Reread this thread and the answer is there. There is no use in going over the same argument over and over. The fact is that evolution is falsifiable, whether or not it's "not as falsifiable as is often claimed". That is just ridiculous.
Again:
What diseases has research in Creationism helped us to cure? What has Creationism added to the scientific body of knowledge that we have been able to use for medicine/technology/etc.?
Theories that are not useful are usually not falsifiable and are less likely correct. Evolution is very useful, falsifiable, and most likely correct.
rem said: What diseases has research in Creationism helped us to cure? What has Creationism added to the scientific body of knowledge that we have been able to use for medicine/technology/etc.?
Questions such as medical issues are not directly related to the origins issue (they might however be related to the predictablity issue).
What diseases has research into macro-evolution helped us cure?
What diseases has reaseerch into micro-evolution helped us cure? I suspect that the ones given will probably relate to micro-evolutionary phenomena which is in both models of origins.
There is no qualitative difference between macro and micro evolution. It's just a matter of scale. Evolutionary principles have added much to the current body of knowledge and technology, including cures for diseases. This is obvious and there is no sense listing every contribution. Anyways, I asked you first.
rem said: There is no qualitative difference between macro and micro evolution. It's just a matter of scale.
Micro-evolution as it is observed today is (as admitted by evolutionists*) is primarily an information loosing process, whereas the evolution needed to transform a bacteria into a human would have had to have been an information gaining process. Thus a continued loosing process cannot through a matter of scale be extrapolated into an information gaing process.
*I think that even most evolutionists would admit that things such as genetic information being sorted out into various lines through recombination and selection, as well as most other factors leading to speciation are the result of loss of genetic information. Though they feel that it is possible for genectic information to be added through mutation and selection.
rem said: Evolutionary principles have added much to the current body of knowledge and technology, including cures for diseases. This is obvious and there is no sense listing every contribution. Anyways, I asked you first.
I have never spent much time on the specific issue of how the general theories of creation have contributed to cures for diseases, so I am not able to give you an answer. Although I know that creationists have come up with vaccines.
How has the general theory of evolution contributed to cures for diseases?
First of all, the fact that a Creationist has helped come up with a cure is immaterial. The issue is whether the theory of creation had a direct impact. To say that the theory of creation has an impact because it agrees with micro-evolution is ridiculous - Creationists had no idea that evolution on any scale happened until the theory of evolution came out. It's preposterous to think that creationists coincidentally figured out evolutionary principles after the theory of evolution was formalized.
Evolution helps in many areas of medicine, particularly in the creation of vaccines for the various flu viruses that come out every year. With Creation there was no reason to believe that micro-organisms should evolve into resistant mutations. Creationists would have no more reason to believe that the former micro-organisms evolved than to believe that god created a brand new batch of micro-organisms for the year. Evolutionary principles help us to understand, among other things, that instead of starting from scratch every year, we can use existing vaccines and vary them slightly for the new species of bug. Obviously only certain vaccines will work with certain families of bugs because of the heirarchical structure of life, which is the foundation of Evolution.
There are many, many more applications of Evolutionary principles that cover the food you eat to the conservation of wild life. It is truly a worthwhile theory.
Here are some things that would be impossible with your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
Drawing a straight line Weather Reproduction Life Building a house Discussing this on the Internet
I will use the cause and effect argument as regards to life. Since non life cannot cause life because life is greater than non life, life must have always existed. I started a new topic because I think my discussion of God in this manner is off topic.
I will use the cause and effect argument as regards to life. Since non life cannot cause life because life is greater than non life, life must have always existed.
Even if your statement were correct it still has nothing to do with Evolution. You are talking about the origins of life, which is Abiogenesis or Creation, not Evolution. Abiogenesis and Evolution do not break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics anymore than Creation would.
Supposing there is not an always existing agent in which contains all physical laws. One day something appears from nothing. How did physical laws come into being?
