Kent Hovind vs. a Molecular Biologist (The limitations of science)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, July 02, 2011, 15:54 (4892 days ago) @ xeno6696

Now no one here has argued that creationism of any kind is science; David has always said that his claims aren't testable, they're simply the only hypothesis that makes sense. (Though its an untestable hypothesis... David is fine with this.) But a serious question is raised; of what utility is a creator, really? If you can't directly tie your answer to the question, is it really an answer?-Your serious question has a equally serious if somewhat overly simplified answer. It is a matter of perspective, and as anyone who has studied anything can testify, changing your perspective will often give you insights and solutions to problems that you might otherwise have missed. One could say that after the creator created its creation it is of no further utility, however I disagree. Simply admitting that you have a creator changes your perspective on any number of things simply by removing the blinders of common conceit and arrogance. -
For example, lets re-examine some of the recent articles that have been linked on this site. -1. The Cambrian Explosion link posted by David that definitively states that there are far fewer animal phyla in existence today than there were during the Cambrian, and that all current phyla were in existence at that time. (June 29th Cambrian Explosion, Chinese Style)-2. The link regarding speciation that points out that even close genetic relatives have problems interbreeding, even under laboratory conditions.(June 29th, Innovation and Speciation)-3. Mutations are always negative. Even when a mutation could potentially be positive it turns into a negative either by, or due to, interference with other mutations/existing structures.(June 13, Mutations, Bad Not Good)-Now, following the links, I would think that instead of wasting time trying to prove theories that are quite obviously wrong, like Darwinian evolution, we should turn our attention directly to what sort of negative impacts these genetic mutations over the course of human history might have had on us physiologically. The Darwinian model says that we are better than our ancestors because of natural selection. The creation model says that we are inferior to our ancestors because we were created perfectly and have been deteriorating ever since, which fits with the evidence that all mutations are negative.If we ASSUME that we are better than they were, we would not look for our own deficiencies because we are too busy trying to discover how deficient they were. However if we start with the basic assumption that the original humans were created perfectly, then perhaps by comparing original DNA (or as close as we can get) to our own DNA, we can find out what negative mutations have occurred and perhaps even locate patterns to it. Regardless, that is not something that will happen without a major paradigm shift in the research community. -The utility of a creator, even in this modern age, is the same as it has always been, to help focus your thoughts into a profitable and productive action instead of wasting it chasing misguided ideals. Just my two cents at any rate