Did evolutionists lay an egg with the Vitellogenin Pseudogene?

[whirlingmerc]

More unsubstantiated claims. You would interpret anything that you saw as supporting your God. You really should learn how to apply the scientific method. It is not that hard. Even the employees at AiG can do it when their boss is not looking.

Only planet with both a thick atmosphere and a clear atmosphere
We are in a position in the Milky way where we can look close at stars and deep into the universe

Those would be facts

but another point is that while God makes the scientific method possible
being in a discoverable universe and a cosmos and not a chaos,
it is also true that the God who makes the scientific method possible also himself in many ways is outside the box and outside the sphere of inquiry

except to the extend he allows

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only planet with both a thick atmosphere and a clear atmosphere
We are in a position in the Milky way where we can look close at stars and deep into the universe

Those would be facts

but another point is that while God makes the scientific method possible
being in a discoverable universe and a cosmos and not a chaos,
it is also true that the God who makes the scientific method possible also himself in many ways is outside the box and outside the sphere of inquiry

except to the extend he allows

What makes you think that the Earth is unique? And you do not seem to understand a book of myths on a world without a clear atmosphere would simply mention that the atmosphere was opaque. You are amazed by the obvious. It is too bad that the Bible never makes any clear claims about the universe that we live in that were not known at that time. Then you might have something. Instead all you have are writings of the obvious and vaguely written verses that can be reinterpreted to match what we know today, while ignoring verses that literally interpreted are wrong.

 

[Jumi]

Its yet another example of so called 'evolutionary science' claims.

Oddly, a claim still used by some evolutionary Christian groups who don't believe in a literal Adam or Eve

This post of yours seems to avoid my post's content altogether.

 

[Polymath257]

Creationists do appeal to evidence as arguments form consistency
and of course contribute to major scientific advancements

Consistency is NOT a scientific argument. A scientific hypothesis needs to be not only consistent (just so), but also predict new observations. That is the non-trivial part.

the MRI as one example
The atomic fountain clock as another
and many more

The fact that someone is a believer doesn't make them a creationist. And the fact that they are a creationist doesn't mean that their scientific discoveries were based on the creationist model.

 

[Polymath257]

The earth is unique for discovery and display of the glory of God
Only planet with both a thick atmosphere and a clear atmosphere
We are in a position in the Milky way where we can look close at stars and deep into the universe

Really? How do you conclude that, given how little of the Milky Way we have investigated? You realize that it has only been a couple of decades since we even knew other stars have planets, right? You realize that current evidence suggests *most* stars have planets, right? And that the number of planets in the 'right place' with respect to their stars is supposed to be quite large (we have difficulties finding earth-size planets because they are so small)?

You also realize that a great deal of the clarity of our atmosphere is due to the existence of life and was NOT the case prior to life forming?

In fact we are no merely in an unusual place made for life
but also made for discovery and display of the glory of God

No wonder that post reformation Europe had the scientific revolution

So, is the universe made for life? Or is the Earth special? You can't have both.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Really? How do you conclude that, given how little of the Milky Way we have investigated? You realize that it has only been a couple of decades since we even knew other stars have planets, right? You realize that current evidence suggests *most* stars have planets, right? And that the number of planets in the 'right place' with respect to their stars is supposed to be quite large (we have difficulties finding earth-size planets because they are so small)?

You also realize that a great deal of the clarity of our atmosphere is due to the existence of life and was NOT the case prior to life forming?



So, is the universe made for life? Or is the Earth special? You can't have both.

There was a work on this about 15 years ago showing all the aspects of earth which made it suitable for life and how unlikely and unusual they are. They make for the earth winning the cosmic lottery and the likelihood of another nil

But here's the kicker... the things that make our earth inhabitable also made our earth a place suitable for discovery in many ways.

Makes sense if God made the world to be discovered for His glory

see The Privileged Planet

 

[Polymath257]

There was a work on this about 15 years ago showing all the aspects of earth which made it suitable for life and how unlikely and unusual they are. They make for the earth winning the cosmic lottery and the likelihood of another nil

But here's the kicker... the things that make our earth inhabitable also made our earth a place suitable for discovery in many ways.

Makes sense if God made the world to be discovered for His glory

see The Privileged Planet

I would point out that 15 years ago, we didn't have much of the data we have today. In other words, this was based on 'best guesses' prior to actual evidence. The conclusions have not been supported by the new evidence.

OK, so you are claiming the universe is NOT made for life, and that the Earth is rare and special? So, the fine tuning argument is out, right?

 

[Audie]

Consistency is NOT a scientific argument. A scientific hypothesis needs to be not only consistent (just so), but also predict new observations. That is the non-trivial part.



The fact that someone is a believer doesn't make them a creationist. And the fact that they are a creationist doesn't mean that their scientific discoveries were based on the creationist model.

These creos make so much of that nobody has been able
to do abio in a lab

Their creo-scientists cannot come up with one fact contrary
to ToE.

Which btw, IF ToE is false, would be child's play. If it is
wrong, it is massively wrong, the disproof would be lying
about thick as Paluxy man tracks.