One thing that really winds me up is the supposed "evidence" used by people to knock over what are well established scientific principles, evolution being the most common. Various things I stumbled across today made me decide to take a look at some of this "evidence" and I found this page.
I read it and I despair at the complete misunderstanding of science, both in terms of how science works and of specific principles. Lets disect it bit by bit shall we?
How did the universe come about?
The main thing they point out here is that scientists cant deifnitively say how the universe came about. And they are right, you can't get around this. There are many differnet theories, all of which have their problems that can't be resolved (the largest as I understand it is making gravity fit into the maths, I'm no physicist so correct me if I'm wrong), but that doesn't meen that we never will! Science has not answered every question yet. If it had we wouldn't have scientists!
While the specifics have not been ironed out there is sufficient evidence to prove that the universe is expanding and that once upon a time it was a lot closer together. (when you look at light that has come a long way you are looking at what happened a long tine ago, it's quite simple).
How could living creatures come from non-life?
This is again something that we have not figured out the answere to yet, but biochemistry has only been seriously studied for about 150 years, like the origins of the universe there is a long way to go. It has been demonstrated how amino acids can be formed, similarly cell membranes, but the DNA and complex protiens? The fact is we have to give in to our creationist friends that we haven't figured it out. There may be evidence from hot underwater springs where some really weird life forms have appeared but we are a long way off.
But you see that is where the creationists misunderstand the scientific process. if we don't know then we don't know. End of story. Thank you. But not good bye. It means we have work to do. There is plenty of evidence that once life did get under way that it evolved and that provides sufficient starting points to reckon that scientific research that uses the idea that life started form complex chemistry as a working hypothesis is by far the most logical place to start, by a very very long way.
How could new genetic information arise?
This point actually makes me quite cross because it completely degrades all the work that has gone into cancer treatments.
Cancer works like this. Cells on your body divide. In a healthy body they divide when they are needed, to replace dead ones, to repair damage and to grow. This is controlled by genes that produce protiens that do the job. That is undisputed, hard scientific fact. Thank you, the end, goodbye.
DNA though changes, sometimes there is a mistake when it replicates, some times it is damaged by UV light, some times it gets tangeled and the recombines. Again fact.
DNA changes and that's a fact. Its called chemistry.
If enough of these mistakes or damage affect the genes that control cell replication, particularly those genes that keep it slow and steady, then the cellcan replicate out of control and that is called cancer.
If DNA does not change then we would have no cancer, we would be resistant to radio active poisoning, we would be imortal!
I'll quit ranting now because these people make me so angry.
Reminder, I am a Christian, I'm just one with a brain.