarly true today for investigations of ‘junk’ DNA.>>

Scientists haven’t given up trying to figure out what junk DNA is. But a lot of it is known to do nothing.

Why do you persist on inventing false arguments?

<<In both cases, evolution and creation, they’re both impossible to falsify.>>

Nature could quite easily disprove evolution. I’ve already given you some examples of how evolution can be falsified.

<<If you know of a way then please, suggest a test.>>

There doesn’t have to be a test, just an observation. I’ve already explained, but like with everything else, you simply continue on repeating the same nonsense as though nothing happened.

<<Your other comment, ‘the creation hypothesis cannot generate scientific work of any sort.’ Yes we can investigate claims and make predictions surrounding the evolutionary hypothesis>>

Selectively picking and choosing data to fit a Biblical interpretation is a pretty poor excuse for ‘investigating’.

<<…example from geology: ‘investigate the boundaries of flood catastrophism and post-flood erosion of the coastlines’.>>

See what I mean about bad investigation?

The coastlines are not consistent in any way with a flood.

<<Last post I raised another example from medicine, … Yet you didn’t make any comment on ‘vestigial organs’.>>

How about you look-up the definition of “vestigial” first, eh?