For Ben Stein, host of an upcoming documentary on the dominance of Darwinism in academia, Darwinism is not just problematic but dangerous even.
In a media teleconference for the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” on Tuesday, Stein pointed out that Darwinian teaching on natural selection and random mutation "led in a straight line to the holocaust and Nazism."
Darwin said that there were certain species that were superior to other species and all were competing for scarce supplies of food or resources, Stein pointed out. But if there was a limited supply of basic resources, Darwinism taught that "you owe it to the superior race to kill the inferior race," he told reporters.
Darwinian evolutionary theory fueled Nazi idealism that felt gypsies, Eastern Europeans and others were competing with them for scarce basic resources, explained Stein.
"As a Jew, I am horrified that people thought Jews were so inferior they didn't deserve to live," he commented.
But the link between Darwinism and the holocaust is just one of many reasons why the former speech writer for President Nixon and President Ford decided to join Premise Media in the making of the documentary, which hits theaters April 2008.
Stein said he finds it problematic that Darwinism, which he feels leaves a lot of questions unanswered, is being touted in the academic and scientific circles as the only rational explanation on how life began.
Where did life come from? How did cells get so complex?
If the origins of life all did happen by random mutation, he questioned, where does the laws that make the universe possible to function – the law of gravity, the law of thermodaynamics, laws of motion – all come from?
"Who created these laws that keeps the planets in motion?" asked Stein. "These are fundamental questions" where Darwinism lacks explanations.
The film follows Stein as he interviews disciples of Darwinian Evolution, including The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins and proponents of Intelligent Design – the teaching that the creation of life and the universe are results of an intelligent “designer.”
At first glance, the documentary may appear to attack Darwinism and champion Intelligent Design.
But the film doesn't try to validate one idea over another, explained Walt Ruloff, the film's executive producer and CEO of Premise Media.
"Science is supported by empirical work that can be verified by empirical data. We are not against that," he told reporters.
"What we are asking for is freedom of speech ... for people who do research to have freedom to ask the questions they need to ask and go where they need to go.
The current system doesn't allow open dialogue, according to the makers of “Expelled.” The film highlights a number of educators and scientists who are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature or challenging the Darwinian orthodoxy.
Ruloff hopes that the film will prompt congressional language to protect the free speech of people who dissent from Darwinism.
Furthermore, he sees the documentary as creating a culture where things like the metaphysical can be openly discussed.
"Eighty-five percent of people believe in a form of a deity – why can't we talk about that?" asked Ruloff.
"We don't think that we have all the the answers, or anyone has all the answers," added Stein. "We just want free speech."
Very well said Ender!
Those who seek justification to promote and propagate their prejudice will grasp at any straw, twist any source, and lie when necessary for their cause. As a southerner, I remember many racists using the Bible as justification and the foundation for their actions. A tactic also used by the KKK, but I doubt Mr. Stein will bring this to light as well. From my own experience, I have found those that feel their religious beliefs threatened by science, new discoveries, or theories to be lacking in faith and biblical knowledge. Many seem reluctant to study the tenets of their faith, their bible, or other sources to shore up their weaknesses and merely lash out at those who propose anything that may not fit in their perspective. This is only my personal experience, I may very well be mistaken. But nothing from science has ever shaken my belief in God, often I view new discoveries as humans figuring out a very small part of the universe God created.
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
(I L Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
notw06,
my my all you do is spam the very same quote mines all over the place and never cite a single one. how pathetic.
are you actually going to cite any of those quote mines one of these days?
"The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove."
Robert A. Millikan, Nobel prize-winning physicist
"The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist.
In natural matters faith follows evidence and is impossible without it, but in the realm of the spirit faith precedes understanding; it does not follow it. The natural man must know in order to believe; the spiritual man must believe in order to know. The faith that saves is not a conclusion drawn from evidence; it is a moral thing, a thing of the spirit, a supernatural infusion of confidence in Jesus Christ, a very gift of God.
Why People Find the Bible Difficult
by A. W. Tozer
The guy hates miracles, but professes profound faith in more fantastic miracles than those found in the Bible. He is not here for discussion--he is living proof of Proverb 18:2, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."
Is it impossible for you to simply and intelligently state your position, and then accept that others may not hold to your views? You speak as if you have a god complex. O, little man, we who delight in the instruction of the Lord know that the wicked are like chaff that the wind drives away. We have no need for the counsel of the wicked, nor will we take our stand in the manner of sinners, nor stay too long in the place of scoffers. A scoffer is a haughty little man who acts with arrogant pride; one who does not understand that it is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife when every fool will be quarreling. None of your "wisdom", "understanding", or "counsel" can avail against the Lord. Hostility, arrogance, hate, anger, grade-school-playground morals--are these the signs of the scientifically enlightened mind? Is there any wonder why we believers see danger in darwinian religion?
Star2,
Well just be sure you don't only look at these 2 pieces of evidence for Evolution and research all things considered that support the theory and then draw conclussions. to understand evolution requires a good understanding in biology, genetics, paleongology, geology and other closely related realms of life science.
agentorange
I haven't forgotten you my dear friend. I am working on my response to you. When I am finished then I will post it.
agentorange
Re: chromosone 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERVs sahred between the human and the chimp
I'll get back with you later on this.
ifeelfine72
How about you sharing how you came to faith in Jesus; you know, how you became born-again.
I shared mine on this post (see Sat, Feb 02, 2008, at 4:48 am-Part 1 and Part 2). It is on page 2 right now.
. . . And repent!
star2 - Find God.
ifeelfine72
You are lost.
AgentOrange: Clearly Star2 and Charlemagne are more interested in burying their heads in the sand than learning anything new. I'm a Christian and it sickens and embarrasses me when I hear fellow Christians make such ludicrous statements.
Star2: What Bible are you reading? You're making up things not even suggested in the Bible. It's disgusting the way you twist the Word around. God doesn't want you to be ignorant.
Star2,
”I do not agree with you that the human chromosone 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERV's that is shared between the human and chimp proves evolution.“
I am not saying JUST these 2 pieces of evidence prove evolution, rather they alongside the millions of OTHER pieces of evidence collectively trumpet the same message – that it is. Do more research into ALL of the evidence (not just these 2) and then trumpet your horn.
”Evolution has never been observed.”
This old rag again huh. Didn’t I already provide how many links for instances on speciation aka ‘macro-evolution’? Star2, just b/c YOU don’t understand biology and what defines a species and speciation and thus evolution doesn’t make it wrong, it means you don’t understand it, just like how you don’t understand most other science theories and evidence for them.
“To say it does you have to explain how life came into being and how all life developed from the common gene pool……. That is something that you have never addressed.”
Star as mentioned about 80 times now, the origins are life is completely separate from the idea of life evolving over time once it exists. What part of that is so perplexing?
As mentioned before, HOW life arose, has no bearing on life evolving once it’s here, get it? Whether god poofed life here, or if aliens left it here of if it formed under chemical bonds doesn’t negate life evolving once it exists. How hard is that to understand Star? YEC can’t figure this out and they resort to it as a way of having to acknowledge the evidence before them.
“Speciation within a species does not explain biodiversity on a grand scale.”
Speciation is when a NEW SPECIES arises from an ancestral one; there is no such thing as ‘speciation within a species’. You’re just making stuff up now.
”I am a young earth creationist. I view all things in that light.”
Fine, then what CREDIBLE EVIDENCE is there for a literal 6000 year old universe/earth? Perhaps if I can't persuade you via showing the evidence for evolution I can debunk your water world no-way flood then?
Star2, you didn’t explain anything. You rationalized it by saying ‘god made it that way’ which explains nothing.
'why is the sun shinny and bright?'
creationist chimes in : 'b/c god made it that way silly.'
see, that answers nothing and explains nothing. we know suns shine as a result of chemical processes under gravity and there is no invisiable agents pulling strings in the background.
Star2,
”When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together.”
So in other words, ‘god made it that way’. This is the same stance that AIG and other YEC use and it makes no logical sense. What exactly does that explain?
”It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.”
Oh Ya, tell that to the Donkey that split off from the Horse group family and numerous other species that have fused instances of chromosomes in comparison to other closely related species. It isn’t genetically impossible, it’s just quite rare.
“the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp,“
Nearly identical is right, more like 99% identical base sequence identical. And it’s not just between the Chimps Star2, but also between the Gorilla, Orangutan and Bonobos. All of the great apes have these apparent 2 chromosomes that demonstrate a fusion, while other Old Wolrd moknkeys don’t have this, meaning this fusion occurred very long ago and not just between the Chimps and Humans most common ancestor but further back.
“then the only explanation as to why that is so is that God designed it that way”
This is exactly my point star, to assume ‘god made it that way’ explains nothing as it still leaves those that assume such things to explain it logically in the after math anyway. And it leaves the person who thinks such things to explain why god would even bother to set it up that way in the first place unless they do share common ancestry.
I don’t know about you, but if I wanted my sole creation to not think evolution or common ancestry was true, the last thing I’d do is leave bread crumbs of evidence all over the place suggesting it is so.
To leave evidence around that evolution is true and we share common ancestry is antithesis to the whole point of biblical literalism and thus is illogical for a god to do in the 1st place. Also, to even contemplate ‘god made it that way’ is to fully ignore all evidence against instant 6 day creation that has nothing to do with evolution but instead other realms of science.
It’s great to see Ben Stein stand up for free speech in the arena of creation versus evolutionism instead of the current state sponsored endorsement of the religion of atheism that dominates in our educational institutions today. Atheism is a religion, as found by the courts, whose adherents cling dogmatically, even faithfully to their main mantra of evolutionism even though there exists no transitional forms in the fossil record and there is substantial scientific evidence that supports creation. There still exists not one shred of concrete evidence of the evolutionary theory; it still is simply hypothesis and conjecture. The evidence, or data, is the same it’s just a matter of how the data is interpreted. What we have here is a philosophical difference between two metaphysical belief systems, i.e., religious beliefs.
Is there any reason that we should be afraid of a free exchange of ideas and scientific discovery? Is not the educational arena supposed to be the marketplace of ideas? Is there a reason that when it comes to teaching evolutionism censorship is allowed instead of freedom of information, thought and discovery?
The 20th century is a shining gem of history. The century of reason, the century of atheism, the century when evolutionism was embraced by several leaders around the world such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and many others advancing social Darwinism and helping speed natural selection along resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent people to the tune of 170 millions, possibly more. More deaths than in all of the wars of recorded history combined in just one century. To deny this is to refute all the historical records that substantiate these atrocities perpetrated upon the human race in the name of social Darwinism and evolutionism.
These leaders too believed there was no God and therefore lived according to their own “moral” code or code of ethics as some of the bloggers have stated they believe in also. As these leaders gained power they persuaded their societies to adopt their atheistic view of life and government and reasoned very intelligently to remove the personhood of individuals they deemed inferior and therefore consigned them to death. After all, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” otherwise we are subject to the whimsical change of public opinion.
(continued below)
It is amazing how self righteous atheists are about their purported intelligence and use of reason and logic all the while insisting that people of faith in general, and Christians specifically are somehow devoid of intelligence and higher reasoning. Thus they show their ignorance. Evidently either unaware or intentionally deceitful about the fact that numerous scientific theories and disciplines which are still the basis of the modern scientific era were birth out of and as a direct result of the protestant reformation and were discoveries by Christians attempting to learn more about God and the universe he created. Therefore as Christians we know unequivocally where logic and reason come from.
Atheism on the other hand is irrational. Atheism denies the existence of God and is therefore a universal negative. Students of logic know that you cannot prove a universal negative. To prove that God does not exist one would have to examine every single part of the universe simultaneously, which of course would mean that you would have to be omniscient, which would disprove the theory that God does not exist since you would have to be one yourself, being that omniscience is a characteristic of deity. Therefore, atheism is a logical contradiction, and to affirm a logical contradiction is irrational.
It is amazing to me that on this Christian news website atheists have nothing better to do that harass and harangue Christians and their views. Have they not evolved beyond their need to be heard? Do they not faithfully believe that in due time we shall all evolve and automatically have the same fine logic, reason and morals as they have? It also appears that some of the atheistic bloggers on this website are definitely proponents of the view of the aforementioned group of despots stating that they wish some individuals “drop dead” and thus wishing to hasten natural selection along. I certainly hope that this is not true, although I have witnessed this type of vehement diatribe numerous times upon visiting this website to review news articles.
I wish you the peace that surpasses all understanding and that you would come to know the saving grace of Jesus.
agentorange
Change "Your faith is in the laws of science that created you." to "Your faith is in the laws of science that you believe created you."
agentorange
I do not agree with you that the human chromosone 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERV's that is shared between the human and chimp proves evolution. You interpret that data to say it does because you start out with the premise that evolution is true.
Evolution has never been observed. To say it does you have to explain how life came into being and how all life developed from the common gene pool, or the single cell organism, or what ever other explanation as to the origin of life evolutionists have proposed. That is something that you have never addressed. Speciation within a species does not explain biodiversity on a grand scale. The laws of genetics would never allow for evolution to ever take place.
Your belief in evolution comes purely by faith.
I am not an evolutionist, a theistic evolutionist, nor am I an Intelligent Design advocate. I am a young earth creationist. I view all things in that light.
I proposed a separate explanation to the describe the apparent human chromosone 2 fusion data and the 7 identical ERV's shared between the human and the chimp. My explanation is based on my faith in the living God who has created this universe and all that is in it. I have found Him to be who He says He is. I have experienced His miracle working power in my life. I accept by faith what He says about how He created this universe.
My faith is in the God who created all things.
Your faith is in the laws of science that created you.
agentorange
Chromosone 2 Fusion
When God created the universe and everything in it He decided how things were going to work and how they would be combined together.
God created a certain amount of chromosones and divided them according to His will. He decided how many chromosones each type of animal life and, as far as that goes, all life would have.
From what I understand a telomere protects the end of a chromosone from destruction during cell division. The telomeres limit the number of cell divisions that can take place over an animal's/human's (hereafter refered to as 'host's') life span and protects the host cell's chromosones from fusing together or rearranging.
It is genetically impossible for two separate chromosones in an animal to combine to form an entirely different animal.
Since the scientists of our day have determined that the human 2 chromosone is a combination of two separate but nearly identical chromosones in the chimp, then the only explanation as to why that is so is that God designed it that way.
Star,
“Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species..”
You still don’t get it do you Star? EVEN if modern humans and chimps are around the same area and both contract the same viruses, the viruses STILL has to choose between those 50,000,000-500,000,000 unique insertion sites to pick from!
And this process is ENTIRELY RANDOM, there is no reason to even think they would be even close let alone identical, unless they somehow share a common ancestor. Other makers, like the y chromosome markers are used to track genetic inheritance and they concurr with this, this Y chromosome markers are the same types used for Aaron as mentioned earlier.
That means for both species, all 7 viruses had to land on the exact same spot in their non-coded DNA and all 7 viruses are of the same type and were inserted into their genomes at around the same time for all 7, do you realize how slim those odds are Star?
The odds of 2 species sharing the exact same 7 viral fragments, all in the exact same genetic locations are outside any ‘coincidence’, virtually impossible and can only be explained by the notion of common descent.
Since you're interested in DNA evidence, you should also know that mtDNA analysis shows that the oldest H.Sapien populations can be found in Africa dating back 195,000 years, while Y Choromosome mapping concurs this location as well. By mapping the human genome and comparing across all the living populations we can trace back to our heredity origins.
www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
star2,
“The human,though, is vastly superior to the apes and chimps in his abilities.”
Only in grey matter, language and cultural inheritance abilities. We humans are quite physically inept compared to most animals. No humans can physically do anything as acrobatic as apes can and no human is even close to the strength of a gorilla. A recent study showed that Chimps have better memory that humans do in certain aspects.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3944729
You should also consider all the extinct Hominids that weren’t modern H. Sapiens, nor were they apes. Some of them used fire, made stone tools, had crude culture etc. What were all these other quasi humans doing in the alleged garden of Eden? If anything they all collectively demonstrate a progressive evolution towards us, the DNA analysis from them independently backs it up too.
”When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose.”
Where does it say that in the bible? If god decided each animals genetic needs from day one as you imply, why then do genes undergo mutations and changes at all? Why do we see animals (Emus’, ostriches, other flightless birds) that demonstrate if they were designed from day 1, the designer wasn’t thinking very clearly for the survival of that species.
Case in point, the Dodo. The Dodo was isolated on islands off of Southern Africa, but b/c it couldn’t fly it couldn’t escape humans which clubbed them to death and couldn’t lay eggs off the ground so the rats and other mammals that came with the humans destroyed their eggs causing their extinction. Some design
”Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup.”
Well, I wouldn’t say ‘exactly’, but we and the other great apes are most genetically similar when compared amongst all other organisms.
agentorange
I'll get back with you on the chromosone 2 fusion.
star2,
“My suggestion is don't be so quick to write off the explanations of creationists just because they don't have any of their work published in the respected journals in their field.”
Star, get real ok. No one takes anyone seriously unless they have evidence to back up their claims. That is the reason why no creationist work even gets published under peer review as they never pass the level of critique required.
“The reviewers of these journals are evolutionists and they automatically reject anything that would suggest that they are wrong"
You’re wrong star; they do publish SOME work that doesn’t conform to the data, but not those that are grossly out of line away from the evidence and data (like those that ICR and AIG use). Behe’s own work was published thought he didn’t refer to ALL the evidence that showed IC to be a crock. This is why we use peer review as we want only the most accurate and correctly supported ideas out there and not hearsay nonsense.
“The complexity of the biological systems are beyond words”
Well I hope you don’t venture down the ID path of IC, good luck if you do. Cosmological systems still are, and were even more so in the past incredibly complex and Newton and Laplace used god to fill in the gaps of ignorance to explain away that which they lacked knowledge and evidence for. Only till other future cosmologists came along did it become obvious that no god was involved in any of it, but rather it’s the natural process of the cosmos.
agentorange
Part 1
Re:Ok, let me simpify it here. ERV insertion into an animal’s genome is ENTIRELY RANDOM. For 2 animals (which already share 98.5% similar nuclear DNA, that would be us and Chimps) to have the EXACT same 7 viral fragments (1 ERV per unique type of virus) and that all 7 be all in same genetic locations of their respected genomes is outside the odds and probability and virtually impossible for both them and us to share the same ones and in the exact same genetic locations. The only way this evidence can be explained is by common ancestry and evolution.
By all means try to explain this evidence without evolution and common descent.
I disagree with your conclusion. There is another explanation for it. When I get it I'll let you know.
ANSWER: The explanation comes from Genesis 1
From Genesis 1 we find the following:
o God is the creator of all things
- space [firmament (atmosphere), heavens (outer space)]
- light in the form of sun, moon, stars
- earth with dry land and seas
- plant life:grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees yielding fruit after its own kind
- fish:each type of fish created after its own kind
- fowl:each type of fowl created after its own kind
- animal life and insects:each type of animal and insect created after its own kind
- humans:Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and after His likeness
o Each creation serves a purpose.
Examples: 1) the lights in firmament divides the day from the night, and is for signs, season,
days and years. 2) Plant life is food for the animals and humans.
o Human life is unique from all of God's creation in that humans were created in the image and likeness of God.
agentorange
Part 2
o God created laws to control the behavior/function of all his creation.
The plant life receive their food from the ground. The genetics that control that are similar or the same.
The laws of genetics that control the biological functions of all animal life is the same or similar. We can deduce this from the fact that animals and humans each consume the same kind of food, and their respective systems process these foods in a similar way. Thus, the genetics that control the consumption of these food are the same or similar.
Hence, the laws of genetics will be the same among the species.
According to Genesis 1 animal life and human life are similar but different. They are similar in the sense that animals and humans can see, hear, feel, smell, taste, reproduce, elimate body waste, etc.. Each require sleep, water. The difference, again, is that Man is created in the image and likeness of God whereas the animals are not.
However, the laws of genetics that control the biological functions of each are the same.
Now, focusing on the great apes, chimps, and humans. It is obvious that the apearance of each of these are simialr. Each have two feet with toes, two hands with fingers, a head, two ears, two eyes, a nose,a mouth with teeth, and a brain. They all have similar abilities. The can hunt for food, make use of tools, they have their own form of communications, and etc. The human,though, is vastly superior to the apes and chimps in his abilities.
God established what all the biological components (DNA, chromosones, genes, etc) were going to be, how they would function, what traits/behaviors they would define, and etc..
When God created each animal He decided what their purpose was going to be in the world and what kind of DNA would achieve that purpose.
Some of the biological functions in the Human and the Chimp are identical. They have exactly the same genetic makeup. God designed it that way. Since the laws of genetics of all living flesh is the same then it would be reasonable to assume that if the human and the chimp was exposed to the sames viruses then the resulting ERV's would be the same in the DNA that is identical between the two species.. So, this is my explanation as to why the human and the chimp have 7 identical ERVs.
star2,
“All the information that was given with the supporting data does not say to me that evolution is true.”
I gave you ONLY 2 pieces of evidence, perhaps do more research, refer to current books on the subjects.
“How biological systems work is mind boogling to me. Look at the complexity of it all. How can one say that it all happened by chance?’
What biological systems? You mean the eye, blood clotting, bacteria flagellum and other IC concepts that ID folk use that ALL have been shown to have evolutionary methods to explain their complexity? Even seedplanter must acknowledge this and so should you.
Take a look at ALL the biological systems star, many show signs of hap hazard design if they were designed. Why do humans have wisdom teeth anyway if the vast majority of the populace can’t use them or must have them pulled b/c they are a nuisance? Many other signs like this don’t point to an orderly system of benevolent intelligent design but rather indifference at many intersecting levels. Most organisms in fact aren’t ‘perfectly designed’ or even exhibit anything near ideal design.
“To have to give evolution billions of years to work only goes to say that the probability of life changes to takes place as we have observed them is next to impossible if not impossible”
We don’t just throw in billions of years, the testing we do on biological and mineral evidence reveals these dates and this is the timeline that is used. Well, don’t think of it working under chance, it's not a continual roll of the dice. Only mutations are random within Evolution, so really NS is the opposite of chance in abstract.
star2,
“Response:The noncoding DNA or junk DNA may not define any behavior in the organism but they do perform functions within the cell. At least that is what the wikipedia articles say.”
Yup, that’s right. Up to 30% (I think it’s actually 27%) of the human genome is coded DNA, the rest is uncoded, however it is still all passed down each generations. Much of it, as Wiki states it responsible for actuating genes that are coded, so you could say SOME are indirectly used for such things. ERV’s are however not as they serve no active or indirect purpose at all, all they show is that a given population shared a specific endogenous retrovirus and nothing more. That said there is no reason for us and Chimps to even share such a non coded trait at all.
“What was used to determine the human genome could have been different if they had used other humans.”
True, but all members of a population of a given species (human or not) will share identical base sequences and other genetic traits that are unique and only found in a given species. Sure we could have mapped another humans genome, however only the .001% differences would be evident, which is why all humans are 99% genetically identical and in comparing our DNA to Chimps it’s a non-factor as all humans are all equally as different as Chimps.
“Thus, the results may have been different if other subjects in each species were used to determine the genome.”
Nope, see above.
“How do you know that what was found, the 7 identical ERV's, between the human and chimp was not coincidental?”
Go back to the video, refer to the links it uses and research all the ERV markers that we and Chimps have. www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Coincidental? Not a chance, he outlines why in the vid quite well. The range of possible insertion points any ERV can attach itself to ranges from 50,000,000 – 500,000,000, and this figure depends on the 500-2000 Integration sites and 100,000-250,000 Base pairs per Integration site to select from. With these kinds of numbers, for two species to share not only the same 7 ERV’s, (keep in mind we could find more too) and they are all 7 in the exact same genetic sequences between them, you must admit extremely low.
seedplanter,
“When you say that Darwinism has nothing to say about the origin of life, aren't you in fact over-steering when you try to miss irreducible complexity?”
1st, it’s ‘Evolution’ not Darwinism. Other scientists at the same time and before him had the same ideas on Evolution and organisms sharing common descent besides Darwin. Either a system is IC or it’s not, if it is then evolution couldn’t have been the method by which the system came to exist. If you posit this ‘ID being’ built certain biological systems, then we should also logically as why so many biological systems show bad and hap hazard signs of design.
“It is a fallacy for naturalists to assume an unguided role as inferred by ‘natural’ selection.“
Fine, show how NS is the affect of a ‘guided hand’ then. NS is as natural as any other process in nature, look up the details. ID can’t work within the constraints of NS as it allows for natural processes to collectively create higher orders of complexity, which kills IC before it even gets going.
“A thread of mutations you might be inclined to say; from purposeless, useless genetic acts of violence to purposeful transcendence of the structural beauty found in life”
What, the same mutations that Behe cries as being unable to produce NEW GENETIC information from generation to generation? Most mutations aren’t beneficial or harmful, but benign. However, only a beneficial mutation will add in the fitness of a species as a harmful one will be more likely to kill it or cause it to be deselected (become lunch via NS. You mean like this kind of mutation?
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
A small mutation as you know can produce an ‘added fitness’ for an organism against its rivals and makes it more prolific in the long run.
Star2,
Amen! Thank you, and God bless you.
May all forgive me for my previous quarrelsome tones. Even you, agent. I wrongfully drew you out to attack me, just to make a point about your stance--but in the end only said much about my own. Thank God for His Word. I have much to learn and to apply.
When asked on what he thought about scientists who questioned Darwin's theory and sought to explore alternative theories, which includes but is not limited to Intelligent Design, Dr. Kay dodged the question and responded, "To put the record straight. . .[ID] is not a theory or hypothesis, it makes no predictions, and it has no place in the science classroom because of this. It is therefore a false assertion that evolution "censors" ID. ID is not science, but a belief system." (Emphasis added)
Reports of scientists at major universities and learning institutions losing their jobs or being denied tenure have come up in recent years for refusing to accept macroevolution. These scientists, not all of whom are creationists, with legitimate degrees from high ranking universities have been discriminated against for wanting to scientifically question Darwin's theory.
Dr. Kay wrote "the humanities rather than our science classes" is the right forum to discuss the Bible and various philosophies, suggesting that the First Amendment right to free speech can be enforced anywhere else except the science classroom.
Thus, scientists and science educators who wish to perform scientific inquiry and investigations beyond or in place of Darwinism risk persecution or termination. And their students, from grade to graduate school, are short-changed by being denied the perspectives and "scientific views" of these qualified scientists.
Without even knowing scientific alternatives to Darwinism exist, students are denied the knowledge and right to choose their methodologies, forced instead to accept an atheistic worldview, whether scientific or otherwise.
You can view the full transcript of the chat with Steve Kay at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20071214-1400-evolutionchat.html.
agentorange
I flagged my entry below to add the additional information.
correction to the Sun Feb 3, 2008 1:10 am posting:
o change 'rate' to 'constant'
o Dr Anderson came to my University (Univ of Tn at Chatt) in the early part of 1971
o 'significantly altered' means the decay constant was altered by a statistically significant amount
o Spangler told me their work was reject in 1972 by the reviewer
o Anderson and Spangler eventually (1974) had their work published
agentorange
I did some research in the different areas we talked about. The complexity of the biological systems are beyond words. The Psalmist David said it best.
Psalm 139:13-14
13 "For thou hast possesed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Amen.
agentorange
God loves you. I hope one day you will come to know His love for you.
I left a variety of comments for you and also my salvation testimony. I hope you will take time to read everything I wrote.
agentorange
Part 1
A scientist who is interested in truth would welcome debating those who hold an opposite view to his own. He would make every effort to try to understand how his opponent interprets his data and why he interprets it the way he does. The scientist may find that his understanding of how things work may be wrong or he may be able to help the opposing scientist to see the error of his thinking should he find fallicy in his thinking.
Now, you made the following comments:
“Kent R. Rieske, B.Sc., and Bible Life Ministries. All Rights Reserved. Wrong site brainiac”
Like it matters. You’d honestly take a ministries opinion with regards to science! That’s just as bad as a conspiracy site.
You just regurgitated nonsense. You didn’t provide a single scientifically peer reviewed article to back any of it up. It’s all hearsay nonsense, white noise that only stick hicks believe.
if you're going to argue a point site it with scientiifcally backed data like I have."
My suggestion is don't be so quick to write off the explanations of creationists just because they don't have any of their work published in the respected journals in their field. The reviewers of these journals are evolutionists and they automatically reject anything that would suggest that they are wrong. They are essentially close minded and possibly unethical if they know that the creationist had a discovery that contradicted the evolutionist world view of how things work.
agentorange
Part 2
Let me illustrate with a real life example of something I had some personal involvment with.
In undergraduate school I was a physics major. My interest was in nuclear physics. I took a Nuclear Physics course and its lab in my junior year. In the first semester of my senior year I wanted to do an experiement that tested the decay rate of radioactive substances in a charged field to see what would happen. My professor said "No" that I couldn't do it because they never wanted to test decay rates under any kind of charged field.
A couple of months later a Nuclear Chemist by the name of Dr. Anderson came to my university and presented his research on testing the decay rate of radioactive chemicals in a charged field. He found that their decay rates were significantly altered. My professor, Dr. Spangler and Dr Anderson pursued this further together and discovered that the decay rate for radioactive substances is not constant like one use to think but could indeed be altered in a charged field.
They wrote up their results and presented it for publication. Their paper was rejected. The reviewer took their findings and altered their experiments some to make it look 'original', wrote up his findings, and had his paper published.
The reviewer of Drs. Spangler and Anderson's work was unethical and he stole their idea. He knew that they had a significant find and he wanted the credit for it.
It is a dog eat dog world in the scientific research community. Just because a researcher doesn't get his paper published it doesn't mean that their work was not worthy of publication.
Don't be afraid to look at the work of people who don't hold to your position. Examine their position closely and see if they might have something in their understanding on how things work. Either you will find weaknesses in their arguments and their findings worthy of rejection or you might just find that they are on to something. It can only help in your pursuit of truth not hurt it.
God loves you.
agentorange
No one was present when life began. No one knows how it happened. Each group of people, whether they be creationists,evolutionists, or theist evolutionists have ideas about how things came into being. Each group takes the data that science has produced and interprets it based on their world view.
You, as an evolutionist, see the data as verifying the evolutionary theory. As a creationist, I do not. I have a different explanation as to why the data is the way it is. Theistic evolutionists would have some other kind of explanation with a hybrid of thoughts related to creationism and evolution with a heavy leaning towards evolution.
Neither group will be able to convince the others that their interpretation is the correct one apart from some outside influence.
I did some research on the topics we discussed; evolution, natural selection, speciation, genetic drifting, ERVs, chromosomes, etc. All the information that was given with the supporting data does not say to me that evolution is true.
How biological systems work is mind boogling to me. Look at the complexity of it all. How can one say that it all happened by chance? To have to give evolution billions of years to work only goes to say that the probability of life changes to takes place as we have observed them is next to impossible if not impossible; the probability of it happening is so astronomically small that the chance of it happening is zero. I would conclude from that that evolution is not possible.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe that an infinite God, who has infinite wisdon, knowledge, and understanding, created, designed, and brought forth the universe and all that is in it.
agentorange?
agentorange-are you here?
agentorange
I may not be here at exactly 8 PM. I am posting the following in case you get here before me.
star2 said, “Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share does not prove natural selection. These are merely codes that describe certain behavior. “
agentorange said," ERV’s are located in the non-coding (junk DNA) section of an animals genome.
THEY DON’T HAVE ANY FUNCTION CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. They are retroviral fragments that show what viruses a species had and nothing more. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with defining if an animal is hairy, tall, short, dark haired, light haired, etc.
This is non-coding DNA, it has NO defining function on the organism at all. All ERV’s are, are a genetic marker showing that this type of animal had ‘X-type’ of viruses in the past. Period. And it just so happens we and Chimps share the exact same 7 and they are in the exact same identical genetic locations. Most importantly, is that ERV’s are reverse transcribed into the hosts genome entirely at RANDOM."
Response:The noncoding DNA or junk DNA may not define any behavior in the organism but they do perform functions within the cell. At least that is what the wikipedia articles say.
The heritary characteristics vary within the species. What was used to determine the human genome could have been different if they had used other humans. Same for the chimps. Thus, the results may have been different if other subjects in each species were used to determine the genome.
How do you know that what was found, the 7 identical ERV's, between the human and chimp was not coincidental?
Star2:
Amen!
agentorange
agentorange
Part 1
God told me to give you my testimony. So, here it is.
I was raised in the Baptist Church. When I was 8 yrs old God gave me a revelation of the reality of hell. I went forward during invitation time that Sunday and asked Jesus to save me.
I didn't make Jesus the Lord of my life though. As a result, I lived a life of sin. These sins included but were not limited to lying, stealing, cheating, cussing, unforgiveness, hatred, and etc.
Over time God allowed my sin to destroy my life. My sin brought death to my relationships with people, to the use of my abilities, and to my psychological well being.
I was in my 4th graduate school. My first term was not good like it had been in the previous graduate schools I had attended and flunked out of. I was worried about being able to succeed. I knew that if I failed out of this school that I would have no hope of getting a better paying job. All I could hope for was to go back to my $3/hr drafting job, and live at home with my mother. My future seemed bleek.
agentorange
Part 2
In my dorm room there was a Gideon Bible. Out of boredom I picked it up and began to flip thru the pages looking for a place to read. I couldn't read anywhere until I came to Matthew 6:25-33.
I read the passage. Jesus was saying why do you worry about what you are going to wear and what you are going to eat. He said that we were more valuable to God then the birds whom he feeds and the lillies whom he beautifully adorns. Then he said "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt 6:33).
I didn't understand a word I read. My mind was numb and blank. But when I read Matt 6:33 for some reason I wanted to read it twice. Afterwards, the Lord spoke to me and said, "Pat, put Me first in you life and I will take care of what you are worried about." He said that twice to me just like I read Matt 6:33 twice. Then, with some anger in His voice, He said, "You have been trying to run your life apart from Me." Right after that it hit me in my spirit. My mind cleared out and I knew that God was real, and that I had sinned against God and God alone. God showed me how my sin destroyed my life. Afterwards, I began to pray. I said, "Yes, Lord, you are right, I have been running my life apart from you and I have made a mess out of it." I repeated to Him how I understood how my sin destroyed my life. Then I prayed "I will put you first in my life. I will go to Church and I will tithe."
I went home for the holidays. I returned to school in Jan for the winter term. My first Sunday back, when I woke up I decided to go to Church because I had promised God that I would go. When I got my pay check at the end of the month, I decided to tithe. After this, the very next day, my life changed. God blessed me in my finances by giving me a tutoring job. He made me a better student and teacher. He changed my study habits. He set me free from being entertained by ungodly TV. He made me an outgoing person. I went to Church Sunday morning, Sun night , and Wed nights too. I wanted to be in the house of God. I can truly say that I was not the same person that I was before I came back to God and kept my commitment to Him.
God took me from being a failure to being a success. I graduated from school and got a good paying job with a NASA contractor.
God is real. I have found His Word to be trustworthy. I place my faith in the living God who has changed my life.
I accept the Word of God by faith. I do not understand everything in it but I accept that it is truth and I seek Him to give me understanding.
I have experienced God to be who He says He is. I can truly say that He is a miracle working God.
Agent: "There is no need to disagree on Behe’s notion of irreducible complex systems."
When you say that Darwinism has nothing to say about the origin of life, aren't you in fact over-steering when you try to miss irreducible complexity?
Behe answered his critics on the issue of the immune system. The thing about it is I have little doubt that science will discover structural links to that process anyway. The distinction comes in the initial programming or guiding process by which the selection takes place. It is a fallacy for naturalists to assume an unguided role as inferred by ‘natural’ selection. As Dawkins has echoed the sentiments of Huxley in his typical outlandish way, it is fed by the reality that his beloved ‘naturalism’ is hanging by a thread; A thread of mutations you might be inclined to say; from purposeless, useless genetic acts of violence to purposeful transcendence of the structural beauty found in life; a thread of hope that he can maintain his intellectual courage in the fate of natural evolution as he faces the transcendent God who is good, with whom he would not have to do.
agentorange
Hi, hope everything is going for you.
I'll be back tomorrow evening (Sat), maybe around 8 pm (CT). Hope to see you then.
HBN,
“Chemical evolution or the arising of reproducing lifeforms from a pool of chemicals is a foundational and necessary step before all the rest of your beliefs could occur. “
No they’re not. The origins of life in no way negate if life evolves after it already exists. I don’t know how many times this must be said.
Whether life arose from chemical bonding processes, or aliens left it here or if god poofed it here is moot with regards to once life is here it evolves, and that's all evolution states and deals with.
Once life is exists it evolves period. HOW it came into existence here is a different realm of science known as abiogenesis.
All they did was leave the base compounds to naturally form amino acids, they didn’t care if they weren’t left handed or not, only that under a natural setting IF they could/would form amino acids, which they certainly did. That was the basis of the experiment and that’s all it was testing.
Why are they all left handed? We’re not certain yet, but again this is no way impacts life evolving once it exists.
You’re talking about Abiogenesis here, if you could try to refute evolution, (organisms changing over time once they exist) then you might have something, If you want to refute abogenesis go ahead, but I wasn't making points for abiogenesis, but for evolution.
Perhaps you can go back a couple pages and review the evidence I gave for evolution regarding Human chromosome 2 fusion and 7 Identical ERV's we and Chimps share.
peace
Sorry, that should have been addressed to agent orange. Boy is my face red :-)
Tgender: If you knew about the chirality of the amino acids formed by random processes you would be embarrassed to be relying on the Miller-Urey experiments as a basis for your faith.
Chemical evolution or the arising of reproducing lifeforms from a pool of chemicals is a foundational and necessary step before all the rest of your beliefs could occur.
This is not demonstrable, in fact Miller and friends actually proved why it is impossible, though they did not realise it at the time because they were only trying to prove their hypothesis. Chemicals reacting in alone (without the 'guidance' of a chemical engineer) to produce amino acids (for example) produce approximately equal proportions of isomers (left or right handed molecules = chirality) which is disastrous for all of the many rna, enzyme, protein, chemistries we see in life today.
Since the first step cannot happen, all the rest is based on irrational faith that somehow it did happen.
Tgender,
1. With regards origins, the chemicals and their chemical bonds that would be required to form simply nucleotides refer to the experiments done decades ago where it was shown that by having the most basic chemicals amongst each other that they would form amino acids (building blocks of RNA and DNA) naturally and with no god involved. This is partly why a natural explanation is even considered.
2. Natural selection is the process by which the best fit organism survive to pass on their genes, this is the very underpinning to naturally why organism have complex code at all. That said, Evolution is hardly random, only the genetic mutations life undergoes are random.
It’s a misunderstanding, most laymen’s assume all organisms become fossilized and they conclude we should find billions of transitionals. Little do they realize how rare natural fossilization actually is and this is why there are not millions. What we do find are species that according to their location in the geologic record gave rise to other more complex forms, while also branching out according to their clad and taxonomy. If we found a chicken fossil in Cambrian geological layer evolution would be in trouble as it would conflict with the notion of organisms progressing and only living during certain periods followed by extinction.
“And doesn’t the “sudden” explosion present problems for such a random process?”
4.No, not really. First understand that evolution isn’t random at all, only the mutations are random and so natural selection is really not random in the abstract. Consider this emergence of more complex life coincides perfectly with rising O2 levels that spanned 6+ million years, it wasn’t an overnight emergence. O2 is like rocket fuel for complex organic life. As soon as O2 was abundant enough new strains of life began using it in their ‘fitness’ against all other organisms. O2 was like a new selective pressure that pushed evolution to speed up.
5. There is no need to disagree on Behe’s notion of irreducible complex systems. Research the Dover trial from 2005, it sites all of Behe’s arguments for IC, each being consequently shot down. Behe made bad assumptions. He thought the immune system couldn’t possibly have evolved, but that’s b/c he ignored the evolutionary evidence for it in 2 books, 15 articles and 60 chapters that dealt with the evolution of the immune system in detail.
PBS did a special on it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qk3sRqsVrh4
6.Speciation (Marco evolution) is evolution at or above the species level barrier. Once a species braches off and becomes un-able to successfully breed and produce viable offspring that can reproduce they are a new species. We can interbreed lions and tigers to create a hybrid ‘liger’, however the ligers are always infertile and thus can’t pass on this liger lineage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU
agentorange-
I commend you for your valiant attempt to answer my questions and for your friendly tone. I know this will disappoint you, but I am not persuaded by your responses.
1. Your answer to the origin of life did not really explain how it happened. Saying that some things “gave rise” to other things glosses over the all important mechanisms and information that are necessary to make it all happen. There are no known natural processes where life arises from non-life. I have read many scientists who are completely flabbergasted at how life got started. They realize the probabilities are so low as to be impossible.
2. You admit that “DNA contains an incredible amount of info/instructions”, but I don’t see you explaining or wrestling with where we can get this information from purely random and material processes.
3. You’re right, Darwin did not say “millions”. He actually said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down." I inferred that for the 1.5 million of species we observe today that we would discover millions, if not billions, of transitions.
4. Yes, the Cambrian probably happened in 6 million years, but is that really enough by Evolutionary standards? And doesn’t the “sudden” explosion present problems for such a random process? Why haven’t we seen it before or since? I would have expected a random distribution of developed life forms.
5. I guess we just disagree about Behe’s claims and others who see examples of irreducible complexity everywhere.
6. I’m not sure what you mean that “Macro-evolution doesn’t require new morphological changes (new wings or new limbs)”. It requires enough changes (over time) to produce a brand new species. Given the wide variety of species, that certainly must include new wings, limbs, eyes, fins, and many other kinds of appendages and organs. It all started from a single bacterial cell, right?
Peace back to you.
here ya go tgender,
this will get you started on some info to look up and get familar with.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex5
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
www.becominghuman.org
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ (Smithsonian institute)
www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
www.natcenscied.org
www.archaeologyinfo.com/evolution.htm
www.nhm.ac.uk/index.html
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php
www.pandasthumb.org/
www.dnaancestryproject.com/
www.actionbioscience.org/
www.glendale.edu/skull/
www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html
www.nationalacademies.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution (refer to articles and other links from bottom of page)
Peace.
Tgender,
1.Well I commend you on knowing that origins don’t negate evolution. Chemical bonding processes that atoms and molecules go under to form a natural state, which gave rise to the 1st nucleotides which in turn make up polynucleotide’s, which makes up RNA (which is what viruses and microorganisms are made of) and RNA lead to mutlicelluer DNA.
2. Origins, see above (obviously its far more complex, that’s just a jist). Although DNA contains an incredible amount of info/instructions, in our own genomes, a significant part of our DNA (30% i think) is non-coding (junk-DNA) that doesn’t perform actively defining an organism’s build or traits.
3.Darwin never said anything about ‘millions of transitional’, only that we should find SOME showing some progression (which we certainly do, I'll show you some if you'd like) from extinct species groups on to other extinct forms and onto living ones. The exticnt hominid fossils are a good example of this. First you must realize how rare fossilization under normal conditions actually is, this is why the vast majority of organisms are never fossilized to begin with.
4. We have chemical signatures of organic life (stromatolites) dating back 3.85 billion years and the period of life that arose in the Cambrian period were the first animals to have ridged endoskeletons that would fossilize, prior to that they were less complex with no endokeletons. Also keep in mind this ‘explosion’ occurred over 6+ million year time period, so it was hardly ‘over night’.
5. What irreducible complexity? All of Behe’s examples have been shown that natural means have provided ways of overcoming complexity via cumulative progressive steps. Eye, check, immune system, check. Bombardier beetle, check, blood clotting, check. etc. I can site these too if you'd like.
5.Star2 was confused by the same thing. Macro-evolution doesn’t require new morphological changes (new wings or new limbs). Macro-evolution is defined as evolution AT or ABOVE the species level barrier. Microevolution is defined as a change in allelic genetic frequencies, which is depicted in the examples with the moths or finch beaks. I listed many examples for her and plenty of links a few pages back please review those. further questions, let me know how I can help.
Peace
ifeelfine72: “I actually find the title of the article "Why Darwinism is So Dangerous" to be offensive.”
You have got to be kidding me.
AgentOrnery: “My question to Seedplanter was:
What is your take on all the evidence I gave for evolution. Particularly dealing with Human Chromosome 2 Fusion and 7 Identical ERV's? You can find the details a few pages back and also much further back.”
Agent I am not qualified to give you an appropriate answer to this since this is not my area of expertise. What I can tell you is that at this point I do lean towards a non-decent position in regards to mankind. I recognize the evolution in the aspect of changes within species. I do think that a guiding hand, whether it was built in to the nature of specific organisms or if it was actually directly involved, seems to me quite necessary. The scientific field in these areas is still young and has a lot to learn and discover. If it could be proven that every single creature was linked to a common beginning, it still could not account for the materials, the information, the structures, the patterns, the mechanisms, the laws or the origin of life itself; things that cannot account for their own existence, but are contingent upon another. There are numerous debates within the scope of evolution itself that lead to questions about the reliability of specific information as well as how to read certain results. Then there is the question of skewed results do to human error. As far as being in harmony with the Bible, there are numerous positions one can take that really would not jeopardize faith in the creation account. It may seem to you that this is entirely too convenient, but considering Genesis was written thousands of years ago and that it was likely taken from an oral tradition, it can be a difficult thing to translate from religious narrative to the scientific field of biology. Some people take it as an allegory, while there are numerous views as to a literal account. ID does not offer a creation model, at least that I’m aware of. Hugh Ross and others including Jewish scientists have developed creation models that take Genesis literally, without gutting scientific discoveries.
NOTW,
"I guess we should just accept what you spoon-feed us from your imperical sources"
At least my sources are SCIENTIFIC ONES. next time site those and you'll arguement will have more sway. I wouldn't expect you to take the word or work from science site regarding religous doctrine, so what makes you think anyone would take a bible sites response on Science.
"Why attack the person who wrote this? That is so much easier than attacking the ideas. Do you mean to be a fascist? "
"typical fashion, agent--arrogantly."
Sorry, but what copied and pasted was an entire word salad. low on substance and non filling. use actual science sites as a source and I will respect you opinons.
You copied and pastied from a site that has no authority on science, I think you can understand why I brought it up. and it seems you still haven't bothered to answer my question on Human chromosome 2 or 7 Identical ERV's.
"agentorange
I will be back Saturday to talk with you some more about evolution. God loves you. "
Star2,
Ok, may god bless you too.
tgender
Re:The heavens declare the glory of God.
Amen!
ifeelfine72-
“Is there any spiritual truth to anything "Christians" have said?”
Yes, I think there’s been a lot of spiritual truth conveyed.
“In any case, is it Christian to just point the finger back and say "they started it" or "they threw out more insults." It sounds like something my son would say and is sinful as it is against God.”
Well, that’s what you’re saying about Christians. And my comments were simply in response to what you asked. I was merely giving my observations which seemed contrary to your observations.
“That is just my view and not at all science.”
Does this mean you don’t trust science? What do you mean it’s “not at all science”? Evolution is a scientific theory.
“Man is very special as is the rest of God's creation.”
Yes, I agree, but my question is does it seem right that God would evolve us from slime if we were that special?
“As for your other questions they have been answered countless other places and I am not going to do that here - I wish literal creationists would come up with some new ones!”
I haven’t seen good answers to any of these questions anywhere. We don’t need new questions because these are good ones and they have not been answered persuasively.
“I will say though, that the questions you pose are dangerous as they create a "God of the gaps" scenario as others have said and that is dangerous.”
I have to admit that you really puzzle me with this one. If you believe in God, then why would you find it hard to believe that He would be the explanation for many things, such as the evidence for intelligent design that we observe in nature? If you read the naturalist quotes carefully, they often appeal to nature-of-the-gaps (“let’s wait and see what we find out in a hundred years”). See ebcdic’s post just a few messages back for an example. What's so dangerous about acknowledging God as the Creator? The heavens declare the glory of God.
” BTW: What the heck does "Christian Evolutionist" even mean anyway?”
You’re right, the technical term is Theistic Evolutionist, but since you said you were a Christian I was merely trying to portray your brand of theism as Christianity. I did not mean to offend or mischaracterize you.
agentorange
I will be back Saturday to talk with you some more about evolution. God loves you.
tgender: I didn't mean to direct my entire post towards you alone - just the first part. I want you to take a good hard look at yourself and others . . . tell me, if you were an outsider would you want anything to do with Christianity based just on the comments of "Christians" in this article? Is there any spiritual truth to anything "Christians" have said? In any case, is it Christian to just point the finger back and say "they started it" or "they threw out more insults." It sounds like something my son would say and is sinful as it is against God.
I take a theistic view of evolution - it happened as it is laid out but I believe it was guided by God. That is just my view and not at all science. Man is very special as is the rest of God's creation.
As for your other questions they have been answered countless other places and I am not going to do that here - I wish literal creationists would come up with some new ones! LOL!
I will say though, that the questions you pose are dangerous as they create a "God of the gaps" scenario as others have said and that is dangerous.
BTW: What the heck does "Christian Evolutionist" even mean anyway?
ifeelfine72-
I forgot to add this to my previous post. As a Christian Evolutionist, how do you come to a viewpoint that man was made in the image of God when he merely evolved from a bacterial cell? This doesn't make it sound like man is something very special in God's creation. Thanks.
ifeelfine72-
You addressed your comments to me, so I’m not sure if you were referring to me or not in your remarks. I have tried to present my viewpoint in as winsome a manner as I could, neither shouting nor insulting. I can’t say that all Christians have done likewise, but my observation has been that, by far, most of the insults have been coming at Christians, not from them.
Look at your own comment: “I can't imagine a single non-believer wanting to come to the fold with the ignorance displayed by ‘Christians’ on this site.” You just called every non-Evolution believing Christian ignorant. That’s uncalled for and not true I might add. If I’m so ignorant for not believing Evolution, perhaps you can answer these simple questions to help me out of my ignorance:
For atheist Evolutionists:
1. How did we get life from non-life from purely natural causes? Yes I’ve heard the Evolutionist claim that this has nothing to do with Evolution, but it has everything to do with whether or not Evolution could even get started, so answer it OK?
2. How do you explain the origin of DNA, which is the genetic blueprint for all of life? It contains a staggering amount of information. Like the contents of a book, the message is different from the medium. All our experience informs us that information requires an intelligent cause, so a material explanation for information fails.
For all Evolutionists (including Christians):
3. How do you explain the lack of MILLIONS of transitional fossils? Darwin expected it and said this would falsify his theory.
4. How do you explain the sudden appearance of nearly all life forms in the Cambrian Explosion?
5. How do you explain irreducible complexity within a single cell as well as countless biological organisms? Darwin also said this would falsify his theory.
6. Why do Evolutionists always put forth evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution (finch beaks, peppered moths, etc)?
I have other questions, but that’s a good start.
tgender: Have you seen the way the "Christians" have been treating AgentOrange? Not very Christian like in my opinion. I can't believe I read all 30+ pages of comments! LOL! Sometimes I am ashamed for my Christian "brothers" and this is definitely one of those instances. Tell me, does anyone here think anything a "Christian" on this site said will do anything to bring people closer to God? Absolutely not! But I bet it drove some people away . . . "those stupid Christians" . . . and I can't say as I blame them.
"Test all things and hold fast to that which is true." - not many "Christians" on this site have been doing that. You would rather hold on to your ignorance than actually learn and "test." Well, I have some news for you, if you don't believe in evolution, then you are calling God a liar because the verdict is in and evolution is fact. And you know what? You can still be a good Christian and understand biology and evolution. The pastor of my church understands this - my last pastor did too and he graduated with a Master's Degree in physiology before going to seminary.
Why would God deliberately mislead us if it is not true? The evidence so overwhelmingly points to evolution that I can't imagine a single non-believer wanting to come to the fold with the ignorance displayed by "Christians" on this site. Really, its embarrassing, the name calling, the "shouting," the closed minds, etc. It's really disturbing and not the least Christian-like. I actually find the title of the article "Why Darwinism is So Dangerous" to be offensive.
NOTW-
Interesting comments about human vs. chimp DNA. You're right, evolutionists will just ignore it. However, regardless of what the relative percentages are, it just doesn't matter. Chimps and humans are OBVIOUSLY way different, so there's much more in play than this simple comparison. Also, shared DNA is just as much evidence of common design as common ancestry, so I think the whole DNA argument doesn't help much.
agent,
Why attack the person who wrote this? That is so much easier than attacking the ideas. Do you mean to be a fascist? "Listen to me, bow to my presentation, or suffer my childish wrath." What a motto.
I guess we should just accept what you spoon-feed us from your imperical sources. I pasted that stuff (which you can only scoff at, not answer decently), and you responded in typical fashion, agent--arrogantly. That was the whole point. I am no more interested in your "proofs" from God-hating atheists than you are in fulfilled Biblical prophecy.
ao-
"However, judging by your comment you didn’t even bother to look up the sources that NOTW or notw06 used and consequently you took him at his word. That’s not good tgender."
If you re-read my comment, you'll see I merely said his comment was interesting, but my main point was that it doesn't matter either way and I gave some brief reasons why I thought that was so.
Tgender,
Thanks for the reminder and I understand your points. However, judging by your comment you didn’t even bother to look up the sources that NOTW or notw06 used and consequently you took him at his word. That’s not good tgender.
I did some short searching to show how vacuous the nonsense he just spewed was just after you managed to agree with him in a knee jerk decision. Next time, do your part and research from actually authorative sites and sources (like those I listed some pages ago) if you want the actual evidence and facts and not propaganda. If you want info on science go to science sites (duh) if you want non authoritative opinions go to a conspiracy message board or a bible site (ike he used) where neither excel in science accuracy and intentionally mislead.
“Many of us have thought very deeply about these subjects and have formed deep convictions, just as you have”
Not quite, I think most people are lazy and will take whatever is spoon fed to them and not verify for themselves the veracity on many things. In fact, NOTW, just backed that claim. He literally copied and pasted from a source that has NO Authority on science at all.
Is it any wonder USA science scores are the lowest in the industrialized world? Is it any wonder that NOTW hasn’t?
agentorange-
I hope you don’t mind some advice. In any debate of ideas a certain amount of civility is required, otherwise you will lose your credibility and your audience. Shouting at people, calling them names, and otherwise insulting them do not advance the debate. They just make people turn you off. You’ve got some things to say, so say them in a way that people can receive them. It’s called the Golden Rule and I would imagine even atheists enjoy being treated with civility and respect. Contrary to what you might think, most people (Christians included) are not mindless idiots. Many of us have thought very deeply about these subjects and have formed deep convictions, just as you have. None of us have all the answers—that’s why we come to boards like to this to discuss them. Please take this in the sincere way it was intended.
“Kent R. Rieske, B.Sc., and Bible Life Ministries. All Rights Reserved. Wrong site brainiac”
Like it matters. You’d honestly take a ministries opinion with regards to science! That’s just as bad as a conspiracy site.
“you get so worked up. go play on your tire swing. you really need some new diversions. answer the questions please--in your own words, now’
Since I posed the question first (like a week ago) how about you answer my questions first.
You just regurgitated nonsense. You didn’t provide a single scientifically peer reviewed article to back any of it up. It’s all hearsay nonsense, white noise that only stick hicks believe.
if you're going to argue a point site it with scientiifcally backed data like I have.
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
"We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn't resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from."
Some people fail to see the connection between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but the connection is very real. Evolution was conceived in order to ignore creation by an infinitely powerful God. The evolutionists soon realized that creation of the Earth and all the cosmos had to be ignored also. The Big Bang myth quickly gained the support of atheistic scientists. The two theories are intertwined to oppose creation as taught in the Bible. If one theory falters, both fail.
NOTW or notw06
That’s hilarious. You’re copying this nonsense directly from a conspiracy site and you think that shows it has authority on that matter. Man I am gonna have to tell others about how desperate you're for science info.
You didn’t even write a single thing that wasn’t directly copied from that site. Why don’t you for a change TRY to debunk the only 2 pieces of evidence I gave regarding evolution? Namely human chromosome 2 fusion and 7 Identical ERV’s.
Copyright © 2004 - 2007 by Kent R. Rieske, B.Sc., and Bible Life Ministries. All Rights Reserved. Wrong site brainiac. Had to change my name because the site blocked me for a comment for some reason that I do not understand
NOTW or notw06
What now you have to change your name to avoid be caught in a lie? Pathetic.
This just shows what more of a huckster you are.
To make it even better, the user (brains) from that message board (http://atheists.meetup.com/boards/thread/4033050/10#14172288 ) later admits that he copied the work that NOTW copied from this source below.
“Oh and Mr. Scientist I did copy and paste this because I simply do not have the time to put it in my own words and re-type”
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
So, I was interested in who runs this site and what it does. Well the link is below but here is the brief.
“Website Title: Conspiracy Theory, UFO, and Alternative Topics
Meta Description:: Conspiracy related discusion about a wide range of topics in the Above Top Secret website discussion forums. Our topics include freemasons, illuminati, aliens, ufo's, secret societies, politics, current events, and the war on terrorism among others.”
http://whois.domaintools.com/abovetopsecret.com
Yes, that’s CREDIBILITY IF I EVER SAW IT! CONSPIRACY THEORIES website! Hilarious!
Inside the conspiracy site, they have another great authoritative source on biology and evolution.
www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
www.biblelife.org/creation.htm
Now I’ll be sure to get my Science knowledge for these authoritative sites! (Sarcastic)
Next time NOTW try harder, check your SOURCES and do your OWN research, like I have.
Well, it's faith isn't it? Either you believe in creation which requires a Creator, or you believe in evolution as a theory which ignores a creator. Basically, people who believe in the evolutionary theory either 1) deny scientific fact in order to deny that God exists, or 2) they have not studied well enough to see that evolution is not possible. Science makes it very difficult to believe in evolution because an instantaneous creation is perfectly supported. Evolution cannot be proven.
Yep, all I did was paste it. What does that change? Science says...right? What, you can't answer to the questions posed? Just attack again from your arrogant stance? Science books have been telling us for years that all human are 99.9 percent genetically identical, and it is commonly said that humans “share” 98-99 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Now we find the claims were all fabricated lies. Instead of having only 0.1 percent difference between human individuals, we now find that people can be genetically different by as much as 10 to 12 percent." How do you answer? All you do is quote from "cites" that hold to your views. But that is okay, because you are so intellectually superior. Attack, but do not answer. What high school do you go to?
NOTW, TGENDER you might want to know this too.
Wow, 6 post in under 5 minutes!! Obviously you didn't know any of this material and likely copied it verbatim from some other place.
So it seems you're using another message board as your source for science knowledge now? Hilarious!
Here folks, and Tgender, I did a short search and found all the nonsense he just put up right here.
http://atheists.meetup.com/boards/thread/4033050/10/
You're such a fraud, trying to pose like you knew anything of science.
"Oops! Biology Scientists Just Changed the "Scientific Facts" Again.
Science books have been telling us for years that all human are 99.9 percent genetically identical, and it is commonly said that humans “share” 98-99 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Now we find the claims were all fabricated lies. Instead of having only 0.1 percent difference between human individuals, we now find that people can be genetically different by as much as 10 to 12 percent."
OOOOPsss you just copied verbatim from a site with NO AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING. OOOPS.
Next time actually do some homework on science NOTW.
BACK IT UP it up too, provide REAL sources and citings that cna backup your claims instead of copying and pasting from some other board that also has no sources.
All of what you copied from another message board is hearsay nonsense’s. and to top it off, none of the stuff from that sites messag boards are cites either!
NOTW-
Interesting comments about human vs. chimp DNA. You're right, evolutionists will just ignore it. However, regardless of what the relative percentages are, it just doesn't matter. Chimps and humans are OBVIOUSLY way different, so there's much more in play than this simple comparison. Also, shared DNA is just as much evidence of common design as common ancestry, so I think the whole DNA argument doesn't help much.
Well, it's faith isn't it? Either you believe in creation which requires a Creator, or you believe in evolution as a theory which ignores a creator. Basically, people who believe in the evolutionary theory either 1) deny scientific fact in order to deny that God exists, or 2) they have not studied well enough to see that evolution is not possible. Science makes it very difficult to believe in evolution because an instantaneous creation is perfectly supported. Evolution cannot be proven.
FLAG my comments again and I'll be sure to flag all of yours.
NOTW,
“Do you have a life? A wife? Significant other? Children?”
What’s it to you? I happen to like to talk about science and would rather talk to those that don’t know and are interested than those that already know.
“This crusade to convert people of faith has become an arrogant waste of time.”
Crusade? No, I am trying to educate people on basic biology that is required to even understand the basics of evolution, which star2 was enquiring about. I could care less if they’re still Christian or not, I am attempting to stem the tide of ignorance that permeates from such places as this site.
“You are spiritually dead and do not understand our faith in God’
Well thanks, you’re intellectually dead and don’t understand our knowledge in Science. I can say this b/c you haven’t even bothered to answer the questions I posed on the evidence I gave. Cat got your tongue?
agent,
care to discuss your ignorance of Biblical prophecy? Your arrogance and blindness prohibits such, doesn't it?
Oops! Biology Scientists Just Changed the "Scientific Facts" Again.
Science books have been telling us for years that all human are 99.9 percent genetically identical, and it is commonly said that humans “share” 98-99 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees. Now we find the claims were all fabricated lies. Instead of having only 0.1 percent difference between human individuals, we now find that people can be genetically different by as much as 10 to 12 percent. This is a 100 to 120 times increase in the degree of difference. This announcement is a another crushing blow to the false theory of evolution, but your university professor will simply ignore it.
Humans can be 10 to 12 percent genetically different, not 99.9 percent identical - November 22, 2006.
Scientists Revise Map of Human Genome
By Jessica Berman, Washington
"Scientists have revised the map of the human genome, saying human beings are genetically more complex than previously thought. The discovery has surprised experts who say it is likely to transform medical research. VOA's Jessica Berman reports."
"In 2000, the Human Genome Project unveiled a road map of the six billion chemical bases, or alphabet molecules, that make up the body's genetic structure called DNA."
"The DNA encodes for 30,000 genes or proteins which are responsible for every physical characteristic in the body, including eye and hair color. At the time, scientists said all humans could be 99.9 percent genetically identical."
"But as they peered more deeply into the DNA of unrelated individuals, researchers made a startling discovery - large segments of their DNA, from thousands to millions of units, varied greatly, a phenomenon called copy number variations, or CNVs."
"The discovery means that the genes of any given individual are at least 10 to 12 percent different from those of another human."
Some people fail to see the connection between the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but the connection is very real. Evolution was conceived in order to ignore creation by an infinitely powerful God. The evolutionists soon realized that creation of the Earth and all the cosmos had to be ignored also. The Big Bang myth quickly gained the support of atheistic scientists. The two theories are intertwined to oppose creation as taught in the Bible. If one theory falters, both fail.
"We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn't resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from."
Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
Mutations, DNA replication errors, are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage that passes on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation (error). The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.
Gen
”I would love to go on and answer more of your questions- but as it is, you have not answered my questions except this one...’
I replied to your ‘uniformity of nature and sense of morality’ questions earlier, go back a page or so, you’ll see. You didn’t even answer the question on ERV’s, next time please do.
“By that standard, it is society that makes morality. By that standard, ANYthing society decides is "moral" is right.”
Gen, consider all the nonsense in the OT about stoning people to death for such trivial things as being a witch, wizard, gay, or working on the Sabbath, etc. and consider that today no one, not even Jews follow these rules. This alone shows morality isn’t something that is set in stone forever but is instead to a degree controlled by society and what we deem ethical based on our reasoning.
Is lying always 100% wrong in all cases Gen? I would say no, as it depends on the circumstances. For instance, if you were a german and you were helping to hide your jewish friends from the Nazi’s in WW2, lying to the Nazis to prevent the jews unjust death is no doubt more moral than to capitulate and hand them over simply b/c of some dumb commandment. Agree?
“I want to point out that societies change and so do opinions.”
Yes, they sure do Gen. Societies progress and become more civil, take a look at how barbaric the Muslim world is, and that place is literally run BY religion, and that’s why they are the way they are.
“Because you believe society makes morality you have agreed with Hitler and his killing of the Jews.”
No I haven’t, stop putting words in my mouth you daft silly man. Gen, what you failed to mention is that Hitler wasn’t the one going around killing the jews, those Christian Germans were! You also didn’t mention how the Clergy handed over religious records on all citizens in their capitulation with the Nazi’s to exterminate the Jews.
Hitler’s Final solution was at least the by product of anti-Semitism that has always existed since Jews were known as ‘Christ killers’, why don’t you read Mein Kamp like I have and find all those times he resorts to religion to explain his disgust with the Jews. If you'd like i cite some parts from it.
agent,
Do you have a life? A wife? Significant other? Children? Move on. This crusade to convert people of faith has become an arrogant waste of time. You are spiritually dead and do not understand our faith in God. You would no more do research on fulfilled and historically proven Biblical prophecy than I would research your God-hating sites. Agree to disagree, and move on.
Gen,
“Chomosome fusion happens in something like 1 out of every 1000 people.”
Oh really? Please cite this one, I’d love to see where you got this. Oh and by the way, it’s not a ‘typical fusion event’ but a head to head telomere fusion, which is incredibly rare and leaves evdience that it occured by how the genes line up and how one of the centromeres is inactive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
“It isn’t the number of chromosomses that we have which matter- it’s what’s inside of them that count.”
Ok, then perhaps you should also know our DNA and Chimps are 96.5% similar, if you exclude insertions and deletions it’s even higher.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
This site below is the one I posted to star2 earlier showing that 3D dimensional models have been used to show evidence at the abstract level.
www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/
You should also know that the particular gene sequences referred to in the Chimps Chromosomes that suggest a fusion for Human Chromosome 2, also match identically with the other great apes, namely Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangutans.
“ And the VAST difference between humans, our ability to communicate, our superior use of tools and our exceptionally higher mental aptitude are all due to what makes up our chromeosomes.”
I will agree with that, however we have evidence of earlier Hominids that used fire, built tools from mineral/stone, some show signs of even culture with primitive art and burial.
"It’s totally possible for a chimp to have 46 chromoseome"
Fine, show me a chimp that has even had 46 chromosomes Gen.
”You will notice that Dr. Miller ASSUMES common ancestry. “
It’s not just an assumption Gen; this type of evidence and ERV’s can’t be explained in any other way then by using the notion of common descent and evolution, that is why they are accepted. No designer would purposely go to such lengths to make it appear a natural process resulted in what we see unless it was actually the case.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080130/31024_Christianity_and_Islam%3A_Two_Worldviews_and_Why_They_Matter.htm
Man this has got to stop. Why now did my most recent work to star2 and seedplanters get flagged?
It's ok, I will repost it toniight and will continue to do so until ftard's cut it out.
My questtion to Seedplanter was:
What is your take on all the evidence I gave for evolution. Particularly dealing with Human Chromosome 2 Fusion and 7 Identical ERV's? You can find the details a few pages back and also much further back.
Agent-
A Creationist answer to:
Human Chromosome 2 Fusion.
Chomosome fusion. Big deal. So, we humans have 46 chomosomes. Chimps have 48. Chomosome fusion happens in something like 1 out of every 1000 people. It isn’t the number of chromosomses that we have which matter- it’s what’s inside of them that count. And the VAST difference between humans, our ability to communicate, our superior use of tools and our exceptionally higher mental aptitude are all due to what makes up our chromeosomes. It’s totally possible for a chimp to have 46 chromoseomes… but like I said- it’s whats inside (the coded information) those chromosomes that count- not the number of them.
You will notice that Dr. Miller ASSUMES common ancestry.
Simple tool making is something MANY animals do. Many animals have some sort of intelligence. Only Humans are set apart. Only Humans have such vast control of language. As Jean Lightner (D.V.M.) said “While animal intelligence is quite fascinating, it is still significantly different from that of humans and give no hint of common ancestry.”
I would love to go on and answer more of your questions- but as it is, you have not answered my questions except this one...
You said that society in general makes up whatever morality they deem fit. By that standard, it is society that makes morality. By that standard, ANYthing society decides is "moral" is right. I want to point out that societies change and so do opinions. Because you believe society makes morality you have agreed with Hitler and his killing of the Jews. You have therein agreed with Nero and his setting Christians on fire to light the streets. You have therein agreed with the bloody French revolution which killed countless thousands of innocents. Need I go on? THAT is EXACTLY what your standard of morality gets you. Those socieities thought those were the right things to do, so according to your answer- in your mind, they were RIGHT.
You didn’t even answer my other questions. You just ignored them After this last answer of yours- why would I want to listen to anything more from you?
agentorange
I might come back but not tonight. I love you in the Lord.
thanks seedplanter
Star, what Agent needs to do is find someone who is qualified enough on the subject of his expertise. You took a great shot at it!
agentorange
Part 1
Re:Ok, let me simpify it here. ERV insertion into an animal’s genome is ENTIRELY RANDOM. For 2 animals (which already share 98.5% similar nuclear DNA, that would be us and Chimps) to have the EXACT same 7 viral fragments (1 ERV per unique type of virus) and that all 7 be all in same genetic locations of their respected genomes is outside the odds and probability and virtually impossible for both them and us to share the same ones and in the exact same genetic locations. The only way this evidence can be explained is by common ancestry and evolution.
By all means try to explain this evidence without evolution and common descent.
I disagree with your conclusion. There is another explanation for it. When I get it I'll let you know.
Ebc: "Nobody should have to provide evidence to disprove your childish delusions. If you think there's really an invisible magic man living in the clouds, then you prove it. Until you prove it don't be surprised if everyone laughs at you."
If you are honest and have been around as much as you seem to boast of, you would know good and well that there is plenty of evidence for God. If you choose to interpret the data differently and presume that it is not enough, do not pretend to assume that there is none. There are many who have grown out of their childish Tooth Fairy fantasies, I have not seen any of them turn back in that direction. We do however see men and women who have espoused your beloved atheism hook line and sinker, who after the better of their life spent in defending such absurdities did grow up indeed, putting aside their whimsical immorality, siding with the evidence, became believers after careful deliberation.
No, I don’t think anybody has to prove anything to you. You have made your mind up, so be it, just don’t you forget what post you’re on. When you decide to fling your mud pies and immaturely call Christians names, remember you are a guest here on ChristianPost.com. When Christians dialogue with you and testify to the truth of the Gospel, it is only out of respect and courtesy toward you, deserving or not.
“No, it can not. All it does is say that the chimps and humans share 7 identical ERV's locations. It is as stupid as saying a yellow squash came from a yellow banana because they are simialr in shape and they are both yellow.”
Well Star DNA shows heredity, remember the whole Aarons Y Chromosome?
All organisms either have DNA or RNA, only microorganisms use RNA (like Viruses). Now, your 2 vegetables you picked have and use DNA which they pass onto their offspring and their genes can be examined to also show how relatively close or similar they are based on their DNA. In fact we’ve done this with our domesticated agricultural and the wild variety to cross verify when humans began to use agricultural.
Just b/c they’re both yellow is moot, we are after the DNA here and the DNA shows both of their heredity, just like us and Chimps. Ravens and chimps are both black, but basing that as they relating factor is false and illogical as colors are moot, DNA is what matters.
The DNA reveals how closely related one organism is to another, think of paternity testing and the example I gave with Aaron. So now that we know this we can analyze a banana’s DNA and a squash’s DNA and know how relatively close they are and approximately when they last shared a last common ancestor. This is done using genetic molecular clocks which tracks the per generational mutation rates to achieve a date.
Same principle as paternity testing, but extrapolated out further.
Ok, let me simpify it here. ERV insertion into an animal’s genome is ENTIRELY RANDOM. For 2 animals (which already share 98.5% similar nuclear DNA, that would be us and Chimps) to have the EXACT same 7 viral fragments (1 ERV per unique type of virus) and that all 7 be all in same genetic locations of their respected genomes is outside the odds and probability and virtually impossible for both them and us to share the same ones and in the exact same genetic locations. The only way this evidence can be explained is by common ancestry and evolution.
By all means try to explain this evidence without evolution and common descent.
We haven’t even touched Human Chromosome 2 Fusion.
I haven’t even talked about how humans and chimps have 99% same nucleotide base sequences or any other genetic evidence.
You should research all the fossils too, then start to draw conclussions and voice your arguement.
Star2,
“First of all you did not give 30 example.”
Now I am certain you didn’t read it or any of them, there is 29 examples on the first link below!
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex5
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
www.becominghuman.org
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ (Smithsonian institute)
www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
www.natcenscied.org
www.archaeologyinfo.com/evolution.htm
www.nhm.ac.uk/index.html
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php
www.pandasthumb.org/
www.dnaancestryproject.com/
www.actionbioscience.org/
www.glendale.edu/skull/
www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html
www.nationalacademies.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution (refer to articles and other links from bottom of page)
Google ‘observed speciation’ and other variants. Do some research already lady, I am not a floatation device, time to swim on your own.
“The examples only showed variations within a species, never showed that one species transforms into an entirely different species that can no longer mate with the original species. “
The examples I gave with the mosquitoes, butterflies and bacteria ALL crossed the species barrier and none of them could mate with their original ancestral species group.
That IS SPECATION, look up the biological definition of ‘speciation’ already.
Speciation doesn’t require a butterfly turning into a ‘bird’ as you so eloquently put it, that is entirely different ORDER of animal taxonomy and not what evolution suggests happens in single generation.
“You conclude the variations within a species proves the evolution hypothesis because you have faith that evoultion is true. “
Evolution doesn’t have to EVEN involve breaking the species barrier. Evolution is defined as the change in allelic frequencies over cumulative generations (micro evolution), while evolution AT OR ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL BARRIER (maco-evolution) is simple many, many cumulative micro-evolutionary generations over time.
“Until you, meaning scientists, can show in the laboratory that variations within a species results in a species that can no longer be classifed as the mother species, you will have no scientific proof. “
I already have, those 3 instances and all those links are examples of speciation where the new species can’t breed with the old one it came from. Research it already.
.
agentorange
“Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share does not prove natural selection. These are merely codes that describe certain behavior. “
Re: ERV’s are located in the non-coding (junk DNA) section of an animals genome.
THEY DON’T HAVE ANY FUNCTION CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. They are retroviral fragments that show what viruses a species had and nothing more. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with defining if an animal is hairy, tall, short, dark haired, light haired, etc.
This is non-coding DNA, it has NO defining function on the organism at all. All ERV’s are, are a genetic marker showing that this type of animal had ‘X-type’ of viruses in the past. Period. And it just so happens we and Chimps share the exact same 7 and they are in the exact same identical genetic locations. Most importantly, is that ERV’s are reverse transcribed into the hosts genome entirely at RANDOM.
I will accept this. I'll respond later on it.
Re: So, for us and chimps to share 7 Identical ERV’s in identical locations can only be explained by evolution and common ancestry.
No, it can not. All it does is say that the chimps and humans share 7 identical ERV's locations. It is as stupid as saying a yellow squash came from a yellow banana because they are simialr in shape and they are both yellow.
Star,2
“You interpret it as such because you have already accepted by faith that the evolutionary theory is correct.”
It’s not a faith issue star2, read up on biology and genetics, don’t be lazy you’ll see. I accept evolution b/c the evidence for it is strong, quite strong in fact. About 150 year’s worth of critique strong. I also accept all the other scientific theories b/c the evidence for them is credible, it’s not a ‘faith’ thing, it’s a knowledge thing and either a person understands the evidence for a theory and can accept it or they can’t. You haven't even gone onto understanding it, so of course you can't accept it. Science isn’t dumbed down, it requires research, go do research.
“Any evidence you have you will also say that it supports natural selction because you believe evolution is correct. “
I can’t find any other evidence that is contrary to natural selection for evolution. If you can come up with something better that is falsifiable go for it. EVEN creationist sites like AIG, ICR acknowledge and accept natural selection, what does that tell you?
“You kept calling me stupid all the time because I disagreed with your interpretation of the facts. I gave you my credentials to prove to you that I am not stupid.”
I never called you stupid, I said your knee jerk decision making processes is illogical as you have no understanding in even the basics of biology, so naturally you’ll find concepts like ‘genetic drifting’, 'speciation' hard to understand. Ya, you did give me your credentials, all of which had NOTHING to do with biology and so as it relates to this discussion it’s moot.
“Not so. The information you gave in no way supports evolution.”
You don’t understand biology that’s the problem. Go read on the basics of biology, mendelian genetics and heredity, all the fossils regarding evolution, observered speciation, paleontology, and DNA testing done on them and THEN come back to discuss what doesn’t make sense. You have the Internet you have no excuse.
here I'll get you started - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
“I am able to look at the data objectively to see if in any way supports the theory of evolution because I don't start out with the assumption that it is correct to begin with.”
No offense again, but you never even bothered to read a SINGLE book on evolution or biology. You’ve not even started to research ANYTHING. Go do some research already and then come back with ‘what doesn’t make sense or why evolution can’t work.’. You're drawing your conclussions before you even have an idea of how the basics work.
agentorange
Re:I gave you my opinion about why I believe that speciation and the other evidence you gave in no way proves evolutionary theory. “
Yes, star like I showed you misunderstood what ‘speciation’ implied. I gave a couple examples of it, a link with like 30 other examples, the definition of ‘speciation’ to show that I am right and being honest.
First of all you did not give 30 example. There were a fews. The examples only showed variations within a species, never showed that one species transforms into an entirely different species that can no longer mate with the original species. There is no laboratory proof that it does. You conclude the variations within a species proves the evolution hypothesis because you have faith that evoultion is true. Until you, meaning scientists, can show in the laboratory that variations within a species results in a species that can no longer be classifed as the mother species, you will have no scientific proof.
Re:“I told you that you interpreted the facts of speciation based on your faith in evolutionary theory and not on any labatory proof that speciation takes ones species into an entirely different species. “I am thinking I should just repost the whole thing b/c you obviously didn’t read the definition of ‘speciation’ that I gave to you.
There is no need for that.
Star2,
“I gave you my opinion about why I believe that speciation and the other evidence you gave in no way proves evolutionary theory. “
Yes, star like I showed you misunderstood what ‘speciation’ implied. I gave a couple examples of it, a link with like 30 other examples, the definition of ‘speciation’ to show that I am right and being honest.
“I told you that you interpreted the facts of speciation based on your faith in evolutionary theory and not on any labatory proof that speciation takes ones species into an entirely different species. “
I am thinking I should just repost the whole thing b/c you obviously didn’t read the definition of ‘speciation’ that I gave to you.
“Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share does not prove natural selection. These are merely codes that describe certain behavior. “
Watch the vids I put up earlier. You, with no understanding in biology or genetics think this isn’t evidence, hilarious. Why don’t you do actual research into what ERV’s actually are star. ERV’s are located in the non-coding (junk DNA) section of an animals genome.
THEY DON’T HAVE ANY FUNCTION CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR. They are retroviral fragments that show what viruses a species had and nothing more. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with defining if an animal is hairy, tall, short, dark haired, light haired, etc.
This is non-coding DNA, it has NO defining function on the organism at all. All ERV’s are, are a genetic marker showing that this type of animal had ‘X-type’ of viruses in the past. Period. And it just so happens we and Chimps share the exact same 7 and they are in the exact same identical genetic locations. Most importantly, is that ERV’s are reverse transcribed into the hosts genome entirely at RANDOM. So, for us and chimps to share 7 Identical ERV’s in identical locations can only be explained by evolution and common ancestry. Refer to all the works cited from the vid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Star2,
“ It is you who couldn't handle the truth. You were starting to see that speciation doesn't prove anything about one species transforming into an entirely different species that can no longer mate with the mother species. “
Do I need to repost all the work again star2, would that help?
I am sorry, but this is like talking to a wall. I already said evolution requires a basic understanding in biology (which you admitted to not having). After going over countless example, providing links, books to read (none of which you bothered to read up on) and you came to the conclusion that speciations can’t occur.
You can't learn in in a cram session over a weekend, get real.
I showed you that it was YOU that was misunderstand what ‘speciation’ refers to and this is why you were confused to begin with in assuming an insect would transition into a bird. I am sorry, but you have to do your own homework, research and reading I can’t spoon feed biology, genetics, fossils, and everything else to you for evolution.
You’re a math whiz right? A person trying to understand the complicated math you use can’t assert that a certain type of math doesn’t or can’t work simply b/c they haven’t researched the processes involved, and that’s what you’re doing.
No offense, but you need to read up on biology and get the basics before you’ll even understand evolution. It’s like trying to understand quantum mechanics without a foundation is mathematical physics.
Gen,
“You say we get our sense of morality naturally- So you have no problem with the idividual who natuarlly wants to have sex with children?”
NO, of course I have a problem with that. We as a society will decide via a democratic consensus what laws we will setup for ourselves, how to adjudicate them and their punishments accordingly. No secular democratic country would ever vote for such laws.
“You claim in evolution. There is no evidence for it. I hear your arguments and they are easily answerd.”
Refer to the info I just gave you for only 2 pieces of evidence. If you want more, go back a
couple pages to the messages I put on over Monday night. Have fun refuting those too.
I also accept Cosmology, Geology, Physics, Biology, Astronomy, Paleontology, etc. which also debunks your 6000 year old earth/universe and in the literally reading of any holy book. My friend, science is much large than evolution.
“You say 40% of Scientists believe in a God- but do percentages actually make God exist or not? No.”
True, but they are the smartest minds in the world, so clearly they understand something. There is a very close correlation to ones educational level and their religiosity, every study ever shown confirms this and the most recent one I gave you still does.
“ Gravity works today and it will work tomorrow- but can you show any scientific evidence for it working tomorrow?”
Well, show me WHY it WOULD’T work tomorrow and why we should change to assuming gravity will just change on a whim first Gen.
In science we have to assume a certain level of uniformity as to do otherwise kills the scientific process. However, I don’t see you crying over that fact now that you’re using the Internet and a computer that were built off such scientific uniformity, so what’s the problem?
Empirical observations, testing and predictions conclude that gravity will behave in a certain manner. The theory might get revised like when Newtonian gravity was corrected by Einstein’s relativity, but the theory was still correct Einstein just better defined the details.
We have no reasons, or evidence to suggest that tomorrow gravity won’t work, that’s why it’s part of the uniformity.
agentorange
Part 1
Re:”You censored mine the night you and ebcdic went crazy after I gave you the gospel of Jesus Christ.”I never censored you at all and you know it.
It had to be either you or ebcdic because of how distasteful it was.
Re:It was YOUR opinion I was interested in for 2 ½ days. I would have no benefit in censoring you as it would mean I couldn’t further explain evolution to you.
I gave you my opinion about why I believe that speciation and the other evidence you gave in no way proves evolutionary theory. I told you that you interpreted the facts of speciation based on your faith in evolutionary theory and not on any labatory proof that speciation takes ones species into an entirely different species. Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share does not prove natural selection. These are merely codes that describe certain behavior. You interpret it as such because you have already accepted by faith that the evolutionary theory is correct. Any evidence you have you will also say that it supports natural selction because you believe evolution is correct. It doesn't matter if the data proves it or not.
Re:Actually as I recall you gave me all your educational credentials (non of which dealt with biology at all)
You kept calling me stupid all the time because I disagreed with your interpretation of the facts. I gave you my credentials to prove to you that I am not stupid.
Re: and this weird excuse that b/c you couldn’t understand biology and evolution that you rejected them.
Not so. The information you gave in no way supports evolution.
Re:I then compared this to explaining that the earth really revolves around sun to a 5 year old as for them they naturally are ignorant of such things and make knee jerk assumptions. Just like you did with biology and evolution.
This my dear friend is what you are doing. Darwin's explanation of how the different species came into being came after he rejected God. He had no basis for anything he said. A 5 yr old could have done just as good as he did in explaining why there are different kind of animal life. There is no scientific evidence to support evolution.
Re:This is where you also asserted you weren’t (somehow) bias in making that assumption.
I am able to look at the data objectively to see if in any way supports the theory of evolution because I don't start out with the assumption that it is correct to begin with.
Agentorange
Part 2
Re:“You went on and on for 1 hr 15min saying ugly things about me, my God and the gospel of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. “More nonsense. I reposted all my comments from over the weekend (refer to Monday PM posts) and everyone can see I said NO SUCH THING.
Those posting came before my last posting of which either you or ebcdic flagged. I am talking about the posting that you two made from about midnight until approximately 1:15 AM. You know that that is what I am referring to.
Re:As far as I went was saying your decision making was illogical as you made a knee jerk decision without understanding biology and also claimed to not be bias, inferring I was.
“Why do you keeping lying saying you were not rude to me and acting like you never knew what happened that night?””Think about it buddy; once you get flagged no one can retrieve what was written.’You need to scan back a couple pages, I reposted all of my messages back ( I had this weird hunch that I’d be censored).“You knew you were going to flag everything so that is why you made a copy of it.”
I went back and checked the previous postings and I concede that you are right here.
Re:I knew I was likely to get flagged as my discussion showed A LOT of evidence for evolution and on this forum so just can’t handle that.
It showed none. It is you who couldn't handle the truth. You were starting to see that speciation doesn't prove anything about one species transforming into an entirely different species that can no longer mate with the mother species.
Re:“Weren't you embrassed by all the ugly things you two were saying after my last post?”
Maybe it wasn't you who flagged my entries that showed you that there is no proof of natural selection based on the information you provided. But the ugly things you said were about me, my God, and the gospel.
Re:I wasn’t rude, ebcdic was, get real.
You are lying. I read those postings you two made as you were making them. You all were delirious.
I wonder if someone is ashamed of censoring all my educational work that took 2 days. They should be.
I appreciate the fact that you spent the time you did explaining the basics of evolutionarty theory. It gave me a better understanding on how evolutionists think.
Re: If I did upset you, I am sorry.
I'll take you at your word and I'll accept your 'apology'.
Gen,
You didn’t answer anything. You said ‘got made it that way’, that’s not an answer. WHY would he make it appear as if evolution occurred unless it really did Gen?
You didn’t even watch the videos and you jumped to a conclusion without even bothering to look at what the evidence really suggests.
If you knew anything about genetics and ERV’s, there is no logical reason why ‘god would make em that way’ as you so put it b/c ERV’s are stored in the non-coding (junk DNA) section of the genome and have no active fuction for determining if a person is tall, short, blond hair, brown hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, etc.
ERV’s are Endogenous retro viruses, so they operate just like HIV as they (the virus) reverse transcribes itself (as RNA) into the hosts DNA genome. Most importantly it does so AT RANDOM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Then there is the Fusion of Human Chromosome 2, which evolution predicted before we even knew of DNA or even mapped our genome. And the prediction by evolution was b/c we have 1 less chromosomes than today’s apes that if evolution is true we should be able to find some evidence for it, and we do we find it in the 2nd chromosome.
Watch Ken Miller (Catholic) discuss it here in lecture that was a follow up to ID getting rejected.
Genome sequencing leaves Creationists unable to respond
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs
Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2 Fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Now watch them, research about them and read and THEN get back to me.
Agent-
You say we get our sense of morality naturally- So you have no problem with the idividual who natuarlly wants to have sex with children?
The Buden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You claim in evolution. There is no evidence for it. I hear your arguments and they are easily answerd.
You say 40% of Scientists believe in a God- but do percentages actually make God exist or not? No.
Uniformity of nature-
The uniformity of nature is a presupposition that if something happend yesterday it will happen tomorrow. This is a requirement for science to workl. Gravity works today and it will work tomorrow- but can you show any scientific evidence for it working tomorrow? Or can you only show scientific evidence that it worked yesterday? This same principoles holds true as you cover all aspects of science. We can prove that certain things have happened in the past- but just because something worked in the past doesn't mean it will work in the future. Can you give any reason or scientific evidence for the uniformity of nature?
Gen -
“Its funny how I understand it would be impossible for the world to exist without God- so in my books- the burden of proof is on you... yet you see it the exact same way.”
What ‘books’ you only refer to the bible, which is a book.
The ‘Burden of Proof’ lies with WHO EVER IS MAKING THE CLAIM (that would be YOU since it’s YOUR god). If people swear they saw UFO’s, THEY are the ones who must provide evidence FOR IT, and it’s not the skeptic’s job to disprove it. If people swear they saw Bigfoot’s roaming around, it’s THEIR JOB to provide EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If people SWEAR they talk to god and know he/it exists, THEY are the ones that must provide evidence for this claim. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence of said proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VAefYeGouI
For any proposition to even be taken seriously it requires EVIDENCE.
“It's also funny how there are Christians who are scientists who believe in Creation, who have peer reviewed articles.... but you just seem to NEVER consider their evidence... almost like you are intentionally disregarding evidence.”
I will admit there are Christians that work in science. Ken Miller is a Catholic and he accepts evolution as do the majority of Christians that work in science. Of those in science, across the board in all realms of science, just under 40% believe in a personal creator god. Among the most elite and those with PhD’s and the leaders in their respected science the figure drops to 7% that believe in god.
No scientists who are Christian that publish work based on YEC concepts like a 6000 year old earth/universe ever get published under scientific peer review. AIG, ICR< and kent Hovind are Christian, but their work never passes scientific peer review.
Well I said we get our sense of morality naturally. There is evidence that morality is based off of evolutionary altruism and symbiotic tendencies we see in virtually all other organisms. Re-read the bottom of my post earlier.
What uniformity of nature? Explain please.
And Agent-
I did answer your questions regarding Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share.
You just don't seem to understand that similarities don't necessitate a common ancestry.
Eb-
If you think there really is some mystical force called evolution- prove it by answering the reason for the laws of logic, the reason for the unifomrity of nature, the reason and source for morality.
I have shown how life is meaningless without these things being answered and how only God is the precondition for these these things.
Or are you going to blow me off again and say "gow up". I have grown up and answered your questions- everly last one of them. Why are you afraid to answer my mine?
You are afraid because then you would be in clear violation of God and subject to His divine judgement an wrath. You already are a sinner. stop lying to yourself and repent.
Agent-
Its funny how I understand it would be impossible for the world to exist without God- so in my books- the burden of proof is on you... yet you see it the exact same way.
It's also funny how there are Christians who are scientists who believe in Creation, who have peer reviewed articles.... but you just seem to NEVER consider their evidence... almost like you are intentionally disregarding evidence.
You haven't answered my questions yet about the uniformity of nature or the source of morality, etc... So I won't bother you with anything more till you answer those questions. Ebdic tried and we found out he thinks homocidal maniacs and perverts are "moral" if those individuals think they are moral themselves. His answer boiled down to "If you think you're right... you are".
Genius.
Eb-
To say you get your morals from yourself... and that makes everything okay- I can't believe you said that! The pedophile uses the same excuse. So did killers. So do rapists., etc.
People can take the Bible out of context and justify many things, including chattel slavery. You take the Bible out of context all the time, so why be angry at others for doing the same?
And I know that people will continue to flag you if you continue to be so rude. Please, try some common respect. You and I might not see eye to eye on a topic- but that doesn't mean it gives you the right to call others names.
ebcdic,
you ever read the koran?
the horrors in the book of Joshua and throughout the bible are pretty bad, but the koran's worse. I made some youtube vid's on them.
I made a 2pt series, but with the horror in teh koran and hadith I have plenty of other verses to add. (might have to take off the 'watch_response off the 1st one)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dt17ApjtSM&watch_response
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMIULOa2Zk
Gen1_28: "You are the one who is arguing against something you don't believe exists and have no evidence to support your belief."
Grow up Gen1_28. Nobody should have to provide evidence to disprove your childish delusions. If you think there's really an invisible magic man living in the clouds, then you prove it. Until you prove it don't be surprised if everyone laughs at you.
Gen,
‘Evolutionists’ isn’t a scientific background. Try cosmologist, or geologist or some real branch of science. Evolutionary theory can’t directly comment on god, but in itself debunk the religious depictions of god (as in the Abrahamic ones, among others) The deistic and pantheistic gods evolution can’t touch, but other realms of science do.
You’re the Theist, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the religious depiction DOES exist. Whom ever makes extraordinary claims is responsible to backing up their claim with evidence, not the other way around. It’s not my job to prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist, it’s the Bigfoot believers job to prove they do.
Well, there you go. You think we hate gods b/c you do, but atheists don’t hate or like any of them b/c we reject their existence all together. It’s like a European adult asserting that Muslims or Asians hate Santa simply b/c they don’t believe in the proposition. It’s entirely illogical.
”You challenged me to find a religion that comforms with what science tells us- Christianity does. And there are many Christian scientists who can explain it far better than I can. “
Talk is cheap, back up your claims how Christianity perfectly conforms to what science says. Let me guess, you’ll refer me to ICR, Kent Hovind, or AIG? They are all a joke; they don’t have a single scientifically peer reviewed article!
Many, if not most Christians that understand and accept evolution are apologetics, or they opt for neocreationistm (ID) so as to make it seem to work as even they can't deny all the science that conflicts with literal interpetations of the bible. They are apoplectic as even they realize the bible doesn’t conform perfectly.
“I haven't heard one iota of evidence for your mystical theory of evolution. Perhaps your invisible theory of evolution will one day have evidence- but not in this reality.”
Go back a couple pages and I listed plenty of links, books, articles and examples of evidence for evolution. Or, try to answer my earlier posts regarding Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share.
”Is it fear mongering to say "Get out of the road before you get hit by the bus that's coming for you!"
No, I could likely see the evidence for the bus myself and know certainly that it exists and the repercussions of standing around. Your heaven and hell have no evidence to speak of, they are man made manifestations to extend morally justice and with such unproven, non credible evidence based propositions like heaven and hell to actually believe in them is delusional.
Well we do get our sense of morality from out society and kin, look at all the nonsense in the OT no one longer upholds. We done stone people to death for such trivial things b/c we’re a more civilized society
Gen1_28, thousands of christians used the bible to justify slavery. Your moral values are fake. Christians have no moral values. They are constantly lying to their children about science. Our prisons are full of Christians and our prisons have almost zero atheists. Christianity makes people immoral. Atheists don't lie to their children and atheists are not cowards who would rather believe in heaven than modern scientific facts.
Of course it's no surprise that the same people who believe in insane ideas like the Resurrection can't figure out what's right or wrong on their own. Christianity has no value. It's a death cult for cowards who are terrified of reality.
Agent-
Do you know how dumb it makes you look when you say you don't hate God? Evolutionists clearly state that they cannot prove that God does not exist. You have said clearly stated that you do not believe he exists- even though you have no evidence for his nonexistence. You are the one who is arguing against something you don't believe exists and have no evidence to support your belief.
You are also a little mislead. I actually DO hate every god who tries to usurp God's place of authority- and it is my duty to demolish every thought which is brought against Him.
You challenged me to find a religion that comforms with what science tells us- Christianity does. And there are many Christian scientists who can explain it far better than I can. I haven't heard one iota of evidence for your mystical theory of evolution. Perhaps your invisible theory of evolution will one day have evidence- but not in this reality.
As for the doctrine of Hell- neither you or any other evolutionists has answered where you derrive your standard of Justice, the uniformity of nature, or morality from.
How can it be "unfair" to be tortured for all eternity when you don't have a fixed standard of morality? You might not like it- but that doesn't make it unfair.
Finally , fear mongering. Is it fear mongering to say "Get out of the road before you get hit by the bus that's coming for you!" Sure, I try to warn you of a certain impending doom- and like most evolutionists, you call it fear mongering. Well, you can't say I didn't warn you.
If you really want to win this argument- then answer where you get the idea of the uniformity of nature, laws of logic, standard for Justice, and standard of morality from. That is the ONLY way you can actually win this conversation. Oh, if you say anything like "everyone knows..." or "It's whatever society decides..." I warn you now that the French inquisition which killed counless innocents, and Hitler used those same excuses... and useing those same excusses they would be justified.
Untill I see those things answered I won't give you any more of my time.
heres the other reply to star2, that continually gets censored.
“ I am better able to see the forest through the trees than you are because I am not biased. “
Ya, says the lady that a page ago admitted she knows NOTHING of biology. Horrid logic right there. So you’re not bias, but you also know nothing of biology and so….how aren’t you bias again towards evolution?
“I don't accept by faith that evolution is true like you two do.”
Sorry, it’s not a ‘faith’ issue. Science deals with verifiable, predictable and testable evidence. Evidence I gave you countless times and still you wouldn’t even bother to read up on your own on evolution or biology. So go figure you find it hard to believe! It’s like trying to explain that the earth REALLY DOES revolve around the sun to a 5 year old. And you’re not bias how again?
“Any present day evidence you have does not directly prove speciation.”
Wow, 1st you assert you can’t see how it happens, so I describe the processes involved (natural selection). Then you say you still can’t see any evidence for it, to which I give you all those nice links on the evidence. And now, in face of all that you up and deny it simply b/c for you and CURRENT evidence isn’t worthy for you. You’re hilarious star!
“ You accept that it does by faith because you believe in the theory of evolution.”
I accept what the evidence shows and suggests, just like any other theory. You don’t even understand the evidence let alone the processes involved and make a knee jerk decision that b/c it conflicts with your religion it can’t work. Well I got news for you star, plenty of Christians believe in evolution and it’s not b/c ‘god revealed it to them’, it’s b/c they spent the time and effort in researching for themselves.
“If you want to believe in evolution that is your right. You have the right to believe that you are nothing more than an "intelligent beast".
Well, if you want to believe in some god that created everything with you in mind just so you can have a higher level of self esteem be my guest, I don’t need to delude myself ‘that it’s all about me’.
“You cannot have one because you are separated from Him in your sins”
What sins, oh grow up lady. Being educated in biology isn’t a sin. Is evolution ‘the devil’ now?
“Reject Jesus and you will be judged for your sins and you will be cast into hell for all eternity as punishment for having sinned against God”
See this is what I don’t get about theists and it relates to hell and heaven. For you guys you are crippled by fear of some imagined damnation or glory in heaven, neither of which you can’t even prove at all. That is horrid logic. And then you try this fear mongering on me as if I would believe in either proposition with such lacking evidence? Hilarious.
Fine, you pray for me.
Strangely, SOMEONE keeps censoring this post and the next one star2,
Tell me about it. Not only would any speciation take FOREVER with only 1 male and 1 female of each species as each species would lack any genetic diversity at all, and this would most certainly result in chromosomal damages killing or transfiguring the offspring. The old royal blood of Europe can attest to this and they weren’t even nearly as lacking in genetic diversity!
According to AIG, speciation’s can’t occur over 3.85 billion years, but when it’s shrunk down to only 4000 years then it somehow works out? This poses a problem as they have to explain why this super speed rate of speciation has all of sudden slowed among other stemming issues.
CDK even made a mock vid on this AIG nonsense of ‘superevolution’.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5mPPnN1c0jk
SHOW me the HATE speech in this!
To Gen,
"God loves you, even if you hate him." makes you look very dumb. Probably you don't believe in the tooth fairy. Does that mean you hate the tooth fairy? That's how dumb you sound when you tell an atheist he hates god.”
Exactly, I never understood why theists make that assumption. Besides, how can we hate something that we deny the existence of in the 1st place? It’s entirely illogical. As atheists, we don’t’ go around hating your god and the other 3000 gods, we just don’t see the evidence to give credence to believing in them to begin with. We don’t give credit or blame anything on gods as to do so is illogical from our views.
Let me ask you Gen, do you hate Allah b/c you don’t believe in him? Obviously no, and this is the same reflective point we view your god and all others with and you’d find it absurd for a Muslim to claim such a thing, so now you can see where we are coming from with respect to your god.
Gen, with regards to science. ANY dogmatic religious belief (not just Christianity) will automatically conflict with virtually every branch of science (not just evolution), if you don’t believe me try to find a single religion (dead or alive) that conforms exactly with what Science shows for our Universe.
As far as the ‘torturing in hell’ bit, I can’t believe ANYONE is swayed by fear mongering. To succumb to ones emotions of fear, love, hate, is to abandon ones rationale, logical decision-making process and resort to our more primal baser instinct of self-preservation. It’s to return to a more primal response and it’s not intelligent
Gen, you’d likely be very skeptical of any scientist, or anyone that attempted to compel you to believe in their theories based on fear, and you should be. If a scientist attempted to say ‘believe in gravity, or you will burn in hell forever’, it should send up a red flag that the one making the proposition has little to offer in terms of real evidence and is resorting to fear mongering to persuade people. This is most illogical and disingenuous.
"As to torture and hell- the two are not synonymous. Torture connotes an unjust application of pain. Hell is a just application of justice and punishment."
Gen1, as far as gods go, yours isn’t the only one, there are over 3000+ of them and by sheer probability you equally believe in the wrong god and in turn you might be the one to burn in hell for not believing in Baal, Zoroaster, Zeus, Allah, Dionysus, Osiris, Amen Ra, etc.
Don’t try fear mongering, it won’t work on rationale minded people. Quick Gen, you better believe in the ‘Feather of Truth’, or Amen Ra will make you burn in hell forever!! You better believe! saying that we should believe out of fear is like trying to scare a kid with stories of ‘the boogey man’.
See how illogical that sounds? That’s what we think when theists tell use such things, a rationale mind doesn’t bow to fear mongering.
Star2,
”You censored mine the night you and ebcdic went crazy after I gave you the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I never censored you at all and you know it. It was YOUR opinion I was interested in for 2 ½ days. I would have no benefit in censoring you as it would mean I couldn’t further explain evolution to you.
Actually as I recall you gave me all your educational credentials (non of which dealt with biology at all) and this weird excuse that b/c you couldn’t understand biology and evolution that you rejected them. I then compared this to explaining that the earth really revolves around sun to a 5 year old as for them they naturally are ignorant of such things and make knee jerk assumptions. Just like you did with biology and evolution.
This is where you also asserted you weren’t (somehow) bias in making that assumption. If you earlier admit to being ignorant of biology and evolution and then in turn claim that you’re not bias, that is an illogical conclusion and that is exactly what you did.
“You went on and on for 1 hr 15min saying ugly things about me, my God and the gospel of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. “
More nonsense. I reposted all my comments from over the weekend (refer to Monday PM posts) and everyone can see I said NO SUCH THING. As far as I went was saying your decision making was illogical as you made a knee jerk decision without understanding biology and also claimed to not be bias, inferring I was.
“Why do you keeping lying saying you were not rude to me and acting like you never knew what happened that night?”
”Think about it buddy; once you get flagged no one can retrieve what was written.’
You need to scan back a couple pages, I reposted all of my messages back ( I had this weird hunch that I’d be censored).
“You knew you were going to flag everything so that is why you made a copy of it.”
I knew I was likely to get flagged as my discussion showed A LOT of evidence for evolution and on this forum so just can’t handle that.
“Weren't you embrassed by all the ugly things you two were saying after my last post?”
I wasn’t rude, ebcdic was, get real. I wonder if someone is ashamed of censoring all my educational work that took 2 days. They should be. If I did upset you, I am sorry.
star2, some lunatic is deleting everyone's comments, including yours, including mine, and including orange. I will keep posting until the lunatic drops dead.
Gen1_28, this is my response to your comments. Maybe you will be able to read them before somebody who gets his moral values from god deletes my comments.
You need to understand how to talk to an atheist without making the atheist think you are nuts.
For example, your "Repent, before it's too late." is a threat. It makes you sound like a thug.
Your "God loves you, even if you hate him." makes you look very dumb. Probably you don't believe in the tooth fairy. Does that mean you hate the tooth fairy? That's how dumb you sound when you tell an atheist he hates god.
Your "Science is impossible without God." is meaningless to an atheist. For an atheist, god is just another word for magic. "Science is impossible without magic" makes no sense.
You said "Your saying that Christianity is 'anti-science' shows your complete lack of the preconditions for science and your complete lack of knowledge of the affirmations from scripture that God created science and upholds it."
You deny the science of evolution, right? You believe the first people were magically created by god, right? You might even think the universe is thousands of years old instead of billions of years old.
Your denial of evolution is extremely anti-science. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. I personally love evolution because it's interesting and because studying how evolution works can take a lifetime. If you tell an atheist you deny evolution, and then say your religion is not anti-science, you sound like a liar.
You said "As to torture and hell- the two are not synonymous. Torture connotes an unjust application of pain. Hell is a just application of justice and punishment."
So when god tortures somebody just because he isn't dumb enough to believe in god, then it's OK. I don't think so. To an atheist you sound like a thug when you say it's OK for your god to torture anyone it wants.
Since some person who gets his moral values from the bible is deleting everyone's comments, I will save these comments and continue posting them until the immoral christian stops deleting them.
"Why do they censor your message there?" Because they get their moral values from god.
love wins, are you a biologist?
agentorange..you should let people voice there opinion even if it differs from yours.. and use an open mind to explore for the truth, don't blindly accept what you've been taught your whole life..ask why and how, what does the evidence support?? Our universe and its natural laws are very orderly, our species ridiculously complex, our simplest cell, isn't simple at all.. Creation theory does require a little faith, but evolution requires massive/blind amounts of faith, because the evidence scientifically speaking DIS-proves evolution.. so you don't have to believe in creation if you don't want, but evolution's theory is impossible scientifically speaking, as it defies both science and what our eyes see.. search for the truth, and with all scientific theories ask how and why.. evolution will leave you with a lot of questions, and no proveable answers..
NOTW,
"
agent--
why are you flagging me "
I didn't. my posts may have overan yours or something? but I have no reason to censor you or anyone else.
The arrogant stance of some (and yes, ebcdic is abusive) is gross. Your "evidence" does nothing to disprove the existence of God to the faithful. You express faith in aliens or comets; we express faith in God. Why are you trying so hard to persuade others to accept your views? Do you fool yourself into believing that you are helping others? Call us what you will. I am not trying to convert you. Live your life. Just move on. You are worse than a pair of Jehovah's witnesses.
last replt to star2, Now show me the hate speech anywhere in those recent posts.
“All biological life can be traced back to a common origin, is that correct?”
Not quite yet. We don’t know the origins exactly, but that doesn’t mean we know nothing of what directly followed. All organic earth life is carbon based and this is one piece of evidence that suggest s a common origin for all life forms. There is other evidence also.
The oldest life so far is known by chemical signatures left by stromatolites that date back to 3.85 billion years ago. Really complex life didn’t occur till some 600 Million years ago and this is directly related to the accumulation of levels of O2 in the atmosphere, O2 is like rocket fuel for multi cellular life.
Saying ‘DNA shows only similarities and thus means nothing in terms of evidence for evolution’ is like saying paternity testing equally shows nothing. DNA is a living record and has the ability to either rejection evolutionary theory or further confirm it.
The phylogenetic tree that was drawn up looong before anyone even knew of DNA and was used to explain the clandestine relationship amongst animals had the possibility of being rejected with the mapping of DNA. However, the evidence of DNA and the similarities that it shows from organism to organisms nearly identically match the tree that was drawn up many many decades prior. This tree was a prediction, and DNA evidence would be able to refute it and even reject evolutionary theory, instead DNA has stripped away the ignorance and described the classes of animals to an even greater detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
“Yes, but that butterfly will never become a new kind of bird that has never existed.”
That’s b/c the butterflies gene pool and the birds gene pool are different and heading in different evolutionary trajectories. Do you know what ‘trajectory’ means? It means a relative path in relation to other paths.
The butterfly is an insect and doesn’t have the genes currently required to all of a sudden change in a few generations towards a bird which has many morphological differences and is completely different anatomically. Evolution works according to selective pressures which act in accordance with natural selection. An animal wont just up and evolve just b/c it’s tired of being an insect and wants to be a bird.
Birds are vertebrates, while insects instead have endoskeletons and so ALL insects must have this feature, 6 legs and other unique genetic traits to unique to the insect group. This is what I mean by these two animals are on different ‘evolutionary trajectories’.
These unique differences prevent an insect from branching off and becoming a bird as they lack the DNA required for a vertebrate, feathers, talons, etc. The ancestors of insects never had vertebrates, so they don’t have the genetic coding for it, and even recessively such a trait can’t be expressed.
Given the right habitat, its ancestors could branch out and become larger and more diverse like the ancestors of dragonflies that were as big as birds.
reply to star2,
“The DNA similarity of two creatures (assuming you can give a percentage similarity which makes real sense) is not proof of anything.”
Oh yah ? Tell that to the parents of a child that have to take a paternity test that mtDNA similarities ‘isn’t proof of anything’. In fact, could you imagine a parent even trying that excuse in court to avoid having to pay child support? Of course not, everyone know how accurate and reliable DNA testing is.
“If you take an evolutionary view, the similarity is interpreted as a "relationship" because of the theory of evolution itself’
No, we understand that DNA is proof of heredity and genetic relations between organisms from their parents and offspring. What would all of sudden change in that perspective to make DNA worthless when comparing relative genetic similarity between two different species? NOTHING.
“If you take a creationist view the similarity is viewed as an aspect of design, not relationship.”
Refer to my past evidences on Human Chromosome 2 fusion and ERV’s, both of which have NO MEANING in terms of ‘genetic designer’ argument. There is no reason for a designer to purposely make us and Chimps share 7 identical retroviral markers in the exact same location as this information isn’t coding that describes how an organism is built, but instead is a record of viruses it’s ancestors had and nothing more.
“Well that would depend on what actually occured in the past, and no human presently living observed the distant past while it occurred”
That’s true, however DNA is a living record that demonstrates the changes from organism to organism over time, so in this sense we can know what occurred genetically in the past without actually being there to witness it.
Star2,
“"I don't agree with you on how one species becomes genetically dissimilar from another. "
Well, star you have to ask yourself 'what other processes could result in speciation to occur?’
It's certainly not a 'god send' or some guy behind a curtain pulling strings actively. Biologists have observed, tested and predicted how speciation occurs according to an animals genetics and the influences natural selection causes on the species in their habitats. When Nylon digesting Bacteria evolved, it didn’t occur b/c of some invisible god, it was b/c the bacteria in their habitat were isolated where nylon was an abundant food supply and over time only those strains, or populations, of bacteria that were able to digest the nylon were even around. How did the bacteria acquire the ability to digest nylon, a substance that didn’t even exist till the 1930’s? What else, random per generation mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
Here’s an instance of a new species of butterfly that evolved simply b/c it’s new branch was more resistant to a parasitic bacteria. Obviously the butterflies that had that mutation to survive the parasite reproduced in greater numbers and resulted in a new species branch.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
star2,
There is really a good collection of books that one can find at their local Borders, Barnes and Noble and other book stores that describe all the details regarding Evolution. But to just get an understanding on the evidence and what they indicate I would recommend these.
‘From Lucy to Language’ – This mostly deals with evidence for strictly human evolution and actually goes further back that ‘Lucy’ and has relatively nothing to do with the development of language, but is instead a catchy title. None the less the works are well documented.
www.amazon.com/Lucy-Language-Revised-Updated-Expanded/dp/0743280644
And ‘Encyclopedia of Evolution’. – This is more of a school based text book that gives the run-down of the A-Z evidences and details for them in alphabetical order.
http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Evolution-Science-Stanley-Ph-d/dp/0816071217/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201389329&sr=8-1
At least with these one can know the evidence for evolutionary theory and thereby they won’t make themselves look foolish by thinking evolution theory implies the origins of lie, which is doesn’t.
reply to star2,
“Your explanation, however, does not explain how one species, a monkey, can evolve into an entirely different species, a human being. “
Monkeys didn’t evolve into humans. We and the great apes (Chimps, Orangutan’s Gorillas, and Bobnobos) all share a most recent primitive ape common ancestor. The monkeys alive today also shared an even more distant relative ancestor with that primitive ape but dated back much further.
Speciation is what occurs when a group of organisms are genetically too dissimilar to allow them to have viable offspring that can reproduce. Tigers and Lions are genetically similar enough to have a hybrid offspring ‘Liger’, however the offspring is always infertile and so this Liger can’t reproduce and this type of lineage can’t exist any further. This occurs when organisms become genetically isolated for long enough periods and in which their genetic trajectory begins to head in different directions.
Humans and any of the great apes are too genetically dissimilar to even likely even create viable offspring, I am not sure how much this has been tested, but genetically speaking only few % differences between each species genomes is generally too much of a difference to create a zygote. However, mammals seem to have an ability to stretch that more so than other animal groups, which is why the Liger exists.
Once a parent species produces offspring and they genetically diverge enough they can no longer reproduce with their recently related ancestor species and their gene pools with relation to each other will get further and further become less alike as they have gone off on their own individual genetic trajectories. This comparison between ape and human appears more drastic then one would think, however the fossils of the species in-between our divergence and theirs exhibits this progression as a long process and not one of ‘a primitive ape popping out a fully formed human in a single generation’ as some have misunderstood evolution as implying.
Genetically this depiction isn’t possible as such a drastic change (ape popping out a fully human) would almost certainly kill the offspring (refer to mutation rates) and at the least make it impossible for a groups offspring to be fertile (refer back to Ligers) and this is why the process in viewing in as long term is cumulative and collective and not an immediate huge change in a single generation.
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
Evolution: Where's the missing link?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dvqq7y_SCw
Pic of hominid skulls from the above clip.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
to star2,
“Please explain these laws that would have the "mother" specie evolve into a different but similar specie.”
Well there are no laws per say, however there is a very simplified way of explaining why natural selection occurs without going into all the genetic details. The details explain it more fully, though this I will leave up to you as this board is for short dialog.
1) All organisms reproduce.
2) All organism under random per generation mutations in their DNA. The vast majority of mutations are entirely benign and while few are beneficial or harmful to the host. (male pattern baldness would be such a benign mutation trait)
3) Not all organisms will survive into adulthood to pass on their genes, most in fact won’t. That said there is already a basis by which only the healthiest organisms will reproduce and only those genes are passed on. This can be seen in nature as generally the young, old, sick, wounded and otherwise less fit don’t contribute to the next generations gene pool as they are generally the first to die.
Going back to mutations, any harmful mutations would almost certainly never result in the organism reproducing as mentioned before it would have to ‘fight it out’ so to speak for mating rights and to survive other predators in nature. Beneficial mutations however, like white skin and its melatonin levels when compared with darker skin, would no doubt be beneficial as it is crucial in digestion and making use of vitamin D, which would aid in survivability and thus this simple mutation over numerous generations would become overly dominant from the gene pool to select from. Blacks as you may know are more prone to sickle cell anemia, which is the result of a byproduct of a gene mutation that allowed them to more naturally ward off malaria, which in Africa and such regions is more of a direct threat as compared to sickle cell anemia, thus why it was selected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
Additionally, other older civilizations that herded and used cattle (or live stock that produced milk) would use their milk as food. Normally, after infancy the human body is unable to break down and digest lactose enzymes resulting in ‘lactose intolerance’. Those civilizations many 1000’s of years ago that used milk have a gene mutation that allows for their present descendants to consume dairy products post infancy. This is most obvious with ‘whites’, but more so those or Nordic descent like myself. The Allele frequency of this mutation within each grouping of populations globally reaffirms this. This was brought about by a mutation that allowed those that could use dairy products and would aid in their survival and overtime this small trait catches on to where you have only those populations that used milk were able to digest it post infancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
“What is going on behind the scenes in the NS process? There are some kind of genetic laws that are taking place when one specie is transforming into another. “
As far as Natural Selection goes, it involves a multitude of processes that collectively describe how one ancestral species can diverge and give rise to daughter species. The forces that drive it are all related to an organisms habitat and how that habitat influences their survival. Genetically speaking all organisms have a gene pool that defines the traits of a species, in a more homogenous gene pool with less diversity it takes less time for per generational evolution to occur (micro-evolution) as one would expect as the gene pool is more restrained to a narrower specific genes to select from during meiosis (reproduction).
Genetic drifting is the first phase in NS or evolution in which certain traits (longer hair for instance) begin to accumulate genetically in the gene pool and become a dominantly expressed trait for an organisms survival. This can also be shown though for traits that aren’t at all beneficial but by consequence are genetically passed on as the past ancestors carried this genetic trait. In humans this can be seen in male pattern baldness. One such beneficial genetic trait is skin pigmentation differences which correlate with the amount of melatonin required to make use of vitamin D.
In the northern hemisphere where there is annually less sunlight and the light isn’t as strong as compared with the equator, the level of melatonin in the humans skin changed via mutations (this has been verified and identified in specific genes) and this type of expression would have been beneficial to their survival in this habitat as it would aid in warding off diseases and other things that vitamin D helps to overcome.
That said, whiter skin would be a genetically favored trait with less sun and this drifting is the first alteration in direction of where the genes would be trajectory heading in relation to other gene pools of the same species.
To star2,
“I know that you are a believer in the law of natural selection. Please explain this law at the molecular level.”
Firstly, NS isn’t a scientific law, it’s a process. Molecules from my understanding, don’t operate under natural selection, but instead operate under their chemical bonds and properties that dictate how they work amongst and between each other (think trying to mix water with oil and the molecular properties that make this essentially pointless). Atoms of course make up molecules. Such atoms and molecules don’t operate under natural selection as they aren’t not at a stage that allows them to do so; rather they operate under Universal laws such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
Thus, individual molecules which operate mostly under their chemical properties and can’t undergo many of the processes involved with natural selection that more complex organisms undergo. Natural selection I think only deals with living organisms and not the base atoms or molecules that make up their most elemental foundations. Molecules once in the form of a nucleotides or polynucleotide’s, specifically in the Deoxynucleotide structural however are no longer just ‘simple molecules’ and instead operate in a particular manner which comprise the basis for RNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide
Star,
"If there is a genetic drifting in some signifcant area of the species that results in a dramatic change then most likely that organism would die because it can no longer sustain itself"
Not true, that’s not what genetic drift refers to at all and it in no way implies that a more narrow gene pool, or brief or isolation from the ‘original gene pool’ results in an organisms death at all.
Rather, 'Genetic drifting' refers to a transition from a wider more diverse heterogeneous gene pool to one that is more isolated, homogenous, and less diverse than its original gene pool. In isolation an organisms gene pool narrows and overtime the drifting becomes more pronounced and in relation to its original gene pool more and more obvious. In humans we can see this today with populations that are genetically more isolated and have more narrow gene pools, such an example would be Iceland.
Drifting can be seen clearly in today’s common breeds/species of dogs that underwent forced selective breeding in which the owners specified certain traits and this created genetic drifting in dogs resulting in the breeds we have today that drifted away from the original more wolf life wild dogs.
The selective pressures of ‘forced breeding’ with dogs is what caused this genetic drifting from their original gene pool and each dog breed has since gone off on its own genetic trajectory.
Consider the examples I gave with melatonin and skin earlier with humans and genetic drift is the cause. Why do populations genetically drift at all from their base at all? Largely it relates to mutations, isolations and selective pressures the organism undergoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIDGeneticdrift.shtml
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
reply to star2,
“agentorange
“This new bacteria is still in the bacterium family, is it not?
Yes, it’s still bacteria. But, it’s a NEW species of bacteria and so it’s indeed a SPECIATION EVENT, which is what you said you couldn’t believe in.
“This new mosquito is still in the mosquito family, is it not?’
Yes, it’s a new species though. Again, it’s an example of speciation, the thing that you said couldn’t happen.
“These moon butterflies are still in the butterfly family, are they not?”
Yes, however same answer it’s a speciation event.
“Now, if you can observe in the lab a "moon butterfly" mutating into a species totally unlike a butterfly and can no longer be considered a butterfly, then maybe you will have proof that speciation actually does occur.
Speciation DOESN’T require morphological changes such as new limbs or shrinking or growth of feathers, etc. A species is defined by what group it can successfully breed with, if it can’t breed with another group successfully and produce viable offspring then they’re not the same species. That is really loosely what species means.
You have this weird deluded idea (many theists do) that in a single generation a butterfly is going to give birth to a wasp?, or a beetle?, or something so genetically different but remember how I said it can’t as that much of a change with mutations would kill the offspring! The offspring can’t have an extreme level of mutations and be drastically different from its parent as a zygote b/c it wouldn’t even be born from all the chromosomal changes! This is why a butterfly in single generation can’t give rise to anything too far from its genetic parents.
You have this idea that a primitive ape would give birth to a fully formed human, it doesn’t work that way star, this isn’t what evolution suggests at all either. Speciation as defined by biology does happen and will continue to happen, just b/c it doesn’t fit how YOU think it should work doesn’t make it wrong, it just means you don’t understand biology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
reply to star2,
“However, modern science has not shown in the labatory that genetic drifting or mutations can produce another type of species different enough from the original species that they can no longer reproduce together. “
Read a biology book already, this is becoming tedious. Refer to mendelian genetics on inheritance. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
How can you even jump to conclusions after you earlier admit to even the basic of biological ignorance?
That’s like saying you can’t possible see how the earth rotates around the sun only b/c it’s too complex for you to figure out.
Refer to the examples below and begin to research FINALLY on speciation events that have been both observed in the lab and in nature.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
vids that again cite sources for evidence for evolution.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY
Reply to Star2,
“I don't believe that it is possible for speciation to take place.”
It won’t? Then please explain the moon butterflies? Here it is, you admitted earlier admitting to know nothing in evolutionary biology and somehow you came to conclusion that it just can’t happen huh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
Or the new species of nylon digesting bacteria. Nylon a material that never existed till 1930’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
Or a new mosquito species ‘Culex molestus’
Or any of these new speciation’s.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
It doesn’t really matter what YOU believe b/c the evidence shows it happens.
“The kind of mutations that would be needed for that I believe would have killed the mutant offspring(s) before the male and female (if they existed together) ever had a chance to reproduce.”
You really don’t understand mutation rates do you? Within DNA there is a biological limit to have many mutations a generation can have and this automatically defines if the organism is even born at all as to have too much of allelic genetic difference via mutation would kill the offspring.
How speciation works at a macro evolutionary (species barrier) works.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies
Star,
Back to genetics (assuming you’re interested) what it can show regarding genetic markers. Genetic markers are what are used in paternity testing as it shows heredity, no one denies this. Genetic markers may or may not have any genetic function. In the case with ERV’s mentioned earlier, they serve no function and so they easily refute the ‘designer argument’.
Something you’d find interesting is Aarons Y chromosome (yes the Aaron that was a brother of Moses in the bible). According to Jewish tradition, high priests are all male (no surprise) and are all descendants of the first high priest, Aaron. Theses males are known as kohanim, and today their last names have such variants as Cohen, Cohn, and Kahn. Researchers obtained DNA samples (cheek cells) from modern Jewish men who identified themselves as kohanim, in Israel, USA and England.
About half of these shared DNA sequence (a marker) in their Y chromosome that had to come from a common ancestor about a 100 generations back-which was approximately the time that Aaron is believed to have lived. This Cohan Modal Haplotype may very well have come from Aarons Y chromosome.
www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
Science can verify cases like this, and slave descendants of Thomas Jefferson, the last Czar in Russian, Genghis Khans descendants and so on. In Mongolia 13% of the people share this unique genetic marker that is consistent with Genghis Khans time. Surely if we can accept this DNA evidence to reaffirm what we accept or to confirm that which we were skeptical about, it can equally be used to identify genetic markers that we and Chimps also have. Again, ERV’s do NOT have any function in determining if a offspring is tall, short, blue eyed, brown eyed etc. This information is the result of viruses that have reverse transcribed their coding into the hosts DNA and as a result all offspring that have this ERV will have an identifiable marker.
Most importantly is the viruses attach themselves at random to host receptor sites and thus can be inserted essentially anywhere within the ‘junk DNA’ section of the genome. For and us and Chimps to share not only the same 7 ERV’s, but in identical nuclear genetic locations is something that really can only be explained via common ancestry.
“Asking questions of someone who does know is not a weakness but a strenght.”
I agree with this 100% star, everyone after all is ignorant on things in life at least to some degree. We shouldn’t be afraid to inquire and engage in dialog and learn from each other.
I never did touch on the 2 pieces of evidence any further as no one has replied at all to it.
It’s not something one could up and reply instantly to, but requires some investigative research, reading and reflection on the data. Ebcdic, don’t give her a hard time for not replying to those 2 pieces of evidence, no one else has. After all she is AT LEAST asking about information regarding evolution, something others didn’t even have the patience for and for this I respect her more so b/c at least she’s interested.
To Gen,
Take a guess. It’s not b/c I am rude, I had no reason to be rude, star and I were talking over the weekend with no interruptions. But this morning most if not all of mine and ebcdic were censored out. Nice tact. It’s b/c the evidence I provided was enough to support evolution and after providing hours of dialog and links on many sources of actual evidence I get censored. Such is the world when people don’t want to hear the evidence for propositions they deny, thus they censor people. This sort of nonsense is horrid and is something the Taliban would endorse.
“ I don't know- But one thing I do know is that God still loves you, no matter how much you hate Him.”
Grow up, I don’t hate him, you or anyone. I just don’t see the required evidence to believe in such a notion.
“And God is still willing to forgive you if you only repent. But you only have one life- one chance to get right with God. I suggest you don't waste any more time.’
This is the same nonsense star said, except she used fear mongering as a way to attempt to persuade me to her proposition. To believe in anything simply as a knee jerk response to primal emotions like fear and love is to abandon ones logic and rationale.
ebcdic-
First- I never denied science- nor the validity of study. I claim that God upholds both.
Secondly- you side stepped the question at hand- being the basis for your morality. Please take some time to think about this and answer the question.
As to torture and hell- the two are not synonymous. Torture connotes an unjust application of pain. Hell is a just application of justice and punishment. If you do'nt like jsutice- you might as well say you think Hitler should have got away. You seem to have a VERY lilmited and mostly wrong understanding of whta the Bible talks about in terms of "Hell".
Finally- you asked what person who loves science would follow my "anti-science" religion.
I have explained numerous times how science is impossible without things such as the uniformity of nature and I have explained clearly how the Bible shows God is the basis of r such things. Science is impossible without God. Your saying that Christianity is "anti-science" shows your complete lack of the preconditions for science and your complete lack of knowledge of the affirmations from scripture that God created science and upholds it.
I ask you to repent. Only by repenting to God can you have hope to have true wisdom and knowledge. You agression against God is obvous along with your faith in the mystical idea of evolution.
Like I told Agent- so I now tell you. Repent, before it's too late. God loves you, even if you hate him.
You say "it's wrong for God to do ..." But WHY is it wrong for God to do these things?
ebcdic-
Hi... thanks for your input. Let me respond accordingly.
First- If you think that God is going to torture the unbelievers... you have a misconception of what the Bible says. If you need help understanding this topic- I can help you out.
Second- No, not 150 years of evidence- all of history is evidence for God.
Third- since you claim God to be my invisible friend, then I presume you are using that phrase to say that God does not exist. But by saying that God does not exist means that you have already decided that he does not exist. Since it is scientifically impossible at this time to prove something doesn't exist, I must presume that you are making this conclusion that God does not exist as a statement of your faith in evolution and not based on the hard facts of science and the Bible.
Yes, I think that wrong doers should be punished. And yes- so does God. God- being the definition of "right" anything that is not as He desires is necesarily wrong. He, being the standard of justice, would therefore have every right to punish the wrong doer. This is the essence of justice. Where do you get your standard of justice from? An absolute standard, such as God? Or mans changing opinion?
Without an absolute standard, an evolutionist is unable to use science or justice or logic or morality. IAgent earlier mentioned that since he didn't censor others we should listen to him.. but that's his OPINION. An opinion is subject to change and not an absolute standard. I can go on to say that if he is "right" becaseu he doesn't censor people... then my "invisible friend" is right because I didn't censor him. Then we come to the conclusion that we both cannot be "right" because we contradict eachother. Do you see how that kind of logic falls apart?
Who are you to say that even if God tortures people that it is wrong? Where is your standard for right and wrong?
Gen1_28: "If you want to look at it logically- how about this. If there is no God, and I believe in him, I have lost nothing but have helped others to be nice to people, etc. I win. If there is a God and I don't believe I spend eternity in Hell. I lose. Logic says that believeing in God is a win win situation. I win wether He exists or not. Not believeing is the only way I can logically lose. Things would be okay IF he didn't exist, but if He does- I spend eternity in Hell. I lose. Logically speaking- it only makes sense to believe in God."
According to your logic, Gen1_28, anyone who does not believe in your invisible friend is going to be tortured by your invisible friend, so to avoid taking any chances, everyone should believe in your invisible friend so your loving invisible friend doesn't torture them.
Gen1_28: "Your evidence for evolution can easily been seen as evidence for God"
Gen1_28, according to you the evidence for evolution is really evidence for your invisible friend. 150 years of research by tens of thousands of scientists was all to prove the existence of your invisible friend.
Agent-
First, my claim to ethics. Christian have a claim to ethics and morality because we recognize that they come from God. God is the definition of ethics and morality. Again- I don't know why you were cesored... but a Christian would have an ethical absolute standard and reason for doing so. That Standard is God. From an evolutionary standpoint, we are just atoms bumping into one another, and therefore there is no reason for ethics outside of ones own opinion. You say we break ethical standards... but what ethical standards are we breaking? And where do you derrive your standard?
You said "Grow up" - but in the manner you spoke- this was very rude. Do I take offense? No, not really. I understand that you have no basis for morality and I don't expect you to be nice. If you happened to miss that point- Though you claimed NOT to be rude... youwere rude in your claim... that's called being a hypocrite.
Finally, my words are still the same- you need to repent. You obviously don't understand that all the evidence in the world can be interpreted different ways due to our presuppositional startingpoints. You evidence for evolution can easily been seen as evidence for God- as I have many times shown. You said that when people don't like what others have to say- then they are censored... but that is exactly what evolutionists are doing to creationists in public schools. Creationists aren't allowed to show their own evidence in school or in the academic world because evolutionists tend to close their eyes to the evidence.
I hope you do repoent. As much as you say you aren't angy... your words are filled with anger against God.
If you want to look at it logically- how about this. If there is no God, and I believe in him, I have lost nothing but have helped others to be nice to people, etc. I win. If there is a God and I don't believe I spend eternity in Hell. I lose. Logic says that believeing in God is a win win situation. I win wether He exists or not. Not believeing is the only way I can logically lose. Things would be okay IF he didn't exist, but if He does- I spend eternity in Hell. I lose. Logically speaking- it only makes sense to believe in God.
That being said- God does exist. All the evidence points towards Him. The Bible is absolutly true and scientists have relied on it's absolute truth since the beginning of time.
I hope you repent.
Agent-
How can you say we are not ethical when you, an evolutionist, have no standard for ethics other than your opinion?
I don't know why they censoerd your comments... perhaps you were just plain rude. I don't know- But one thing I do know is that God still loves you, no matter how much you hate Him. And God is still willing to forgive you if you only repent. But you only have one life- one chance to get right with God. I suggest you don't waste any more time.
Chris333-
You are right- I concur that this is not a discussion to continue in. But is has helped me to understand the viewpoint of evolutionists a little better.
Well Chris333, did you delete all the comments?
Well ebc and agentorange, I am glad to see you both twist nearly everything star said, it seems to be your method and that is why I quit this pointless "mudslinging" a long time ago. Keep twisting other people's words though, it will not make your argument any truer though.
ebcdic,
"They have no idea how rapidly that evidence is growing"
Seriously,and DNA is going to be the final straw. DNA is erefutable, and is linchpin to defining many of the details on how evolution works in greater detail. Darwin and others had no ides of DNA and neither did Mendel, but Mendel knew there had to be some process by which information is getting passed onto the offpsring causing evolution, but without DNA he couldn't of known. The knowledge of DNA fills that void of ignorance and confirms what he thought, and it also reafrims mny other things dealing with biology, say nothing of evolutin.
However, the challenge is partly in getting the populace to even understand the basics of biology in order to accept DNA and other evidences for evolution that to a laymen seem too complex to comprehend. I think this is where star is at and a good % of the populace. It's easy to reject evidence when you're ignorant of it.
Is it any wonder why we rank so low on science performance indexs globally?
Thanks orange. I'll add them to my YouTube favorites.
This is interesting and I'm for it.
"Great ape personhood is a movement to create legal recognition of bonobos, common chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans (4 out of the 5 great apes) as bona fide persons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_personhood
The 5th Great Ape species is of course people. Why not give legal rights to our Great Ape relatives? That would be a lot better than what's happening to them now. Their habitat is being destroyed and they are being murdered. Humans are the only Great Ape species not threatened with extinction.
ebcdic,
Sure, check em all out if you're into Science.
http://youtube.com/user/cdk007
http://youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo
http://youtube.com/user/potholer54
http://youtube.com/user/BonoboBill
http://youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
http://youtube.com/user/Acorvettes
"These moon butterflies are still in the butterfly family"
star2, using your logic, you could say human apes are in the ape family. It's in any encyclopedia.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
"The great apes are the members of the biological family Hominidae which includes humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."
“I don't believe that it is possible for speciation to take place.”
It won’t? Then please explain the moon butterflies? Here it is, you admitted earlier admitting to know nothing in evolutionary biology and somehow you came to conclusion that it just can’t happen huh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
Or the new species of nylon digesting bacteria. Nylon a material that never existed till 1930’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
Or a new mosquito species ‘Culex molestus’
Or any of these new speciation’s.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
It doesn’t really matter what YOU believe b/c the evidence shows it happens, just like evidence shows what happens in all other science theories.
“The kind of mutations that would be needed for that I believe would have killed the mutant offspring(s) before the male and female (if they existed together) ever had a chance to reproduce.”
You really don’t understand mutation rates do you? Within DNA there is a biological limit to have many mutations a generation can have and this automatically defines if the organism is even born at all as to have too much of allelic genetic difference via mutation would kill the offspring.
How speciation works at a macro evolutionary (species barrier) works.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nnu-O5x_pRU
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies
star2, I wonder if you and other creationists think there's something wrong with biologists. Do you think biologists are deluded? Incompetent? Dishonest?
The Lord spoke these words to me today.
Some people (physicists, engineers, chemists and other scientist) study the vastness of creation. These people study the planets, the mechanics behind them, and such.
Some people (biologist, medial doctors, archaeologist, anthropologist and other biological studies) study the creations. They are concerned with dynamics of the living creatures.
Some people ( mathematicians, statisticians, and other numerical fields) quantize the world and all things in it to numerical data.
Some people (music and artist) compose the world in to song and art.
Some people (writers and philosophists) are concerned with the study of thought and knowledge.
Some people (psychologist, psychiatrist and behaviorist) study the mind and actions of creations.
Romans 1:20-25
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Christians are not overwhelmed by these aspects of creation. We know there is a Creator and that is whom we seek. We learned about the Creator and have a relationship with Him. Christians know God the Creator is greater that His creations. We enjoy the created things as the Lord meant for us. But each things has its proper place and time. However, God comes before all things and seasons.
agentorange
Re:How is the evidence good enough to back the bible,
It is good enough because the comparison is done within the species.
Re: but not evolution?
Genetic markers are not good enough to convince me that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
You still have not explained the mechanism(s) that transform one species into another.
Thus far, all I can tell you have done is concluded that one species transformed into another one because they share some common genetic markers.
agentorange
I do find it very interesting the information you gave about genetics markers that trace Aaron and his descedants. thanking you for sharing that with me.
However, I still don't believe that you can make the connection between humans and chimps based on shared "genetic" markers. I believe there is another explanation but I don't know what that could be at this time.
agentorange:
<<Look up the 1st law of thermodynamics. Matter & energy can only EXIST, they can’t not exist. Thus, matter and energy are ETERANAL. It states that matter and energy have always existed in one of two forms or some transitory state in-between. And yes, that’s a scientific LAW, so it’s empirically backed with math.>>
But is it an absolute law? As I understand it, at the quantum level, energy is constantly being created and destroyed. Further, it says nothing about how energy came into the universe. Finally, it’s much more of a philosophical and metaphysical pronouncement not supported by observation. In the end, the first law neither supports nor denies God. But something like Einstein’s work that proved that the universe had a beginning – now that deserves more attention IMO. As does the second law – the amount of usable energy is decreasing – i.e., the universe is running down. And what runs down is not eternal.
ebcidic: <<Given enough time it can create anything, even a creationist.>>
It can? Says who? Time isn’t the cure-all for things. Cut up a bunch of red-white-blue pieces of paper and throw them up in the air. What’s the chance they’ll form an American flag? Pretty remote. But let’s give it more time. Take them up 10,000 feet in the air and let ‘em go. Now what are your chances as they have more time to free fall and form? Much worse, in all likelihood. Further, your time machine assumes a repeatable, repetitive, and closed cycle – who says that was/is in place? Just one example of the give-it-time fallacy: the actual odds of the DNA of a simple microorganism randomly reaching required specificity is 1 in 10 to the 78,000th power. How high are these odds? Consider that the number of atoms in the entire universe is about 10 to the 80th power.
agentorange –
<< "Where did those original life forms come from?" It doesn't really matter, >>
It doesn’t?? Amazing how you’re so concerned about ERV’s but the question of existence doesn’t seem to register. It is THE question and until you’ve explored it, you’re not about to answer any of the big questions of life.
<< I don’t know, I mean we have nearly created a synthetic bacteria that is a brand new species and we are the ones creating it, so it’s at least possible that aliens could have created the first DNA strands.>>
"created"? Why hasn't it just happened randomly and without intelligent intervention? And the aliens … they came from … where? You’re just putting the key question further back.
Star,
Back to genetics (assuming you’re interested) what it can show regarding genetic markers. Genetic markers are what are used in paternity testing as it shows heredity, no one denies this. Genetic markers may or may not have any genetic function. In the case with ERV’s mentioned earlier, they serve no function and so they easily refute the ‘designer argument’.
Something you’d find interesting is Aarons Y chromosome (yes the Aaron that was a brother of Moses in the bible). According to Jewish tradition, high priests are all male (no surprise) and are all descendants of the first high priest, Aaron. Theses males are known as kohanim, and today their last names have such variants as Cohen, Cohn, and Kahn. Researchers obtained DNA samples (cheek cells) from modern Jewish men who identified themselves as kohanim, in Israel, USA and England.
More than 90 percent of Cohanim today share the same genetic markers of these shared DNA sequence (a marker) in their Y chromosome that had to come from a common ancestor about a 100 generations back-which was approximately the time that Aaron is believed to have lived. This Cohan Modal Haplotype may very well have come from Aarons Y chromosome.
www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
Science can verify cases like this, and slave descendants of Thomas Jefferson, the last Czar in Russian, Genghis Khans descendants and so on. In Mongolia 13% of the people share this unique genetic marker that is consistent with Genghis Khans time. Surely if we can accept this DNA evidence to reaffirm what we accept or to confirm that which we were skeptical about, it can equally be used to identify genetic markers that we and Chimps also have.
Again, ERV’s do NOT have any function in determining if a offspring is tall, short, blue eyed, brown eyed etc. This information is the result of viruses that have reverse transcribed their coding into the hosts DNA and as a result all offspring that have this ERV will have an identifiable marker.
Most importantly is the viruses attach themselves at random to host receptor sites and thus can be inserted essentially anywhere within the ‘junk DNA’ section of the genome. For and us and Chimps to share not only the same 7 ERV’s, but in identical nuclear genetic locations is something that really can only be explained via common ancestry.
agentorange
Thank you for taking the time to dialog with me.
agentorange and ebcdic
God loves you anyway.
“I don't believe that you can understand life until you can understand how it came from matter.”
Well that’s YOUR view and not what science suggests. Evolution occurs, regardless of how life originated, what part of that is hard to understand? Gravity exists regardless if we don’t acknowledge it and what causes it, same principle with evolution.
However, if you posit god is the designer, then this designer has some explaining to do b/c his work doesn’t exemplify the work of omnibenevolence but instead indifference as seen with the extinction of 99% of all species that have ever existed. This isn’t what we would logically think an omnipotent designer would involve at all in the effort to have us here talking about it in the end.
It would be much simpler to *poof* things instantly as opposed to allowing life to meander along for billions of years and undergo many extinction events that nearly wiped life out all together. Again, these aren’t signs of great omnipresent design, but akin to neglect and a stance of indifference.
This and other themes we find with science don’t conform to any literal reading of any holy book. You can argue this god is a deistic or pantheistic as these gods would be indifferent as they are just a first cause and play no active role. And in this sense one can easily believe in god and such things science describes. But, to argue our universe melds perfectly with any theological depiction is to ignore all of modern science. But I digress, these passages shouldn’t be taken literally in such regard and should be viewed as metaphorical and symbolism to a greater meaning, thus apologetics.
We have nearly created a brand new synthetic bacteria species from scratch and when we do it, that means it’s not impossible that chemically it can occur, which is something creationists have long said as ‘impossible’. They have said any arrangement of chemicals could never bring about life, but science again is about to throw pie in their face and their authority on the matter will once more be reduced.
“There is a point in time where something had to come from nothing. This is true not only about life but also about the matter from which it came.”
Look up the 1st law of thermodynamics. Matter & energy can only EXIST, they can’t not exist. Thus, matter and energy are ETERANAL. It states that matter and energy have always existed in one of two forms or some transitory state in-between. And yes, that’s a scientific LAW, so it’s empirically backed with math.
ebcdic
Agentorange gave 2 pieces of evidence he believes proves the evolution theory. He was asking for those who don't believe in evolution to answer the evidence. He did not receive an answer that he was satisfied with. Since no one can explain to him why it doesn't support evolution then I decided to let him explain why it does.
I am not a scientist. I do not understand evolutionary theory. Asking questions of someone who does know is not a weakness but a strenght.
Agentorange was helpful to me in explaining some basic evolutionary concepts. I have a better understanding now on how evolutionists think.
Agentorange gave a detailed (at least to me) explanation on genetic drifting. If I understand him correctly, I believe he thinks that the mutations that occur within a species will over time cause that species to become a similar but different species. A wolf and a dog are similar species but they are still in the same family of canines. The genetic changes did not cause the wolf to go outside of the canine family to form an entirely different type of animal that cannot be classified as a canine. The wolf, I guess in evolutionary thought, is an ancestor of the dog.
These are the 2 pieces of evidence that agentorange gave to support evolution:
"Humans and chimpanzees have at least 7 IDENTICAL inactive retroviral DNA sequences (Endogenous Retrovirus) in IDENTICAL locations in their genomes. Most importantly is the ERV insertion via reverse transcriptase occurs entirely at RANDOM. The ONLY way this could occur is if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor which also possessed the inactive retroviral sequence. What about the fact that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two great ape chromosomes."
This to me does not support evolution. The inactice retroviral sequences define a characteristic. Just because a human and chimpanzee share the same characteristic does not prove to me that they came from a common ancestor.
The human chromosone 2 also defines a characteristic. Just because it is a fusion of two great ape chromosones does not prove to me that the some ape was an ancestor to the human.
Sharing a common characteristic with an entirely different species does not prove that one came from the other. You need additional proof to support that claim.
agentorange
I don't believe that you can understand life until you can understand how it came from matter.
Somehow the inanimate became animate. Something had to impart life to the inanimate. One might postulate that it came from some alien from outer space. That's fine. But then, how did the alien receive its life? There had to be a beginning for it. If that alien life came from someone else, then where did that life come from? It goes on and on until you come to a beginning point. There is no end to the search until you can explain its beginning and how it came into being. There is a point in time where something had to come from nothing. This is true not only about life but also about the matter from which it came.
My explanation, of course, is that there is a God, infinitely greater than all things created, that created all that we see and don't see. This infinite God has all wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. And through this He spoke, formed , and brought forth all that we see and don't see. But we will never know nor understand how He created something (the heavens and the earth and all that is in it) from nothing.
If you don't accept God as the one who brought something out of nothing then you have to find an alternative explanation to explain how that happened.
Man wants to understand the world in which he lives. He investigates and tries to understand the laws of science (physical, chemical, biological) that explains the world in which he lives. Man has made a lot of progress in deciphering these laws that control our world. In the biological area you have detailed some of those findings. The complexity of it all is mind boggling to me. I feel like that these discoveries only point to the fact that there had to be something greater than ourselves (ie, God) that designed it and brought it forth.
God loves you.
Star2,
"Life comes from matter. Explain how this happened."
Well, Science has some reasonable evidence to conclude how it could have happened naturally under chemical bonding processes and such. However, it doesn't deal with evolution, but instead abiogensis and so it's moot.
'how life originated here on earth' is a moot point as it doesn't relate to evolution b/c it has no bearing on evolution as a process as evolution only deals with changes life undergoes once it already exists and not how it got here. No offense, but it seems theists always hung up on thi and always confuse the two..
ebcdic
I will respond to what you just said after I hear from agentorange.
OK, that's good, but I noticed you say virtually nothing about the answers. Also, people who are really interested in learning do their own research, instead of depending on others.
ebcdic
Re:You don't even read the answers.
Quite the contrary. I read everything that agentorange and yourself wrote.
I guess good ole bobby stopped by to flag me again so here is my last post--
agent--
Checked out your info. Interesting. But still does not negate the existence of God, our Creator. "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist. You wrote, "so it’s at least possible that aliens could have created the first DNA strands." Aliens? You would rather express faith in little green men from space than in God? What a leap of faith. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith. I know you hate these quotes--sorry--but maybe that is because you cannnot answer them. You can quote scientific "fact" as well as I can quote fulfilled, historically proven Biblical prophecy--we will have to agree to disagree. I must say that I appreciate your decency here in comparison to the hatred expressed by others who hold your atheistic views.
star2, I think you enjoy wasting people's time, and I think you're not really interested in learning anything.
agentorange
Life comes from matter. Explain how this happened.
Star,
"If there is a genetic drifting in some signifcant area of the species that results in a dramatic change then most likely that organism would die because it can no longer sustain itself"
Not true, that’s not what genetic drift refers to at all and it in no way implies that a more narrow gene pool, or brief or isolation from the ‘original gene pool’ results in an organisms death at all.
Rather, 'Genetic drifting' refers to a transition from a wider more diverse heterogeneous gene pool to one that is more isolated, homogenous, and less diverse than its original gene pool. In isolation an organisms gene pool narrows and overtime the drifting becomes more pronounced and in relation to its original gene pool more and more obvious. In humans we can see this today with populations that are genetically more isolated and have more narrow gene pools, such an example would be Iceland.
Drifting can be seen clearly in today’s common breeds/species of dogs that underwent forced selective breeding in which the owners specified certain traits and this created genetic drifting in dogs resulting in the breeds we have today that drifted away from the original more wolf life wild dogs.
The selective pressures of ‘forced breeding’ with dogs is what caused this genetic drifting from their original gene pool and each dog breed has since gone off on its own genetic trajectory.
Consider the examples I gave with melatonin and skin earlier with humans and genetic drift is the cause. Why do populations genetically drift at all from their base at all?
Largely it relates to mutations, isolations and selective pressures the organism undergoes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIDGeneticdrift.shtml
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
“All biological life can be traced back to a common origin, is that correct?”
Not quite yet. We don’t know the origins exactly, but that doesn’t mean we know nothing of what directly followed. All organic earth life is carbon based and this is one piece of evidence that suggest s a common origin for all life forms. There is other evidence also.
The oldest life so far is known by chemical signatures left by stromatolites that date back to 3.85 billion years ago. Really complex life didn’t occur till some 600 Million years ago and this is directly related to the accumulation of levels of O2 in the atmosphere, O2 is like rocket fuel for multi cellular life.
Saying "DNA shows only similarities and thus means nothing in terms of evidence for evolution" is like saying paternity testing equally shows nothing and only fools make such claims. DNA is a living record and has the ability to either rejection evolutionary theory or further confirm it.
The phylogenetic tree that was drawn up looong before anyone even knew of DNA and was used to explain the clandestine relationship amongst animals had the possibility of being rejected with the mapping of DNA. However, the evidence of DNA and the similarities that it shows from organism to organisms nearly identically match the tree that was drawn up many many decades prior. This tree was a prediction, and DNA evidence would be able to refute it and even reject evolutionary theory, instead DNA has stripped away the ignorance and described the classes of animals to an even greater detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
agentorange
All biological life can be traced back to a common origin, is that correct?
agentorange
Re:Here’s an instance of a new species of butterfly that evolved simply b/c it’s new branch was more resistant to a parasitic bacteria. Obviously the butterflies that had that mutation to survive the parasite reproduced in greater numbers and resulted in a new species branch.
Yes, but that butterfly will never become a new kind of bird that has never existed.
There are 2 very different presuppositions at work when you view the same evidence from either an evolutionary or creationist position. The DNA similarity of two creatures (assuming you can give a percentage similarity which makes real sense) is not proof of anything. If you take an evolutionary view, the similarity is interpreted as a "relationship" because of the theory of evolution itself. If you take a creationist view the similarity is viewed as an aspect of design, not relationship. Which is correct? Well that would depend on what actually occured in the past, and no human presently living observed the distant past while it occured. That being so, it ought to be permissible to have different views on the subject for different reasons and to discuss them freely. That freedom is what the film is about it seems.
kami, You would be surprised how much DNA is completely identical between species including the human species. The less differences there are, the more closer the evolutionary relationship is.
agentorange
I don't agree with you on how one species becomes genetically dissimilar from another. However, I do thank you for taking the time to explain your views. So, at this point, I think we need to just agree to disagree.
ebcdic: "it's important to understand we are more closely related to the other apes than the monkeys..."
One only need to compare/contrast DNA and human genes to those of any animal too note there is quite a vast difference between the two.
agentorange
Re:If there is a genetic drfiting in some signifcant area of the species that results in a dramatic way then most likely that organism would die because it can no longer sustain itself.
This should read "If there is a genetic drifting in some signifcant area of the species that results in a dramatic change then most likely that organism would die because it can no longer sustain itself."
agentorange
Your explanation only explains the variations within the species. If a human being has long hair and another short hair, you still have a human being. This genetic drifting is unimportant for maintaining the species. If there is a genetic drfiting in some signifcant area of the species that results in a dramatic way then most likely that organism would die because it can no longer sustain itself. However, the organism that hasn't had a life threatening genetic drift will continue to carry on the species. So, I don't see how one species can evolve into another entirely different species.
Can you please explain that to me.
"Explain that process."
Same process. It just takes longer.
Well there are no laws per say, however there is a very simplified way of explaining why natural selection occurs without going into all the genetic details. The details explain it more fully, though this I will leave up to you as this board is for short dialog.
1) All organisms reproduce.
2) All organism under random per generation mutations in their DNA. The vast majority of mutations are entirely benign and while few are beneficial or harmful to the host. (male pattern baldness would be such a benign mutation trait)
3) Not all organisms will survive into adulthood to pass on their genes, most in fact won’t. That said there is already a basis by which only the healthiest organisms will reproduce and only those genes are passed on. This can be seen in nature as generally the young, old, sick, wounded and otherwise less fit don’t contribute to the next generations gene pool as they are generally the first to die.
Going back to mutations, any harmful mutations would almost certainly never result in the organism reproducing as mentioned before it would have to ‘fight it out’ so to speak for mating rights and to survive other predators in nature. Beneficial mutations however, like white skin and its melatonin levels when compared with darker skin, would no doubt be beneficial as it is crucial in digestion and making use of vitamin D, which would aid in survivability and thus this simple mutation over numerous generations would become overly dominant from the gene pool to select from. Blacks as you may know are more prone to sickle cell anemia, which is the result of a byproduct of a gene mutation that allowed them to more naturally ward off malaria, which in Africa and such regions is more of a direct threat as compared to sickle cell anemia, thus why it was selected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease
Additionally, other older civilizations that herded and used cattle (or live stock that produced milk) would use their milk as food. Normally, after infancy the human body is unable to break down and digest lactose enzymes resulting in ‘lactose intolerance’. Those civilizations many 1000’s of years ago that used milk have a gene mutation that allows for their present descendants to consume dairy products post infancy. This is most obvious with ‘whites’, but more so those or Nordic descent like myself. The Allele frequency of this mutation within each grouping of populations globally reaffirms this. This was brought about by a mutation that allowed those that could use dairy products and would aid in their survival and overtime this small trait catches on to where you have only those populations that used milk were able to digest it post infancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
These are only a short examples of genetic drifting, which is one process of many within natural selection.
“What is going on behind the scenes in the NS process? There are some kind of genetic laws that are taking place when one specie is transforming into another. “
As far as NS goes, it involves a multitude of processes that collectively describe how one ancestral species can diverge and give rise to daughter species. The forces that drive it are all related to an organisms habitat and how that habitat influences their survival. Genetically speaking all organisms have a gene pool that defines the traits of a species, in a more homogenous gene pool with less diversity it takes less time for per generational evolution to occur (micro-evolution) as one would expect as the gene pool is more restrained to a narrower specific genes to select from during meiosis (reproduction).
Genetic drifting is the first phase in NS or evolution in which certain traits (longer hair for instance) begin to accumulate genetically in the gene pool and become a dominantly expressed trait for an organisms survival. This can also be shown though for traits that aren’t at all beneficial but by consequence are genetically passed on as the past ancestors carried this genetic trait. In humans this can be seen in male pattern baldness. One such beneficial genetic trait is skin pigmentation differences which correlate with the amount of melatonin required to make use of vitamin D.
In the northern hemisphere where there is annually less sunlight and the light isn’t as strong as compared with the equator, the level of melatonin in the humans skin changed via mutations (this has been verified and identified in specific genes) and this type of expression would have been beneficial to their survival in this habitat as it would aid in warding off diseases and other things that vitamin D helps to overcome.
That said, whiter skin would be a genetically favored trait with less sun and this drifting is the first alteration in direction of where the genes would be trajectory heading in relation to other gene pools of the same species.
The one comment I'll make is that it is a mistake to assume that people can't believe in both God and an old-earth view...I personally have young earth leanings but don't in any way think holding one view over the other makes a Christian more or less a Christian.
agent--
Checked out your info. Interesting. But still does not negate the existence of God, our Creator. "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist. You wrote, "so it’s at least possible that aliens could have created the first DNA strands." Aliens? You would rather express faith in little green men from space than in God? What a leap of faith. "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith. I know you hate these quotes--sorry--but maybe that is because you cannnot answer them. You can quote scientific "fact" as well as I can quote fulfilled, historically proven Biblical prophecy--we will have to agree to disagree. I must say that I appreciate your decency here in comparison to the hatred expressed by others who hold your atheistic views.
agentorange
Ok, I thank you for your respectful response. I understand where you are coming from in your answer.
So, let me rephrase my question.
What is going on behind the scenes in the NS process? There are some kind of genetic laws that are taking place when one specie is transforming into another. Please explain these laws that would have the "mother" specie evolve into a different but similar specie.
“I know that you are a believer in the law of natural selection. Please explain this law at the molecular level.”
Firstly, NS isn’t a scientific law, it’s a process descibed evolution in organisms. Molecules from my understanding, don’t operate under natural selection, but instead operate under their chemical bonds and properties that dictate how they work amongst and between each other (think trying to mix water with oil and the molecular properties that make this essentially pointless). Atoms of course make up molecules. Such atoms and molecules don’t operate under natural selection as they aren’t not at a stage that allows them to do so; rather they operate under Universal laws such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
Thus, individual molecules which operate mostly under their chemical properties and can’t undergo many of the processes involved with natural selection that more complex organisms undergo. Natural selection I think only deals with living organisms and not the base atoms or molecules that make up their most elemental foundations. Molecules once in the form of a nucleotides or polynucleotide’s, specifically in the Deoxynucleotide structural however are no longer just ‘simple molecules’ and instead operate in a particular manner which comprise the basis for RNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide
agentorange
I know that you are a believer in the law of natural selection. Please explain this law at the molecular level.
holito8,
“You need to check the definition”
No, I think YOU need to check the definition of what a 'scientific theory' is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
“. You will find it says prediction”
Right, within the construct of a given theory we should be able to make falsifiable, testable predictions. In the case with Human Chromosome 2 fusion and ERV’s both of these pass this test already, thus why they conform to the theory of evolution.
schumacr, natural selection is very powerful. Given enough time it can create anything, even a creationist. The architect is nature. Engineers are not biologists.
"ebcdic - Don't forget the natural selection presupposes something to select 'from'."
Right, as in 'organisms' that's loosely what it selects from.
"Where did those original life forms come from?"
It doesn't really matter, I don't know how many times this must be said. Evolution ONLY deals with life progression once it exists, it in no way deals with 'the origins of organic life'.
The 'origins of life' is a different realm of science known as Abiogensis. Regardless if life arose natrurally via chemical processes, or if aliens droped DNA off, or if god poofed it here, it has no bearing on what occurs once life exists and evolves.
"Nowhere? Evolution supplies no answers to the question of existence because, well, it can't. '"
That's b/c as mentioned above Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life, it ONLY deals with the processes of adaptation, speciation that organimsms undergo once they already exist.
ebcdic -
"works"? Sure, a car "works", but as you say, that doesn't mean it didn't have an architect. Natural selection and micro-evolution? Sure, those can be observed and understood in the world. But macro-evolution? Now there's the rub. Besides, the specified complexity and design seen inside even the smallest micro-machine in the cell is fascinating. As an engineer, I really do marvel at the passage of information (not data) back and forth. If you want to find the origin of life, you really need to find the origin of information - and that's God.
schumacr, even if God made the first living cells, evolution still works.
ebcdic - Don't forget the natural selection presupposes something to select 'from'. Where did those original life forms come from? Nowhere? Evolution supplies no answers to the question of existence because, well, it can't.
BrianB, it works because the natural selection of random mutations is not random. Also, biologists don't fight against truth and morality.
What gets me is random mutations over suposed billions of years could not logicaly account for complexity we see in this world but Atheists will cling to anything they can to try to fight against truth and morality. You think if you use big words it will make us think you know what you are talking about I see right through these big words and they do not impress me one bit even if we allow for Macro Evolution ultimatly we still would have to conclude that an uncaused cause set the mechanisms in motion.
"This is your proof? If so, I hope you didn't pay for it. You got bamboozled."
No, I'm telling you exactly what Behe's arguements are that he uses for ID. Read his work, it's public domain, and his evidence for ireducible complexity was debunked before and in the Dover trial where he got pie in his face for having to admit that in the context he puts ' ID as being science, astrology would also be a form of science.
“So you have faith in humanity. That is still belief in something. “
I don’t have ‘faith’ as theists use the word, I have confidence that we as humanity can achieve great things. It’s called having assuring self confidence in our existence and that we can control our own destiny for the good, that’s what it means.
“However, it has no foresight. Its a narrow view based on conjecture and false hope.”
You call believing in humanity and our OWN abilities as a false hope? It seems believing in some fantasy land afterlife of heaven or hell based on no certainty of evidence is one built on false hope.
“We know what we believe is true and can prove it.”
Fine, prove that only your version of god exists, prove that people really go to hell and really go to heaven and all the other fantasy land nonsense that is religion.
Are you ever going to answer the 2 pieces of evidence I gave for evolutionary theory yet or not?
“This is not actual proof this is still a guess. I does not prove anything”
Ya, I guess atoms are just a guess…and so are quantum particles….and so is electromagnetism…..and so is germ theory. all of those are just ‘guesses’ right?
“. Like I said earlier, you can only base your assumption on a scientific theory.”
Right, I can have an assumption that gravity works in a predictable manner so we can built airplanes that can fly and with aerodynamics shuttles can leave the earths orbit. The other alternative is that we assume things based on no evidence and no scientific theory which conforms to said evidence, in which case they are literally of a thing of ‘faith’.
“You need to check the definition”
No, I think YOU need to check the definition of what a scientific theory is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
“. You will find it says prediction”
Right, within the construct of a given theory we should be able to make falsifiable, testable predictions. In the case with Human Chromosome 2 fusion and ERV’s both of these pass this test already, thus why they conform to the theory of evolution.
Right, by refuting natural evolution he is indirectly promoting ID.
If Behe isn't for ID, why was he asked to be on the Dover trial then arguing for ID? hmmmmm. think about that one. what ireducible complex systems that Behe proposed haven't been shot down? Flagelum, check. Immune system, check. human eye, check.Bombardier beetle, check. more?
Behe argues that paleontology doesn't matter either as he ignores all this evidence and instead postulates ID for 'complexity'. He doesn't even refer to fossils from an evolutionary view, he's not evolutionary in the least bit. Instead he contends that systems just up and appear and don't gradually work their way up and collectively progress and become more complex. aka 'evolve'.
ID argues from a pont of personal incredulity. ' I don't see how this could have evolved, therefore it couldn't have evolved!' this is Behe and others stance.
This is your proof? If so, I hope you didn't pay for it. You got bamboozled.
Sure there is. the point is to enjoy life, enjoy family, enjoy the precious time you have, make contributions towards progressing humanity and so on.
So you have faith in humanity. That is still belief in something. You simply cannot wrap your mind around the fact you believe in self which is still a faith based concept. However, it has no foresight. Its a narrow view based on conjecture and false hope. We know what we believe is true and can prove it. But you cannot understand our proof. Yet you cannot explain it away.
In science, a theory refers to a model that describes millions of independent facts and evidence that collectively conform.
This is not actual proof this is still a guess. I does not prove anything. Like I said earlier, you can only base your assumption on a scientific theory. You need to check the definition. You will find it says prediction.
Have you taken quantum mechanics. God invited all these things you hold so dear.
NOTW,
"see what happens when you tell people they are only monkies--they act as such "
Evolution doesn't imply WE are monkies, but that we and todays great apes share a recent common ancestor, among numerous other things.
'd like to hear your response to the evidence I gave NOTW.
see what happens when you tell people they are only monkies--they act as such
Well, I will come back later and repost the evidence for you NOTW, to use and research for yourself and draw your conclussions. I am not assuming you're flagging yourself, but it would be a smart way of avoiding to have to comment on said evidence.
This is retarded. bob. cut it out now, quit being a little brat. I saw his comments and then I refresh the page and they are gone. kiss up or whatever you must do. I'd like to have him respond already. so, how do you respond to evidence I gave?
"Out of sight, out of mind--sort of like you have done to all my previous posts."
That's not me NOTW, I have no reason to censor you, as your opinon is the one I am intersted in and that would be self defeating. I want your input on the evidece I gave. Please.
What does NOTW refer to ? NO To W.Bush?
Quit the flagging and censoring. I want to hear is rebutal Bob. Cut it both of you, grow up.
NOTW,
“In a "free" country, can I choose not to follow your blind faith in an unproven and unproveable theory?’
All realms of science that refer to ‘theories’ and it’s not a matter of ‘blind faith’ as science resorts to testable evidence that is falsifiable to draw conclusions. A science theory is a model that describes and conforms to all collective evidence involved. So, in the context you put evolution as ‘unproven or unproveable’, you’re equally stating the same thing about atomic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, etc. etc.
By all means believe whatever you want. If for you, you will accept evidence for all other realms of science that don’t conflict with your faith, but reject those that do, namely Evolution, Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, then what are your arguing for at all?
You're basically saying all the recent science work that conflicts with your faith is wrong. and wrong onwhat grounds, b/c your holy says so? That's not very logical considering from whence it came 2000 years ago when humanity was largely ignorant of things we consider trivial.
If you want to believe in a 6000 year old earth/universe despite contradictory evidence, then by all means be self deluded. I like how you like all other didn’t even attempt to answer the evidences I gave. And judging by how you censored me earlier it obvious why, you’d rather not want to hear about it.
Out of site, out of mind. Just close your eyes, cover your ears and you’ll be fine, right?
“and no dissent is allowed.”
What nonsense, ID has not even been sanctioned as a theory, and yet creationists couldn’t wait to interject it into the schools. ID makes not predictions at all that are falsifiable, it’s not science, and it’s more like philosophy. If ID is to be used in science it like all other forms of science must undergo the proper chanels of critique as all have before it.
NOTW,
Would you do me the honor of researching the information I provided earlier for evoluton and reply back with your take on it?
“Why else would a pagan scrying mirror and the definition of it's manner of use be suitable for a topic of classroom discussion?”
We teach about dead religions in history classes as most religions are defined as mythological, and no on is an actively practicing worshiper of Amen Ra, Zoroaster, nor does anyone pay homage to Thor, Zeus and the rest of the dead gods. We can teach about these b/c no one actively worships these gods anymore, see the difference? We can’t teach of attempt to indoctrinate with religions at all. We can teach their history and show paintings and works like Leonardo’s Last supper, and the pictures of Hindu temples and muslim mosques, but we in no way can hand out bibles, Korans, torahs and so on and have classes about indoctrinating the kids.
Tens are allowed to take bible study courses in class, and that’s already too far IMO. We should be able to show symbolisms but shouldn’t compel religious indoctrinations of any religions. Got an answer for the evidence yet?
wow, this article is all kinds of wrong.
"Darwinism...is the only rational explanation on how life began." There is no such thing as Darwinism and, no, the theory of evolution makes no claims about how life began. It doesn't cover atomic behavior either. It's about how life responds to the environment.
And what's with this smear campaign against science? The holocaust was about galvanizing a populous through racism and a common enemy, not science.
Natural selection is an observation of reality, not a social directive. And even if it was, that wouldn't make it less true. AIDS killed over 500,000 children last year. If Ben Stein reported on AIDS he'd probably say that we must not teach about AIDS in medical school because it kills children and that's a policy we can't endorse.
Quecat, you owe me an apology for censoring me.
Ben Steins argues well for the cause of theism, it seems to me, but there is some concepts that he fails to mention. He points to the traditional answers provided by Darwinism: random mutations and natural selections, and moves on to ask what about the very law-like frames that host this process, how is one to interpret this order, and says at this level Darwinism is not fit to answer--but still some Darwinists do! This shows that meta-physics are not to be avoided, and it is in fact practiced by its very opponents themselves.
In the case of evolution, the processes is in fact much far-reaching than what is usually mentioned. Evolution in the narrow sense stands in the context of a 'cosmic evolution' where life-less and insentient matter has evolved into living and sentient beings. Thus, the stuff of the world, "as a matter of fact", must have contained this potentiality from the beginning. That is strange, is it not? What meta-physics are one to make out of this?
I think that most differences that come up in the science vs. religion battle in the US point to a constructed and polarized hostile situation. No doubt there are good reasons in history for this, but I would like to suggest that a way out of this predicament could be provided by the common reason that both sides try to employ against each other. As I see it, the world of science leaves plenty of room for religion and metaphysics.
Showed your true colors. When faced with evidence that counfouds you do the following: close your eyes, shut your eyes, don't offer a rebutal and above all censor others.
"As for Bob and agent, if you continue in the name-calling of others here and in your gross disrespect for Christ, I too will flag your comments. Express your hatred elsewhere.'
I am being civil and respectful, I am not namecalling or using racist or any form of hate speach and still I am flagged and censored b/c some out there would prefer to not have to actually read and research the evidence for evolution.
Thank you, Quecat.
As for Bob and agent, if you continue in the name-calling of others here and in your gross disrespect for Christ, I too will flag your comments. Express your hatred elsewhere.
Evolutionists aren't censors? Are you kidding? Let one God-loving child attempt to pray or take a stand against the brainwashing of your theory in a public school, and the wolves protecting the myth of evolutionary science tear him to pieces. Your religion cries tolerance while throwing out of the public domain any tolerance for the beliefs of others.
BobCu,
Don't feel bad. NOTW knows likely next to nothing about science as it relates to evolution and so his quote mining is typical of those that have nothing to contribute or can't rebuke an argument or evidence for evolution as I gave.
This is to be exptected, as is being censored like seedforbrains did to me last night.Please
NOTW, please respond to the 2 points of evidence I gave for evolution pages ago. Peace.
The evolutionist--blind in his faith, intolerant of other views, lacking in objectivity, totally ignorant of the damage done by his religion--arrogantly shouting just these same things against those who profess faith in God, our Creator. Now that so many have been brainwashed by your lies, can you not see the damage wrought by your faulty theories in our society? Moral relativism has grown in the poisoned soil of the theory of evolution, and with it the intolerance of tolerance, and these alone are cause enough to abandon your damning ideology. We have yet to see the full damage done, but it is coming upon us quickly. And if you cannot answer to the quotes of your own people listed in my previous post, you will by default profess your blind faith in, and blatant ignorance of, your own belief system.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." Arthur Keith "The incessant repetition of this unproved claim glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine." Richard Goldschmidt, geneticist."Why not consider the possibility that life is what it so evidently seems to be, the product of creative intelligence? Science would not come to an end, because the task would remain of deciphering the languages in which genetic information is communicated, and in general finding out how the whole system works. What scientists would lose is not an inspiring research program, but the illusion of total mastery of nature. They would have to face the possibility that beyond the natural world there is a further reality which transcends science." "We (evolutionists) have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and, therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." John T, Bonner "We Paleontologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change), all the while really knowing that it does not." Miles Eldredge, pro-evolution "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified...whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." G.A. Kerkut, pro-evolution "It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions." "Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions." Roger Lewin, pro-evolutionist "We do not see things the way they are; we see them the way we are." David Pilbeam, pro-evolution "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." T.L. Moor, pro-evolution
holito8,
"Thanks. I am well versed in the field of science so I can speak. I am not making conjecture."
Well, you can attemptt o talk all you want, but you haven't shown any knowledge of evolution, science and even what a 'theory' means in the context of science. You mentioned that speciations have never occured, which i gave only a few links to disprove that.
So that alone gives good indication of your lacking knowledge with regards to science.
You still haven't even bothered to answer my 2 pieces of evidence. Instead, you find sancturay in citing biblical verses endlessly in sake of having to admit you know nothing of evolution or science at large.
Thanks. I am well versed in the field of science so I can speak. I am not making conjecture.
But this is what God says of men like you.
Jeremiah 9:6-8
I listened and heard, but they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, saying, "What have I done?' Everyone turned to his own course, as the horse rushes into the battle.
Even the stork in the heavens knows her appointed times; and the turtledove, the swift and the swallow observe the time of their coming. But My people do know know the judgement of the Lord.
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us'? Look the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood... Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord; So what wisdom do they have?
“You need actual proof and not a theory.”
You really don’t know what ‘theory’ in the context of science implies do you? A scientific theory isn’t a hunch , a guess, or an idea. In science, a theory refers to a model that describes millions of independent facts and evidence that collectively conform.
Ya know, like how gravity, atoms, quantum mechanics, and germs are just theories. But you won’t object to these science theories b/c they don’t conflict with you faith. If you knew how perplexing quantum mechanics is you’d perhaps have more reason to doubt that over evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
Please respond to the 2 points of evidence I gave for evolution pages ago.
"Please name some of these new species? Now one man has not discoveried yet is not evolution. You need actual proof and not a theory. "
Go to the links I and read for yourself. evolution at or above the species level produces new species which has been observed countless times. I've led you to the water, time to drink up.
google 'observed speciation', and other variants. i won't spoon feed knowledge to you, you must seek it out for yourself.
“Why did you get an education?”
I got an education b/c I realize how critical having an education is to determining ones financial success and thus the survivability to my offspring. I have a genuine desire to learn as much as I can about the Universe. A person’s financial ability to take care of himself and his kids is directly related to their assets and other ethical and moral considerations they pass onto them.
I got an education to stem the rising tide of ignorance that retards society and impedes progress. Life for all would be much better if we were all better educated.
“Are you trying not to do something with your life?’
Trying not to…No. Why would one try ‘not to do something’. It is an illogical statement. To ‘try’ implies that one is exerting their will of an action based on a belief. But to ‘try not to’ would be a contradiction in logic.
Wrong, evolution doesn’t require millions or billions of years. We have many cases of documented speciation, or creation of new species.
Please name some of these new species? Now one man has not discoveried yet is not evolution. You need actual proof and not a theory.
‘So there is no point. Why did you get an education? Are you trying not to do something with your life?’
Sure there is. the point is to enjoy life, enjoy family, enjoy the precious time you have, make contributions towards progressing humanity and so on.
Just b/c equate ‘no after life death’ as having no meaning doesn’t make it so. That also shows what little regard you have for this life in the abstract. To you, the mere hopeful idea of life after death is (somehow) more important than the one you’re actually living and know for certain exists. You might find it hard to swallow b/c who wouldn’t’ want to believe in an afterlife? It’s a comforting and consoling idea, but is it based on any certainty? Hardly.
“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. “
- Carl Sagan
The Christian is talking to himself. This is a symptom of a mental disease.
You are simply ignorant of Bible truth. Jesus said that because He was the sacrifice on the cross, but the Jews were also sacrifiing a lamb at the same time. He was the Lamb all ready prepared. There was no need for lambs to be sacrificed any longer.
It would be a benefit to you if you would sit down with someone well versed. You have a lot of opinions about things you clearly have no understanding about. O wait, I see that what athiest and blind scientist do all the time. You are good at making blind assumptions. Now you will come up with some clever was to disguise your ignorance...too late. You've been exposed. Note: no one knows how foolish you are until you speak.
Is this the same holy and perfect god who wiped out almost the entire human race according to the childish noah's ark myth in the bible?
Are you simple or simply ignorant? Do you not understand why God did what he did?
Their sinful state? That's baloney. That's just another meaningless invention. Christians are willing to believe any nonsense.
So if some of your children will not obey you and are killing, stealing and whatever else, would you allow them to stay in your house.
The purpose of life isn’t about the destination in some fantasy built on wishful thinking that religion offers, it’s about the journey of contributing to the progression and advancements of all of humanity. if you require fantasy land wishful thinking to get you from day to day, then that's a pity.
So there is no point. Why did you get an education? Are you trying not to do something with your life?
DRJ
“Darwinism is the perfect ploy of Satan to inject an unprovable (and therefore unscientific)theory”
It’s called Evolution, not Darwinism. And it’s a falsifiable so it’s certainly science.
“Doesn't it seem questionable that an unprovable scheme such as the evolution of the species can supernaturally find such acceptance among the non-Christian groups?’
No, it makes sense. The more overly dogmatic one is with religion the less likely they are to adopt any science that conflicts with their faith. That includes Cosmology, Astronomy, Physics, and not just Evolution. Thus, the more dogmatic ones view are with respect to religion they less likely they would accept any form of science.
“In order for evolution to be proven, one would have to "OBSERVE" it in practice. However, since the process takes millions or billions of years, it is not observable by mankind”
Wrong, evolution doesn’t require millions or billions of years. We have many cases of documented speciation, or creation of new species.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
“Evolutionists believe that the earth is millions of years old”
Wrong. Geologists (there is no such scientific profession as ‘evolutionist’) have over 4 dozen dating methods to show the Earth is at least 4.5 Billion years old.
“The Bible, on the other hand tells us that we are wonderfully created in the image of our Creator”
Ya, and so do 1000’s of other countless religious doctines.
“Faith is something that transcends common sense and the depths of endless scientific postulation. It is designed so that even a child can participate in the worship and service of his Creator.”
If the proposition for something lacks evidence it can only be only be supported by ‘faith’. For if the proposition of your god, heaven, hell and so on were truly obvious one wouldn’t rely on ‘faith’ to support the notions, they would instead say it’s evident. Faith in such propositions is wishful thinking.
Saying something is so ‘dumbed down’ so a child’s mind can grasp it speaks volumes that only those that lack critical thinking and the ability to think in the abstract would fall for ‘wishful propositions’ in which the evidence is lacking.
But would it really in the abstract mean ones life was meaningless? Hardly. Consider a person on their death bed looking back at all they have contributed to their communities, family, country and to the advancement they contributed in their area of work. Would you deem that as meaningless?
If you gave a person- money, food or a house, you haven't accomplished anything. They are still in the same condition they were when they met you. But according to your standards you have contribuited much. But you are claiming you are doing good works. Now if you are robberbut contribute to the community, you would be still doing good by the world's standard.
You keep talking like a person with a religious purpose. What are you trying to accomplish if this world has no destination? O wait, you been watching star-trek where human will eventually evolve into the powerful beings. Still they have no purpose, they will just exist for the point of existing.
When science cannot understand matter or from were it came, men have reasoned in themselves there is no God. But everything atheist argue for their faith. God said the reward of faith is you recieve (manifest) what you believe. So if you do not believe in him. You will live your life as though He does not exist. So you recieve in yourself the just reward... atheism. I like to call it the spirit of the anti-christ. Atheist believe in the oppsite of God. God is life and we should choose Him. Athiest believe there is no life beyond and choose death, Death is Satan.
Isn't Christianity wonderful? When someone embraces another faith system, or even a non-faith system, the Christian prays, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And in that prayer (learned from the perfect example of Jesus on the cross) God exists! He hasn't changed since the instant He decided to create the universe. Evolutionism, however, embraces constant and continual change. Notice the polarity. Man's ideal is that if something is not continually changing and becoming better, it is dying. While God says that holding on to the one tenable truth of His unchanging nature leads to everlasting life. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a genetic biologist) to figure out that the creationist and the evolutionist are in different orbits around the same planet. The planet is called truth. We have seen what happens when our orbits cross...explosions of concepts! One day when our orbits are ended and it's time to set down on the planet, we will either find acceptance or rejection of our missions. They will either be rewarded or rejected. Either way, I pray that you will encounter something on your mission that will insure a safe landing.
Quecat,
would you like to actually try to answer the evidences i gave for evolution or are you going to resort to citing biblical verses as a means of subterfuge?
DRJ,
“If there is no "Creative Designer," your life will be little more than a blip on the eternal radar scheme of ever-evolving history’
But would it really in the abstract mean ones life was meaningless? Hardly. Consider a person on their death bed looking back at all they have contributed to their communities, family, country and to the advancement they contributed in their area of work. Would you deem that as meaningless?
The proposition of life equating to be meaningless only comes from those that are religious and realize the wishful thinking of going to heaven to see all their loved ones while damning most others to hell would be lost. From this perspective they are at a loss to give meaning to their lives as they equate such propositions as the end all be all of their existence.
"If you were marvelously and mercifully created by God in His image, and you were not just the result of a random string of chance mutations from nothing into the ruling caste of this planet's inhabitors, you will have a lot of explaining as to why you chose to ignore your Creator.......What a gamble!!! "
Part of the problem with this proposition is the sheer volume of gods to believe in, this is part of why Pascals Wager was a bad assumption as it had 'belief' as the supreame virtue (how ilogical), but in reality our actions is what is more virtious and honorable and if there is a god he'd no doubt see through 'hedge betting belief' as opposed to actual inquiry and geniune belief in anything.
"satan-inspired manmade theory called evolution of the species."
oh please, get an education already. science is 'satanic'. you're acting like the Taliban there.
Darwinism is the perfect ploy of Satan to inject an unprovable (and therefore unscientific)theory into the scene of acedemic study as the perfect element of confusion for this generation. The goal of Satan is to confuse believers and potental believers, thus making it difficult to seek God's truth. To worship at the feet of evolution theory is to worship Satan. Doesn't it seem questionable that an unprovable scheme such as the evolution of the species can supernaturally find such acceptance among the non-Christian groups? In order for evolution to be proven, one would have to "OBSERVE" it in practice. However, since the process takes millions or billions of years, it is not observable by mankind, who happens to have come along during this "phase" of evolution!!! What is even more remarkable is that someone would even "WANT" to believe in evolution! Evolutionists believe that the earth is millions of years old! Since we are here only for only a short span of years, shouldn't we begin to realize how comparatively insignificant we are? The Bible, on the other hand tells us that we are wonderfully created in the image of our Creator. It also promises eternal life for those who accept the seemingly rediculous truth that upon believing in Jesus, we will one day be as He is! The evolutionist thinks it is easy to believe in what he calls an ancient document or myth. Actually, those who believe in God are asked to do something that requires believing before seeing. We who believe can only see the effects of God's love in His creation. When Jesus said that we must become as a child in order to 'see the kingdom of God,' He knew that the wisdom of the world would hysterically reject such a premise. If a creationist would only go in the oposite direction in a study of how little sense in makes to believe what millions of people accept without tangible evidence, he would see that by the huge weight of accptance, there is something supernatural involved. Faith is something that transcends common sense and the depths of endless scientific postulation. It is designed so that even a child can participate in the worship and service of his Creator. Not childish behavior, but childlike. I propose that every created being capable of man's creative ability to think wants to see his Creator. Evolution is not capable of permitting such an encounter; Christianity is!