[__ Science __ ] A very long Wednesday... Young Earth and Old Universe Creationism reconciled?

[New Day Coming]

I know the discussion has drifted somewhat from the OP, but I'm happy to run with it... I watched this one today which must surely be a painful topic for anyone who believes in abiogenesis (but a blessing to those who do not!!)

 

[Barbarian]

I've read a paper by Jeanson, in which he claims that genetic data showing common descent is no different than a tree of descent made up with cars and helicopters. Which is just flat out crazy.
http://www.questforeducationandarts.com/s/Apologetics-and-Epigenetics-Reading.docx

We know that genetic relatedness shows common descent, because we can check it with organisms of known descent. The idea that there's some kind of genetic basis for cars and helicopters being descended from each other is risible.

 

[Barbarian]

I know the discussion has drifted somewhat from the OP, but I'm happy to run with it... I watched this one today which must surely be a painful topic for anyone who believes in abiogenesis (but a blessing to those who do not!!)

If your guy thinks evolution is about abiogenesis, he's already gone off the rails. God says that the earth brought forth living things, and that is far more credible than any man's reasoning against it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Razeontherock]

I've read a paper by Jeanson, in which he claims that genetic data showing common descent is no different than a tree of descent made up with cars and helicopters. Which is just flat out crazy.
http://www.questforeducationandarts.com/s/Apologetics-and-Epigenetics-Reading.docx

We know that genetic relatedness shows common descent, because we can check it with organisms of known descent. The idea that there's some kind of genetic basis for cars and helicopters being descended from each other is risible.

Your stated idea of "proof" is risible. It proves nothing. It shows plausibility, nothing more. To attach anything beyond that to it just means you're gullible, and engaging in bias confirmation.

Bias confirmation does not count as good science!

 

[Barbarian]

Your stated idea of "proof" is risible.

You're confusing "proof" with "knowledge." You know many, many things for sure, that you can't prove. Logical certainty is not possible in science; it's only possible when we know the rules and can deduce the particulars from that. In science, we observe the particulars and infer the rules.

So we know for a fact that genetic similarity indicates common descent, since we can check that hypothesis with organisms of known descent. It aways is.

It proves nothing.

It merely makes it foolish to deny. You can't prove Sun will rise in the east, tomorrow. Yet you know it will.

To deny that, just means you're gullible, and engaging in bias confirmation.

Bias confirmation is a poor foundation on which to base your faith.

 

[Barbarian]

So in theory, we could approach the 'gravity well' around Jupiter, and travel more quickly than the vehicle is moving. We have yet to exploit this phenomenon, and send our probes around such large bodies to accelerate due to simple gravity; i.e. Newtonian physics.

Right. "Newton's slingshot" is used by NASA to accelerate spacecraft. It's how they got Voyager I going fast enough to escape the solar system.