Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
So a creationist isn't stupid and doesn't say that. He says a trickier thing: “Everything has meaning from the point of view of the creator,“but man is unable to understand all his plans.” And this very” but ” turns creationism into an unfalsifiable theory: any statement “this organ is superfluous” will be answered with “you just don't know why it is needed.”
If a creationist (or anyone else) says something that contradicts the available evidence, then this is called a fallacy.
And I looked at your questions and saw that you repeatedly tried to” push the heads ” of creationism with scientific knowledge of the world, trying to find some “evidence” or “refutations” where in principle they cannot be.�
This is a common logical mistake, and it is made by many people – including serious scientists and popularizers of science.
Please understand that creationism is NOT bound, contradicted, or hindered by science any more than pasta contradicts a grasshopper. Creationism is a multiplier that is left out of the scientific picture of the world and can either be ignored or taken into account, depending on the desire of a particular person.�
(the whole scientific picture of the world) x (so the deity wanted)
You see, the multiplier behind the bracket does not affect the contents of this bracket in any way. And the content of the parenthesis does not affect the multiplier behind it in any way. Please understand this already.�
If a creationist tries to argue with scientists by making religious arguments against scientific ones, he is a stupid creationist. If a scientist tries to argue with a creationist by making scientific arguments against religious ones, he is a stupid scientist.
Yes, this is a falsifiable hypothesis.�
Although in themselves, junk DNA and “extra organs” do not contradict the possibility that DNA could have been created or designed by someone.
The absence of garbage in the DNA, too, I do not think that proves the creation of DNA, perhaps, if it suddenly turns out that there is no garbage, another possible explanation will be found.
As I have already written, a convincing proof of the artificiality of DNA would be the content of some code in it that could not arise there by chance.�
Mathematicians have tried to find similar traces in the DNA. Article in the reviewed journal on this subject: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791
How is it that there are no extra organs?Actually, the whole group of such things is called atavism.Extra organs(appendix), various atavistic psychological manifestations(I suffer from bruxism myself).Regarding the “junk dna” – information is never superfluous, though!Although there are such manifestations as “cleft lip”, “cleft palate”and the like, associated with”remembering” past types of organs.Creationism is difficult to refute when the question is put differently.This led to the formation of proto-amino acids.What did the first chemical elements think when they formed into primary organic substances?There, yes, it is quite possible to interfere…name whatever you want.God,as an informational impulse that commands chemical elements to establish proto-organic life,may well exist. Then there was pure evolution,to knock out the wedges to which, without turning off the mental potential and replacing logic with fanaticism, in principle it is impossible.