Tens of thousands of parents could be subject to criminal sanctions after a California appeals court ruled parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Damian Dovarganes)Harrison Hartley stands next to his school books in the kitchen of his family's home where he is homeschooled, in Burbank, Calif., Jan. 29, 2007. Hartley, who has been homeschooled since kindergarten, is to start community college classes this year and hopes to transfer to a university as a junior before he turns 18.
"Are you kidding me?" said Kevin McCullough, conservative radio talk show host, on Thursday.
The court ruled last week that minor children must attend a public school unless the child attends a private school or is taught by a teacher with a valid state teaching license. And religious convictions of families do not guarantee a right to homeschool their children.
Parents must have teaching credentials to educate their kids at home.
"This decision is a direct hit against every homeschooler in California," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the Sunland Christian School, which specializes in religious home schooling. "If the state Supreme Court does not reverse this . . . there will be nothing to prevent homeschool witch hunts from being implemented in every corner of the state of California," as reported by The Los Angeles Times.
The institute estimates there are 166,000 California students who are homeschooled.
The ruling stems from a case involving Phillip and Mary Long, parents of eight children. One of the children reported "physical and emotional mistreatment by the children's father."
All of the children had been enrolled in Sunland Christian School, an institution that coordinates independent study programs for homeschooling families. They were educated by their mother at home and occasionally took tests at the school.
An attorney for Children and Family Services requested to a juvenile court that it require the children to physically attend a public or private school. The trial court refused, citing the parents' right under the California Constitution to homeschool their children.
The children's lawyer, however, appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal. Although the parents told the court that their religious beliefs for homeschooling "are based on biblical teachings and principles," the appellate panel ruled that the family is violating state laws since Mary Long does not have a teaching credential.
"I have sincerely held religious beliefs," said Phillip Long. "Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me."
Long said he doesn't believe in evolution, among other topics, that are taught at public schools.
Sunland Christian School called the appellate court's ruling "a bad decision" and stated, "While this case could have negative implications for California homeschoolers, nothing has changed to your right to homeschool. There is no need to panic or make any changes to your current situation."
Advocates for homeschooling families vowed to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
Currently, the California Department of Education allows homeschooling as long as parents file paperwork with the state establishing themselves as small private schools, hire credentialed tutors or enroll their children in independent study programs run by charter or private schools or public school districts.
‘Special Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”
QM meets evolutionary biology….mkaaay.
‘Again see the assumption of common ancestry to prove common ancestry, which proves nothing.”
No, it’s simply principles of genetics and heredity, it has nothing to do with evolution the theory directly. Populations reproduce, and each generation has unique mutations, now imagine one population becoming genetically or physically isolated, now you’ll have 2 unique groups of the same species which undergo their own unique mutations according to their own habitat and circumstances which provides a trail of where their most common ancestry is/was. Just like how the evidence regarding the emergence of the blue eye mutation appears around 10,000 years ago, other such mutations can be readily identified and found to when and where they originated. It has nothing to do with ‘assuming animal A evolved to animal B’.
“C-banding seems to mark highly redundant 'junk' DNA sequences (satellite DNA)."
In biological circles, we call them LTR’s or Long Terminal Repeats, and this is found in long strings of repeating redundant sequences, (like CCCCGGGGCCCCCGGG or TTTTTGGGGGTTTTTGGGG) much, much longer though, over and over and over, the same long repetitive, redundant pattern, which are typical of both Centromeres and Telomeres.
So, in the case of human chromosome 2 we find not the usual one Centromere, but 2 (weird), with them relatively off center (again weird) and one in active (weirdness). We also find not just the normal sets of telomeres at the ends of the chromosomes, but also LTR’ for Telomeres s in the middle. Again weird. Gee, that’s odd, why would a very large chromosome have an inactive Centromere and an extra set of telomeres in the middle? Hmm, perhaps a fusion =)
“(5% - 1.8% genome size difference or 50 million bases).”
The 40 million BS difference between us and Chimps equates to 1.33…%. Now if you factor in the deletions and insertions (which are not specific to the coding of the organisms) it amounts to 96% overall genomic similarity. Again relative to any other species on the planet, the bonobo (pygmy chimp) and Chimpanzee are the most genetically similar to us so again in terms of absolute relativity no other organisms are as closely genetically related as chimps and Bonobos.
“(in other words, that which makes one a male has virtually nothing in common with our supposed closest male animal cousin - pages 142-3)'.”
Bingo, exactly right. You know why? B/c 1) Y-chromosome is quite small as it is relative to the entire genome and 2) As you eluded to above, it’s HIGHLY REDUDANT and thus doesn’t code for many proteins, it contains the proteins coding sex characteristics, and very litter else. This is why there can be such relative difference in a single chromosome from two organisms and it not compromise the entire genomic relativity.
“After viewing all 17 pages of post, I first mentioned 95% Thu Mar 27, 2008”
I quoted you, quoting me from Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 am. The writing on this point was yours quoting me in which I referred to the 95% based on insertions and deletions.
" However, what is your point?”
That I called out looong ago (before you had), that when deletions and insertions are factored in the % of identical genomic sequences drops from 98, to around 96%.
“"Close" is such a vague and relative term.”
Does 97-98% sound better? B/c based on hybridization techniques that’s what it comes to. Go back to the .pdf and look. I’ll wait while you jump all over Marks now.
“And 5% sound like such a small number until you realized that 150,000,000 base pairs, or enough to fill 140 average sized novels or equivalent to 50% of the US population”
This smacks of typical creationist whacko lingo. So what, it fills 750 books. A book is hardly the only meaningful way to quantify the human genome, which by the way takes up some 750mb of disk space. So you’re arguing the human genome, 750mb and all is HUGE? You could fit the human genome on a freaking CD. And then we are only talking about the 5% difference between 2 such similar genomes, which fit, on CD’s, and you’re saying the differences are just too much to image, please. Regardless they are genetically the most similar species to us on this planet.
“Or that it is enough code to produce up to 250,000 unique proteins or enzymes.”
Oh dear, it appears you’re forgetting that the vast majority of primate and human DNA is (drum roll) non-protein coded. So you’re left with a very small margin of difference, perhaps no more than 1% as this is what is being genetically acted on during development. Fine, the 5% is something, however virtually all of that 5% is not specific to the coding of the Chimp development, which is why in tests such large portions of DNA can be removed and it not affect the organism at all and thus the 5% difference is miseleading. Again, only 1.5% of our DNA is protein coded, so if we look at it from that perspective it’s much closer, like 98% closer.
“Or that we use the same proteins, fuel sources, body form, etc. increasing the required statistical percentage of similarity significantly.”
Yup, there’s that great work of your designer again, leaving all those bread crumbs of clues that (somehow) by your take we and primates aren’t at all genetically related. I guess this would be an example of ‘intelligent design’ right?
“Or that the reproduction of useless DNA makes no evolutionary sense”
No evolutionary sense, WHAT! More like it makes no sense for an intelligent designer to reproduce useless sections of the genome of all organisms. What kind of intelligent design is that? Talk about ad hoc, hap hazard work. Was your designer drunk or just plain incompetent?
Mutations are virtually all neutral, so it’s not really a ‘good’ or 'bad thing’ in this context, more like in different. HC2 is simply a signpost for us to observe what occurred in the past, just as we see such events in the lab occur. Such events don’t typically harm the development of an organism. Most agree that the head to head telomeric fusion has essentially nothing to do with making us human apart from apes. Small amounts of DNA can be deleted, translocated, duplicated and fused with no ill affects to the organism. Other organisms have been shown that when their s fair amount of DNA is removed during development it has no effect on the organism 9rats and mice and flies) and after successive generations or DNA recombination the affected parts are mostly restored. However, if it affects the organism during meiosis it almost certainly wont’ develop fully and let alone reproduce so such detrimental mutations can’t be passed on. This is why the whole deletion of an entire pair of homologous chromosomes is out of the question, which leaves only fusion as a testable hypothesis.
“That no one recommends adding, deleting, or translocating an X, Y, or chromo 2 in human embryos and so often recommends the 'termination' of 'natural' versions before birth?”
If you delete an entire chromosome you’ve effectively killed the organism prior to its development, it can loose some small parts of the DNA, but not an entire chromosome. Removing it at that stage would be like aborting an embryo.
“I'm sure we thoroughly understand what this DNA does or does not do, cause we can custom design lifeforms completely base by base from scratch, right?”
No, not yet. Baby steps, crawl, walk, run. Duh. We can however create viruses (2001) and are nearly done in synthetically creating a new strain of bacteria from scratch. Give it some time, have some patience. Science isn’t the overnight process
“Or we can clone with 100% efficiency, or cure disease, or guarantee 100% perfect pregnancies and babies, and etc”.
Cloning is a science in its infancy. I would say compared with a few 100 years ago we have come along way in increasing the life expectancy, which stem from improved sanitation, and medicine. 100% pregnancy with no ill effects is not possible yet, however we do far and away far better in infant mortality rate than the 3rd world. FYI, a full 1/3 of all human embryo’s die at around this stage b/c of development issues, and that’s with medicine or not. No viruses are ever technically ‘cured’ or fully removed from a patient’s body, rather our immune system creates the needed antibodies to accommodate or suppress the viruses (save for HIV). Speaking of HIV, around 9% of Europeans are totally immune to HIV bonding. According to mutation rates, this mutation originated some 750 years ago, right around the time the Black Plague really hit that area hard.
“ALL DNA differences are the result of mutation starting at a single ancestor (OR viral insertions) and it is thus possible to work backwards to find 'dates'”
We don’t need to assume ‘evolution happened’ to know that from generation to generation mutations occur in the DNA of an organism (regardless of ERV’s) and this is how lineage is genetically tracked, how paternity tests are determined, and how it’s used in courts to convict criminals and how some references in the bible are backed by modern science.
Genetically tracking mutations and hereditary has nothing to do with assuming evolution be true or false, it’s simply observing how mendelian genetics works and what we can learn from it.
However, this very same technique that is used to back something in the bible is equally useful dating much further back, so if one is to accept the ‘Aarons Y-Chromosome’ evidence, they must equally accept the others. Here, read on. - http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php
Each generation progressively will inherit the DNA from its parents, mutations and all. From you to your offspring there will be the difference in recombination of DNA from you and your mate and the inevitable mutations you had while you were alive. The mutations rate for mtDNA (which is what’s being studied here) mutates about 20 times faster than nuclear DNA, and thus the changes are more apparent from generation to generation and can predictably be dated according to these rates. With these genetic mutations rates we can establish how long ago ‘X’ mutation arose in your lineage and thus if you share common ancestry with your neighbor, it’s basic genetics. Now imagine a population, the group is split and one party goes one direction, while another goes another, each having their own unique genetic mutations and thus unique lineages.
“Yes, clearly thousands of independently created, fully formed lifeforms and their prerequisite fully formed DNA strands would plainly show a common ancestor just 6000 years ago... Very logical.”
Umm, no. This Genographic study is ONLY on humans, and has nothing to do with other life forms. However, based on the genetic mapping and dating we do find genetic bottle necks in our species, H. Sapiens, but it wasn’t 4000 years ago, it was much, much further back. I am making a point that if DNA showed that our lineage was only 6000 years old, you’d be trumpeting it into the skies as evidence for your religion, alas it doesn’t and you can’t handle it.
“But for God, who by definition is the Creator”
Same, unfalsifiable argument. Is that all you can appeal to? You might read science books, but you have no idea on how science works b/c if you did you’d know ‘god made it that way’ isn’t scientific answer.
“DNA strains were designed for a common environment and food sources but originated from thousands of unique origins, it would hardly be surprising to find them similar in construction and chemistry. T”
Wow, ERV’s are over your head I guess. ERV’s server no biological function at all. They aren’t even biologically coded and thus have no involvement with the development of an organism, so the ‘designer could have designed it that way’ hypothesis falls flat on its face right there. ERV’s are relics from old viruses which reverse transcribed their RNA into their hosts DNA, they serve no biological function, so to surmise ‘the designer would have made it that way’ is to ignore how ERV’s originate in the host genome all together. Also, from the range of 50,000,000 – 500,000,000 possible insertion sites that any particular ERV has to choose at random to insert itself, we and Chimps just so happen to share 7 identical ones in identical insertion locations. Gee, what are the odds.
“64 possible nucleotide combination for any codon”
Right, 4x4x4, and your point is…..?
“Why is again that man can reuse and splice DNA but God can't?)”
Well, as mentioned earlier ‘god dun it’ isn’t a testable, falsifiable hypothesis and thus isn’t science, how hard is that to comprehend?
“The only way to avoid this 'misunderstanding' is to design each creation to used a completely unique (no sharing) 'DNA'/'amino acid' chemistry.”
Ya, such a shame when we review the DNA from organism to organism that the DNA is mostly homologous, and it’s most homologous the closer the organisms are and this relationship lines up almost perfectly with the existing phyologenetic, taxonomic and cladistics.
“However, where would each organism get the unique 'amino acids' they need to survive? Not from each other, that's for sure”
*Cough* MUTATIONS *Cough* Mutations aka genetic variations would account for new genetic information and thus new ‘unique’ amino acids found from organism to organism.
“lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15815621 - Still no chimps discussed
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html - Same article and still no chimps
www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2005/nhgri-06.htm - Here's that NIH PR guy again and 2002 reference. Using your standard, I can ignore
www.genome.gov/13514624 Same article again.
www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm References from 1992, 1991, and 1980”
I never cited those articles regarding JUST chimps, or somehow that they didn’t have 10% more DNA, if you followed where I cited those articles from you’d see they were aligned with ‘Human Chromosome 2 fusion’ evidence, and not the topic of 10% more Chimp DNA. Right, that makes sense, ignore an article from 2002 when another article from 2005 concurs the very same thing. Twit.
“Um didn't you just pull out a Marks' reference to Chromo 2 that I GAVE you? Old Heisenberg at it again?”
Nope, I never cited Marks works on regarding human chromosome 2 fusion at all. I said, since you put so much stock into Marks words above all others, perhaps YOU can find if he supports the notion or not. Go research for his works on the matter and comeback.
“If common ancestry is NOT TRUE the comparison of DNA can tells you absolutely NOTHING about common ancestry only common chemistry.”
Yep, ignore hereditary genetics and all we know from biology and I guess you have a point. An animal passes on its genes to its offspring, it’s straight forward, any mutations that arise will be passed on and we be evident from population to population. And in this case, such a mutation is quite apparent.
“but, for some unfathomable reason, for God it's moronic?”
b/c the ‘god dun it’ isn’t a testable scientific hypothesis, thought you’d at least know how falsifiability and science work. in any possible arrangement ‘god done it that way’ can’t be falsified and thus isn’t a science explanation.
“And from those people who brought us Archeorapter! We bring you the Genographic Project...”
Way to dodge the question.. It’s ok little lion, I understand you’re Gish Gallop quite well. Only earlier you stated you read ‘National Geographic’ to imply they and you as a result know there stuff, only to turn around and fire back on your reference later….WoW. Nice logic, what’s next, you’re going to turn your guns on Discover? You should know, it was exposed as a fraud from the scientific method and it was published b/c they rushed to judgment instead of critique as normal. O well, I can’t blame you for not wanting to debate this topic, after all if your position its not one I’d want to touch either! Archeorapter aside, there are over a dozen other theropod dinosaurs with feathers. So, how do explain the Geographic project, or will you even bother?
Keruso
“many evolutionary experts clearly believe that all fossils with feathers are birds”
Well which ones? I would say some theropod dinosaurs which exhibit feathers have all the hallmarks of being nearly avian, if not fully. Feathers as a trait don’t make an animal a bird, however many of the ostrich like dinosaurs (Ornithomimidae) those that had feathers or proto feathers were nearly avian. As were microraptor, protoarcheopteryx and others.
“and your personal non-expert youtube contributions in no way mitigates this expert dissent”
Ummm, not all of those vids are from my own collection, others are from cell biologists bonobobill and DonExodus. If you are so inclined, ask them for their articles they’ve worked on and they will cite them. Regardless, each of us have cited our work, so the work and evidence speaks for itself and doesn’t hinge off of our vids in the first place.
Mostly I read articles from Nature, Science American, Nat Geographic, Plos, and similar online or magazine articles. Magazines and articles are generally not filled with much substance compared with actual books on the subject., so I prefer books with citations of articles. As far as books, paleontology like Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and , anthropology like ‘From Lucy to Language’ and ‘Becoming Human’, evolutionary biology, mostly Gould, Dawkins, and others. Some cosmology like ‘Universe in a nutshell’ and ‘death by black hole’.
“your laymans' 'estimate' of somehow better than an expert's 'estimate'...”
Human chromosome 2 as the result of a fusion isn’t an estimate at all, it’s backed by clear observations and facts about what we know on DNA and neither are the 7 identical ERV’s we and Chimps share estimates. ERV’s make up some 8-9% of the humane genome, they are well known. Michael Behe agrees with human common ancestry and both ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion as a fact of our past DNA, what does that tell you?
“Funny that dates matter ONLY when you don't like the conclusion”
No, you were referring to an older article and no current ones demonstrate chimps having 10% more base pairs of DNA anywhere. All you ever cited was an estimate, way to go.
“we simply will never agree that there was a chromosome 2 fusion, more detail later.”
How blind are you? The facts are there, go and research them for yourself. Go back to the Nature article I cited on Human chromosome 2 fusion, they say it’s apparent b/c of how our 2nd chromosome contains an extra inactive Centromere and an extra set of telomeres in the middle of the chromosome. If we have recent common ancestry with the great apes we must explain why we have 1 less pair of chromosomes and for an entire chromosome to up and disappear during meiosis is impossible as it would halt embryonic development and kill it spot on. Thus, the chromosome couldn’t have gotten lost, the only explanation is that is fused to another chromosome and this we have evidence to back up.
Agentorange,
Me: “Funny, 2 new posts (one in 6 parts) and this is all you have to say any of them?”
Quote: Sorry, but it’s hard to stay on topic and debate a single topic when you’re writing novels.
Man, I'm truly sorry. If I didn't have to repeat myself, clear up misrepresentations, and define terms, I probable could be much briefer, however it seems I don't have that luxury... (I know - we have an Heisenberg obstruction between us.)
And what 'single topic'? You've pulled out poorly quoted Bible verses, Chromosome 2 and ERVs, so-called 'transitional fossils' and 'speciation', unsupported claim of America's supposed scientific ignorance ('belief' is not the same as 'knowledge'), etc. so I have no I idea what 'single topic' we suppose to be on (I know I wasn't part of a topic limiting discussion).
Me: “Do feather make the bird?”
Quote: Absolutely not...
As I have already said, many evolutionary experts clearly believe that all fossils with feathers are birds - This in no way implies feathers were the only factor these evolutionary experts used to classify these fossils - and your personal non-expert youtube contributions in no way mitigates this expert dissent.
Me: “I do get popular pro-evolutionary scientific magazines”
Quote: Like…..?
I have boxes of PopSci, Discover (current), National Geographic, Astronomy (current). I grew up with PopSci and NatGeo. Peferred TV channels: History, Animal Planet, or Discover. I live on the net researching either science or the Bible. How about you?
Quote: Why not refer to all the articles... instead of retiring to your older outdated Marks... ‘estimate’. Not even Marks doubts the evidence for Human Chromosome 2 fusion and its evidence for common ancestry, but you don’t let that get in the way now do you.
Here we go again, your laymans' 'estimate' of somehow better than an expert's 'estimate'... See my post Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:09 pm so I don't have to repeat myself.
And see my two short post for Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:14 pm and 3:13 on how important dates really are to you... Plus these additions:
lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15815621 - Still no chimps discussed
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html - Same article and still no chimps
www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2005/nhgri-06.htm - Here's that NIH PR guy again and 2002 reference. Using your standard, I can ignore
www.genome.gov/13514624 Same article again.
www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm References from 1992, 1991, and 1980.
(Kewl, Marks' paper 'exists', at least for the moment.) Funny that dates matter ONLY when you don't like the conclusion and even funnier how you adapt all the other information included in Marks' papers.
And, again, we simply will never agree that there was a chromosome 2 fusion, more detail later.
Part 2
Quote: Since you're taking Marks’ opion above all others, perhas you should contact him or see if you can find articles in which he agrees with the evidence of Human Chromosome 2 fusion and the ERV's as irefutiable evidence for common ancestry and evolution.
Ok... Um didn't you just pull out a Marks' reference to Chromo 2 that I GAVE you? Old Heisenberg at it again?
Irrefutable? ... If common ancestry is NOT TRUE the comparison of DNA can tells you absolutely NOTHING about common ancestry only common chemistry. Hence using an assumption to prove itself isn't proof of anything. It's like 'logically' assuming only active posters could possibly be responsible for 'thumbing' any given post.
Why is it when scientist usurp unrelated DNA to 'genetically engineer' 'better' corn, wheat, cotton, or bioluminescent fish, it's genius (with unknown environmental and health backlashes), but, for some unfathomable reason, for God it's moronic?
Quote: Since you’re so fond of genetic evidence, what you you make of the Genographic Project?
www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
Yea, I'm the one who has been bringing up the Chromo 2 fusion since before I joined the site (My 1st post - Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:44 pm - with my first response to Chromosome 2 fusion)... Yep it is my 'fondness' that's being addressed...
And from those people who brought us Archeorapter! We bring you the Genographic Project...
Quote: They use mtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA and the mutations that accumulate over time to establish how old our Sapien lineage is and how related we are and it demonstrates the migratory paths.
And
Quote: Sorry, but you’re wrong. ERV’s (endogenous retrovirus) are relic viruses that have reverse transcribed their RNA into their hosts DNA genome.
And
All Chromo 2 refs
Wrong is in the eye of the beholder. If thousands DNA strains were designed for a common environment and food sources but originated from thousands of unique origins, it would hardly be surprising to find them similar in construction and chemistry. There are only 64 possible nucleotide combination for any codon (all but 4 code for an amino acid) and there are a very limited number of workable DNA recipes for making and usefully folding any given protein (chains range from 100s [most] to 280,000 [vary rare] amino acids) or enzymes for building or breaking down said proteins and 20 amino acid bases. So, comparing said DNA would only mislead you into believing there was a common genetic origin. (Why is again that man can reuse and splice DNA but God can't?)
The only way to avoid this 'misunderstanding' is to design each creation to used a completely unique (no sharing) 'DNA'/'amino acid' chemistry. However, where would each organism get the unique 'amino acids' they need to survive? Not from each other, that's for sure.
Part 3
Quote: "the mutations that accumulate over time to establish how old our Sapien lineage is" OR "are relic viruses that have reverse transcribed their RNA"
First assumption - Evolution happened therefore - second assumption - ALL DNA differences are the result of mutation starting at a single ancestor (OR viral insertions) and it is thus possible to work backwards to find 'dates'. I.E. Evolutionist can find 'dates' because they will accept no other possibility of origin. This is called a circular argument. B when viewed only with A proves A. Well there's a surprise. It's like those annoying definition in the dictionary that have a word defining itself, and just as useless. Anyone can 'prove' anything, if done so recursively. Common ancestry PROVES evolution only because evolution DEFINES common ancestry. If, however, evolution is not true, DNA comparison with an eye for common ancestry are a complete waste of time and money.
Quote: And no, the DNA doesn’t show the lineage being 6000 yearsold, it’s quite a bit older.
Yes, clearly thousands of independently created, fully formed lifeforms and their prerequisite fully formed DNA strands would plainly show a common ancestor just 6000 years ago... Very logical.
Quote: It’s entirely illogical for a ‘designer’ to... but when one considers the hypothesis of common ancestry such evidence can be explained... he processes of chromosome deletions, duplications, translocations and FUSIONS occur naturally and need no ‘god did it’ to explain how they fused in the first place. Injecting ‘god did it’ into such an example where natural evidence can explain is entirely illogical.
Why is it (again) when scientist play DNA Russian roulette to create novelty bioluminescent fish and allergy causing corn or wheat, it's genius... But for God, who by definition is the Creator of the first DNA and the 'natural', it's moronic or 'illogical' and 'unnatural'.
And why is it that outside the unobservable past, no one claims these 'natural' events are a 'good thing'? That no one recommends adding, deleting, or translocating an X, Y, or chromo 2 in human embryos and so often recommends the 'termination' of 'natural' versions before birth? Why, in our 'enlightened' state, we are stopping 'natural' human evolution in its tracks? Shouldn't you be demanding doctors stop for the sake of a better sapiens species? Why don't we want to BE or RAISE evolution's next "missing" link? If evolution is so 'natural', what are evolutionists so afraid of?
"are filled ERV’s makes absolutely no sense to be there at all," and, I'm sure we thoroughly understand what this DNA does or does not do, cause we can custom design lifeforms completely base by base from scratch, right? Or we can clone with 100% efficiency, or cure disease, or guarantee 100% perfect pregnancies and babies, and etc...
And using the assumption common ancestry to prove of itself is illogical.
Part 4 A
Quote: I could of swore earlier I stated that when deletions and insertions are factored in, it’s not 98%, bur rather 95%, here... "I said earlier that including deletions and insertions we are 98% similar genetically - Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 am".
Umm, I'm afraid you mis-remember. After viewing all 17 pages of post, I first mentioned 95% Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:14 pm (currently 1 page back). This is the only post I am active on.
However, what is your point? That as time goes by and analysis are completed chimps and human are looking less and less similar? Cause that is definitely my point. (Oh and the 95% number is in Marks' 'outdated' 2003 paper as well)
Quote: Ya never mind how the .pdf also mentions DNA Hybridization which reveals a close genetic relationship by comparing ½ the genome.
"Close" is such a vague and relative term. Alpha Centauri and Andromeda are "close" on a universal scale, but I wouldn't recommend planning a "day" trip. And 5% sound like such a small number until you realized that 150,000,000 base pairs, or enough to fill 140 average sized novels or equivalent to 50% of the US population. Or that it is enough code to produce up to 250,000 unique proteins or enzymes.
A 'close' 50% is nowhere near 95%. And never mind that any two completely random and unrelated genetic strand must statistically be (at least) 25% alike. Or that we use the same proteins, fuel sources, body form, etc. increasing the required statistical percentage of similarity significantly. Or that we don't conclusively know that 90% of DNA is 'junk'. Or that the reproduction of useless DNA makes no evolutionary sense. Or the next point...
Me: “And how it appears that we humans share more genetic markers with orangutans than chimpanzees, that chimps have tips and bands we don't, and that chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA,”
Part 4 B
Quote: Are you kidding or what? This .pfd from 2002? on pg 136...
2003 and I am not taking about the sample DNA string.
To quote Marks: "Not only that, but something entirely unfamiliar will be evident--bands at the tips of nearly every chromosome and even in the middle... have been seen in every chimpanzee and gorilla studied, and in no human or orangutan"
Currently the 'family' tree hold the human/chimp ancestor split from gorillas and their combined ancestor split from orangutans. However this is a problem for those aforementioned chimp and gorillas chromo bands since the two species most distantly apart in the 'family' tree don't have those bands and chimps and gorillas don't share a unique ancestor.
That means when the supposed splits happened one of the following occurred:
1. When the Chimp/Human ancestor broke from Gorillas it didn't have the bands and that Chimps&Gors co-evolved them.
2. Or when the C/H ancestor broke from Gs it had the bands but the Hs (like the orangutans long before them) 'lost' them.
(And for some reason no expert evolutionist likes either possibilities-not even Marks). Thus my statement "it appears that we humans share more genetic markers with orangutans than chimpanzees"
Part 5
Me: “chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA”
Quote: Ya, and so do humans lack quantities of chimp DNA;
Here, again, we have another case of the Special Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (SHUP). As we can see in last section the subject clearly quotes my statement "that chimps have tips and bands we don't", yet for some unknown reason, our subject appears to 'forgotten' that just one argument later, as he feel he must inform me of this shortage as if it's news. Ladies and Gentleman, it is clear that the SHUP is a real phenomena and research is needed to determine it's impact on society and reasoned debate.
Quote: this is b/c of accumulated mutations since the common ancestors split. This again is the result of mutations (insertions and deletions) within the genome that overtime build up and result in differences.
Again see the assumption of common ancestry to prove common ancestry, which proves nothing.
Quote: ‘What is the cause of the tip’, yep, as pg 143 points out, it’s pseudo junk –DNA which lacks and gene function.
I'm fully aware of that, this is only part of the quote I can't get to post no matter how I try.... "C-banding seems to mark highly redundant 'junk' DNA sequences (satellite DNA)." I actually read my sources before posting them... However, after digesting all the accumulated differences, one is left with a distinct impression that these differences are more than 5% of either genome, or the remaining 3.2% that you recognize (5% - 1.8% genome size difference or 50 million bases)... and thus 95% 'identical' is as arbitrary and meaningless as Marks and other claim.
Me: ‘including the majority of the Y chromosome”
Quote: Well, if you didn’t already know, the Y chromosome is among the smallest of all the human chromosomes, and has the least amount of coded proteins so relatively speaking, it matters less than you think.
Really? (shaking head) And this changes what about '(in other words, that which makes one a male has virtually nothing in common with our supposed closest male animal cousin - pages 142-3)'. That it 'matters' little to protein coding is immaterial to the argument of common ancestry. Only that it is different matters. If, say, 7% (yes this is a made up number) of the two genomes are radically different, then how can one say we are 95% identical. Of course, you do understand that 5% of the genome is roughly 150 million base pairs and that that is no small difference.
Quote: "'blood' is someone analogus to plasma in medical circlces, my bad"
Quote: I misread your comment, grow up.
And had another Heisenberg moment, as I clearly stated in the original post that plasma was both 55% of blood AND ionized gas. So, I wonder, what exactly was the point of 'telling' me something I clearly already knew?
agentorange
I read your stuff on different articles even though I don't enter into the conversation. You are my 'favorite' evolutionist.
Keruso,
Well sorry, but it seemed almost obvious that since you an I were primarily the only ones in dialog here (save seedplanter) that therfore you'd be the most likely to thumb up/down my comments here. No, I don't mean any youtube vids, only on here.
Seedplanter,
Quote: I would have to respectfully disagree with you in the premises you present.
May I know which ones and why?
That if the Bible was changed to suit every ones preconceptions or misconceptions, that nothing would be left? If "agentonery" edited the Bible, what would he leave in (He has down graded archeology to a pseudo-science because they have found evidence validating the Bible histories and periods of authorship)?
That God is not locked into our logic and our science and thus it is possible for there to be a literal sword?
That doubters inferring the Last Supper supports cannibalism is ridiculous?
That are we all sin addicts? That our sinful nature is always tempting us to 'sin just once more, it won't hurt anyone'?
That we self deceive? That we try to justify sin?
That Jesus is the 'Wonderful Councilor' who helps us fight our sin addiction?
That John understood metaphors and similes and used then more than 50, yet didn't when speaking of the sword in the mouth? Or that John and Jesus could not have spoke plainly and said something like "slay with the Word of my/his mouth" instead; if that was what was meant?
That saying 'the sword isn't literal' is giving non-Christian doubter more ammo not less?
Seedplanter Part 2
Quote: There are numerous Scriptures that are quite obviously intended to be taken symbolically.
Yes there are a great many, and all of them include a clear explanation right in the same text or words such as 'like', 'as', etc. The parables all have clear explanations, many images of Revelation have explanations, many prophetic images of the Hebrew testament contain detailed explanations, and the dreams are clearly explained. Anytime an explanation is needed it is given plainly. Anytime it refers to a simile it is also clearly stated.
Quote: This has never caused any serious problems with Christians becoming skeptics.
Hunh? I thought we were discussing non-Christians skeptics not Christians becoming skeptics.
Quote: It is not denying the miraculous, but rather allowing Scripture to interpret itself without imposing more upon the text than what should be there.... Regarding the sword out of his mouth; the word of God is what seems to be emphasized here.
I am in agreement with the power of God's spoken word (I am in total awe of what it can do) and I am also all for the Bible interpreting itself. However, the Bible gives no reason to limit this sword to the purely invisible manifestation of speaking. Just as Jesus is the Word of God made literally man (John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...) the Word can also be a literal sword in the mouth of that man (Revelation 19:21 The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh - the birds are clearly feeding on literal bodies from this sword.)
I also agree with importance of original language and customs, as some of my post will attest. However, when none of these explain what is read, then one must accept what is left, the plain reading, even if it defies human logic.
Tot tell the truth, I have run been here myself. I started a Evolutionary Creationist and slowly, after years of Bible (and Science) study (particularly the last few chapters of Job - which I find extremely humbling), progressed through to Bible literalist. Why? Because I realized I was setting limits for God, something I had no business doing. Since I can not comprehend the breadth and magnitude of the life and the Universe in its vast yet finite fullness, I clearly can not comprehend the power, form, and majesty of their infinite Creator.
Star,
I don't think Agentorange is referring to the post here, I believe he is referring to his youtube videos. But thank you!
agentorange
I am the one who gave you the 'thumbs down'.
Agentorange,
First to pull this from the bottom, because this should not wait for the rest of my reply...
Quote: And since you didn’t reply to my other vids and only ‘thumbed them down’ (how mature)
I did NOT 'thumbed them down', how mature of you to accuse without proof. Frankly, I have specifically avoided 'thumbing down' or 'up' anything because of my involvement in this post. That would be improper and it clearly evident in the spotty 'thumbing down' or 'up' history here.
Since this CP article is on 'home schooling' I think these links are quite intersting.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/mike_behe_friend_to_evolution.php
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/09/viewpoint_discrimination_and_t.php
"however, most mutations are harmful, and none have created a new type of organism."
Whaaa! most mutations are harmful!? no, virtually all mutations are compleately neutral, while only a small % of mutations are harmfull or beneficial. and new organisms have resulted from such mutations, all one need do is google 'observered speciation'.
“Funny, 2 new posts (one in 6 parts) and this is all you have to say any of them?”
Sorry, but it’s hard to stay on topic and debate a single topic when you’re writing novels.
“Do feather make the bird?”
Absolutely not. They are however a collection of key features associated with avians which define them as a taxonomic group. Had you watched the vid and really paid attention you’d realized that feathers in themselves do not make a bird. If they did then we have a bunch of dinosaurs to classify as avians. However an organism is never defined by a single trait, but instead by collectively all their traits.
“I do get popular pro-evolutionary scientific magazines”
Like…..?
'Let's see what Jonathan Marks has to say,"
Why not refer to all the articles on the matter instead of retiring to your older outdated Marks artilcle of an ‘estimate’. Not even Marks doubts the evidence for Human Chromosome 2 fusion and its evidence for common ancestry, but you don’t let that get in the way now do you.
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:15815621
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/apr2005/nhgri-06.htm
http://www.genome.gov/13514624
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
You can even look into a simple study example here
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/mmm.html
Since you're taking Marks’ opion above all others, perhas you should contact him or see if you can find articles in which he agrees with the evidence of Human Chromosome 2 fusion and the ERV's as irefutiable evidence for common ancestry and evolution.
Since you’re so fond of genetic evidence, what you you make of the Genographic Project?
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
They use mtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA and the mutations that accumulate over time to establish how old our Sapien lineage is and how related we are and it demonstrates the migratory paths. And no, the DNA doesn’t show the lineage being 6000 yearsold, it’s quite a bit older.
‘No doctor who calls for plasma is going to quietly accept whole blood or platelets”
I misread your comment, grow up.
“ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 are still an incredible economy of design”
Sorry, but you’re wrong. ERV’s (endogenous retrovirus) are relic viruses that have reverse transcribed their RNA into their hosts DNA genome. Too bad for you they aren’t single base sequences but are entire strings and therefore are easily identifiable. Most importantly they serve no biological function for the host and therefore serve no purpose for a designer to implant them into an organisms genome to begin with. Does it make sense for the designer to leave relic viral DNA encoded into two organisms that serves no biological function? Absolutely not. But, common ancestry can make sense of such evidence.
We and Chimps share 7 identical ERV’s in identical genetic locations (talk about astronomical odds) and most importantly the viruses select their insertion locations totally at random. So you got to ask yourself, why would we can Chimps have the same exact 7 in the exact 7 genetic areas unless common ancestry is the case. Sorry, but ‘god did it’ isn’t a scientific explanation as it’s not falsifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
It’s entirely illogical for a ‘designer’ to purposely put more evidence for common ancestry unless it was actually the case. From a ‘designer did it’ hypothesis the 9-10% of our genomes that are filled ERV’s makes absolutely no sense to be there at all, but when one considers the hypothesis of common ancestry such evidence can be explained.
The fusion of 2 ape chromosomes is evident by the LTR’s and how we find an extra inactive centromere and extra inactive telomeres. What’s more is that the processes of chromosome deletions, duplications, translocations and FUSIONS occur naturally and need no ‘god did it’ to explain how they fused in the first place. Injecting ‘god did it’ into such an example where natural evidence can explain is entirely illogical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
Keruso,
“And how it appears that we humans share more genetic markers with orangutans than chimpanzees, that chimps have tips and bands we don't, and that chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA,”
Are you kidding or what? This .pfd from 2002? on pg 136 describes only comparing ONE single base pair sequence in a single analysis to come to the conclusion that Orangutans are more closely genetically related.
I could of swore earlier I stated that when deletions and insertions are factored in, it’s not 98%, bur rather 95%, here… “I said earlier that including deletions and insertions we are 98% similar genetically - Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:47 am”. Ya never mind how the .pdf also mentions DNA Hybridization which reveals a close genetic relationship by comparing ½ the genome.
“chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA”
Ya, and so do humans lack quantities of chimp DNA; this is b/c of accumulated mutations since the common ancestors split. This again is the result of mutations (insertions and deletions) within the genome that overtime build up and result in differences. In such cases where the genes responsible are non-coding proteins (pseudo genes), they are known as ‘junk’, but a small % of them still have promoting function, while the majority is just that – junk.. And this is exactly what is in the Y-Chromosome as I think it’s only human genetic function is female to male regulation. ‘What is the cause of the tip’, yep, as pg 143 points out, it’s pseudo junk –DNA which lacks and gene function.
‘including the majority of the Y chromosome”
Well, if you didn’t already know, the Y chromosome is among the smallest of all the human chromosomes, and has the least amount of coded proteins so relatively speaking, it matters less than you think. Here’ a link where you can compare the areas of human chromosome to other mapped organisms, enjoy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/map_search.cgi?taxid=9606
And since you didn’t reply to my other vids and only ‘thumbed them down’ (how mature) I’ll repeat them. I like how on pg 143 it mentions reference to the Human Chromosome 2 fusion, too bad you didn’t comment on it.
"...if we alter the Bible to suit everyone preconceptions or misconceptions, there will be nothing left of it."
I would have to respectfully disagree with you in the premises you present.
There are numerous Scriptures that are quite obviously intended to be taken symbolically. This has never caused any serious problems with Christians becoming skeptics. Quite the opposite I would contend. The more we (and skeptics for that matter) can understand about the prophets, their culture, the language and who they were directing God’s message to makes an amazing difference. It allows us to rightly divide the word of truth and know how to apply it to our lives. This is in no wise watering it down in some sort of secular humanistic diatribe, but simple exegesis and hermeneutics. It is not denying the miraculous, but rather allowing Scripture to interpret itself without imposing more upon the text than what should be there.
Regarding the sword out of his mouth; the word of God is what seems to be emphasized here. Genesis says that God spoke the worlds into existence. Elsewhere it speaks of the word of His judgment. The faith Movement enjoys taking all kinds of Scripture literally, such as the weight, height and appearance of the Father based on the span of His hand and other accumulated data lifted from Scripture. I do not claim to be a scholar, but I doubt you could find more two scholars of different schools that hold to the rendering of a literal sword coming out of His mouth.
Agentorange,
Quote: 'blood' is someone analogus to plasma in medical circlces, my bad.
Saying 'blood' and 'plasma' are "some[what] analogus" in "medical circlces", while strictly true, is completely useless in practice. No doctor who calls for plasma is going to quietly accept whole blood or platelets (or vise versa) - not without some very good reasons (like there is no plasma available).
Funny, 2 new posts (one in 6 parts) and this is all you have to say any of them?
Quote: i'd really appreciate your input on these, especially the genetic evidence (ERV's and Human Chromosome 2).
Also funny, because that's not the impression I get... And my 'input' remains the same as it has since you first posted these. ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 are still an incredible economy of design (though I have new doubts about these similarities – see quotes below) and everything else still results in lot of internal evolutionist squabbling as to the validity of the evolutionary application. Example: Do feather make the bird? Some evolutionists say yes, other evolutionists say no. If evolutionary experts can't agree, why do you think your little videos would changed my opinion one iota (Remember, I do get popular pro-evolutionary scientific magazines and they are generally far more persuasive, if not slightly more reliable. At least they, to keep subscribers and income, have to publish retractions when they fail any semblance of due diligence.)
Now, let's see if I can get part of that missing 'part 2' post to load here since it applies.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/98.pdf
Let's see what Jonathan Marks has to say, "Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes. Genetic evolution involves much more than simply replacing one base with another. Thus even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzees, we find that the chimp's genome is [xxx>>]estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human's[<<xxx]; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and [xxx>>]that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contains a DNA sequence that is not present in humans[<<xxx]."
And that's [P]art 2, I missed copying the 'P'
art 2
Attempts to include direct quotes have not gone well, but I have included the link and page numbers. Be sure to tell Adobe to turn the page so that it is easier to read.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/natureculture.pdf
"But other measurements have shown that a chimpanzee cell has 10 percent more DNA a human cell..." page 137, second paragraph
Then there is that wonderfully informative description of how two DNA strands are arbitrarily analyzed for similarity on page 136-8. Or how insertions and deletions are arbitrarily counted “researchers have found the chimpanzee and human genomes not [in italics in original] to be 98 percent identical, but closer to 95 percent identical (Britten 2002). The problem, however, … that any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. Neither number has the force of accuracy, because the precise number obtained depends on what one recognizes as a meaningful difference (only nucleotide substitutions, or the genomic fruit salad of changes?), how one counts it (is a three-hundred-base insertion three hundred differences or only one?), and whether there is any scientific value at all in trying to derive and official amount of genetic difference between two species' genomes in the first place when the official amount necessarily combines differences of quantity and quality." (page 137-8.)
And how it appears that we humans share more genetic markers with orangutans than chimpanzees, that chimps have tips and bands we don't, and that chimps lack large quantities of satellite DNA, including the majority of the Y chromosome (in other words, that which makes one a male has virtually nothing in common with our supposed closest male animal cousin - pages 142-3). Wow, that certainly sounds like we are base for base an unqualified 95% genetically identical to chimpanzee. Gee, I don't know why I'm questioning all of this..
Keruso,
"Blood? Don’t you know what the forth state of matter is? I mean, my 13 year old, when quizzed, knew what it was. Ionized gas, aka plasma"
'blood' is somewhat analogus to plasma in medical circlces, my bad.
i'd really appreciate your input on these, especially the genetic evidence (ERV's and Human Chromosome 2).
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
evidence for common ancestry erv
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
evidence for common ancestry Human chromosome 2 fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
seedplanter,
Well this got a little more verbose than I intend, sorry...
These skeptics and atheists that so concern you are ignoring the teachings of the Christian testament against the ingesting of real blood, the work of Christian missionaries to stop modern cannibalism (sometimes at the cost of their own lives), and the facts of the Last Supper. At the Last Supper, it is clearly stated that Jesus passed around a cup of wine and piece of bread, not a cup of real human blood or a piece of real human flesh. The metaphor is clearly expressed. However with the sword in the mouth there is no metaphor but an apparent statement of fact. John clearly knew how to express a metaphor (or simile) as he uses 'hos' (Greek for like, as, etc.) as an expression of a metaphor about 50 times in Revelation.
www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=like&version1=31&searchtype=all&spanbegin=73&spanend=73
I heard behind me a loud voice [>>]like[<<] a trumpet,
His head and hair were white [>>]like[<<] wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were [>>]like[<<] blazing fire.
I will come [>>]like[<<] a thief
The sun turned black [>>]like[<<] sackcloth made of goat hair
and it turned into blood [>>]like[<<] that of a dead man
Then I saw three evil spirits that looked [>>]like[<<] frogs
The great street of the city was of pure gold, [>>]like[<<] transparent glass.
compared this to the 4 references about the sword:
www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=sword+mouth&searchtype=all&version1=31&bookset=2
In his right hand he held seven stars, and [>>]out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword[<<]. His face was [>>]like[<<] the sun shining in all its brilliance.
This is a direct quote from Jesus: "Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."
Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."
The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.
Even if John was having a difficult time expressing what he was seeing, why would Jesus have the same problem and make the same mistake? Or given that the Bible has been proven, over and over again, to be historically accurate, what reason is there to doubt other statements of fact, even those that do not conform to our pitiful logic? And I find it troubling that any Christian would give more weight to what a skeptics or atheist 'believes' than what the Bible says about itself. If all Christian had that attitude, proof of Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hittites, the crucifixion, etc, would still be buried in the sands and skeptical historians would still be arguing that they don't exist.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is God inspired (or God Breathed)...
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning...
Part 2
Skeptics and atheists will use any excuse not to believe, it is the nature of an addict (and we are all sin addicts to varying degrees). If you think a change in the 'understanding' of verses will change that, then you don't understand the insidious nature of lying to oneself. Drug addicts do it. Alcoholics do it. Habitual liars do it. Physical abusers do it. Thieves do it. Murderers do it. Why wouldn't any other sin addict do it? I mean, we have all done it and still do it. Honestly, how many times have you tried to rationalize a sin away only (I hope) to realize the folly and take it to Jesus? It is only when one recognizes one needs help that one will take steps to get help and try to change. There in lies the roadblock for God 'doubters'. They don't recognize that they need help and are, just like every other addict, in denial. They will use literally anything to hide from that need. We have all been guilty of it at one time or another. A Christian is not unlike the reformed alcoholic. We attend our version of AA, we confess our addiction and how it has hurt others (at least to our Councilor) and, IF we are sincere, we spend every day fighting to stay on the wagon, or failing that, Jesus stands ready to help us get back on.
Further, IF (and that's a big IF) God doubters contemplate the existence of God, they try to lock God, the author of all scientific laws, into the rules of THIS Universe (not unlike you are doing). They don't recognized the power of God nor that he is beyond the physical laws he designed. Do you really believe God is locked into the laws of this Universe? That it is impossible for Jesus, the creator of space and time, to have a genuine sword in his mouth?
And where do we draw the line? If the Bible own wording isn't the measure by we judge the literalness of a reference, then why believe in the literalness of the 10 Commandments or the sacrifice of Jesus? This is the ammo you are giving them by this point of view. Why should they believe any part of the Bible if you get to pick and choose what parts to believe (even this relatively minor thing)? We have only one reliable and absolute guideline for determining the literalness of a reference, the Bible itself, even if it defies our logic and our science.
Finally, if we alter the Bible to suit everyone preconceptions or misconceptions, there will be nothing left of it.
seedplanter,
Quote: Glad you liked my flags! I got mixed up and thought it was July.
The 4th? lol! ;)
Anywho I working on my reply, just a busy day.
Keruso my point is that we are to take the things in the Bible literally that were intended to be taken literally. Many atheists think that Jesus advocated some sort of cannibalism when he gave his blood and body at the last supper. These spurious interpretations of obvious metaphorical language are not only a drag for believers, but also betray the skeptic for their lack of meaningful critiques.
Glad you liked my flags! I got mixed up and thought it was July.
seedplanter,
Me: “A sword coming out of Jesus mouth is either literal or an insult to reasonability.”
Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Quote: (I flagged myself)
Boy did you! LOL
And the delay is not a problem ;) "AgentOrnery" has been keeping me very entertained, as you can tell!
My only point is, it is not impossible for there to be a literal sword. We are dealing with a person who made the Universe and everything in it. What would be ridicules for us could very well be literal for him. You are writing it off as John's struggle to communicate when all he needed to do was say "And the remnant were slain with the sword [that is not a sword] of him that sat upon the horse, which sword [that is not a sword] proceeded out of his mouth" and making it clear he didn't have the words for it. Or better yet get rid of the 'metaphor' altogether "And the remnant were slain with the [Word] of him that sat upon the horse, [whose Word] proceeded out of his mouth."
Agentorange
Me: “This 'ignorance' of science of which you speak, do you have some actual testing numbers that show this, because,”
Quote: I am referring to the parents generation, and how overall most people are quite scientifically inept and unable to know and distinguish the difference between pseudo science like creationism and intelligent design and real science backed by evidence like evolution.
Your testing results for general 'scientific ineptitude' are where? Funny how it is that same 'inept' 'parent generation' teaching all those scholastically outstanding home schoolers. Again, are you saying the standardized tests are bias towards Creation? Because, according to your logic, that is the only possible way home schoolers could surpass their public school equals. I believe you are confusing belief with knowledge. One can know something and not while not believing, much as you 'know' (and I use this term extremely loosely as your demonstrated knowledge is second hand at best) of God but don't believe in God.
Quote: And you apparently don’t see the problem in letting laymen’s choose what’s best to teach as science….horrid!
Why not, you don't have a problem with 'laymen' setting the standards in the field of Primate Genetics...
Chimpanzees and their 2.8 billion base pairs. Source:
www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7930
- still a journalist
www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf
- still no genome size
Humans 2.85 billion base pairs. Sources: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03001.html
- still has 71 references but none for its 2.85 billion number
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3000742.stm
- still a journalist
I am still waiting on a creditable and credited genome size reference instead of the bzillion journalist quoting a number of unknown origin and supported by expert paper that don't (just like the above) comment anything one way or the other...
Quote: However, compared globally our kids, public schooled or not don’t measure up well against many other kids in respect to science and math, that too is a fact.
What does this has to do with what Americans adults know or don't know?
Anyway it isn't true. 'Most' of the world's population receives little or no formal education due to POVERTY (huebler.blogspot.com/ ). However the Japanese and industrial south-eastern China do appear to out perform ON AVERAGE. I'd like to see the numbers that breakout home schoolers verse these Oriental students.
Part 2
Me: “Yes, I know you'll disagree, but then ask yourself where is the anger coming from?”
Quote: What anger? I am communicating with a person (you) that thinks the whole universe and everything in it is 6000 years old,
Ahhh, so name calling is 'communicating'? How interesting. And what exactly what does this name calling 'communicate'? Reasonability? Contentment? Security? Maturity? Brotherly love? Tolerance? Acceptance? Joy? Happiness? Intelligence? (or your favorites) Dignity and Respect? etc... Yes, I can see how calling people 'morons' or 'glassy-eyed mouth breathers' would generally incline them to listen to you.
Quote: and thinks that ‘letting the kids decide’ is somehow a logical way to go about teaching them anything.
And I have no idea what you mean by ‘letting the kids decide’. The legal definition of a minor is anyone under 18 and they can not legally decide anything (unless legally emancipated). In the US, only those persons over 18 are consider legally able to express their preferences through voting and majority rule (as well be drafted into the horrors of war). An opinion, right or wrong, does not give anyone the right to circumvent the right of majority rule. History has shown, over and over again, each right you give up is one you will not see that government return. One of these days, you will turn around and find that you don't have any rights left.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up." Pastor Martin Niemöller
I am still waiting for you to point out the 'ignorance' exception clause in the US Constitution.
Part 3
Me: “Just because angels are called stars does not mean the reverse is also true”
Quote: Calling a massive ball of gas an angel is wrong and no amount of word games can hide that. But thinking that such things could (somehow) come crashing down to earth only makes it worse. And both of these notions were thought by them.
So all the Hollywood 'stars', such as Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt, are giant balls of ‘gas' as well as famous actors? - And you wonder why I have to quote the dictionary so often. And both notions were thought by you, not 'them'. I repeat - stars are NEVER, EVER, EVER called angels, however angel are called stars, not unlike our Hollywood actors (and, luckily, when actors go super nova, we don't need to worry about an extinction causing event).
Me: “Revelation does not refer to falling stars in the sense in of which you write, that is meteorites or balls of plasma.”
Quote: Well if they are meteors or balls of plasma (blood)? Then why didn’t they who are revealing such divine wisdom clearly define the two so it’s more apparent so it’s not lost in translation.
Blood? Don’t you know what the forth state of matter is? I mean, my 13 year old, when quizzed, knew what it was. Ionized gas, aka plasma. That which all stars, lightning, and the auroras are made and the same stuff used in arc welding, fluorescent bulbs, neon signs, and plasma novelty lamps (the really cool ones that arc to your finger when you touch them)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 (Saying a star is a 'ball of gas' is like saying the 'oceans are solid'.) This is basic middle school science. And you are accusing me of poor research?
And the two are defined, very clearly, as two different things, but you aren't listening. Now I see why - you don't have a grasp of basic English scientific terms, such as the duel use plasma which is either 55% of blood or ionized gas - so how could you possibly understand the sometimes radically different Hebrew or Greek terms?
P.S. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are 'balls of gas'.
Part 4
Me: “Why such intolerance of those who believe in creation?”
Quote: … am only trying to shed light on some evidence regarding a science theory that for whatever reason people like yourself can’t handle.
Really? And exactly how do 'fool', 'moron', 'liar', or 'glassy eyed mouth breather' 'shed light' on some evolutionary evidence? And what about that Democracy thing that you so casually toss out the window because of a supposed public 'ignorance'? Wow, I can't imagine why I would think you are intolerance of those who believe in creation... You still make me laugh... Really, I am not kidding. You are ridiculously funny...
Quote: I am not picking on you,….Ahh, why’s everyone picking on me! Help help I say, persecution here, a person is attempting to show evidence for a science theory!
Me thinks me hear the pot calling the kettle black.
Agentorange: "Good, tell danny/bob or what ever alias he uses to hit the road. enough is enough already, have some dignity and some respect for others and yourself and try to be considerate."
And I still trying to wrap my noodle around the concept of how one whose IQ you judge equivalent to pond scum, could possibly 'ridicule' you with English lessons or via anything else for that matter?
If expecting you to hold to the standard you demand of others is crying 'persecution' then hear me roar!
Quote: You know Keruso, I would have more respect for you if you simply researched issues you claim to know and talk about.
You mean the same 'respect' you give the US Constitution (and the men who have dies to preserve it), for scientific Archeology (and its 'morbid' or 'unhealthy mental state'), or Dr. Jonathan Marks Primate Geneticist? If that is what you call respect, who needs it.
And as to the research... Like you have thoroughly researched the Bible? Or your research of worldwide education difference? Or how you've read the articles you provide to make sure they actually say what you claim and have Genetic expert authorship or traceable references? Or perhaps you refer to your impeccable dictionary research emphasizing word understanding and clarity as with archeologist, plasma, bogus, morbid, earth vs Earth, estimates, etc.? My goodness, you're right, based on your standard I've been working too hard!! I should be making this up as I go...
Quote: You put all that effort in trying to make it appear like I am the bad guy,
(laughing, honestly) You don't need my help, you appear to be doing a splendid job of that all by your little old self. Besides, it requires mental acuity you don't give me credit for. (Is Orange man saying Keruso smart? Naw, must be teasing.)
Part 5
Quote: all the while you never bothered to back up your original claim regarding 10% more Chimp DNA. I guess for you it’s much easier to argue over such things then address the actual facts.
Here is again, what seems like the bzillionth time, the same article I've been giving you all along, you know the one by Jonathan Marks, expert in Primate Genetics and evolutionist. Strangely, it seems to be governed by variation of Heisenberg's Uncertain Principle that applies only to you, at times it is real and at other times nonexistent. First page, third column, second paragraph, look for ‘10’.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/98.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle - in case you need the reference to understand what I am referring to. I wouldn't want you to think wasn't researching my information...
me: [1 Chronicles 16:29-30 "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name... ] Fear before him, all the earth [or dry ground]: the world [or habitable part] also shall be [>>]stable[<<], that it be not moved”
Quote: How does this not indicate the EARTH DOESN’T MOVE again? It might not literally say ‘earth moveth not’, but it implies the very same thing regardless.
“A 'stable' earth”
Yes, you are right, this verse is obviously referring the most terrible punishment God could ever devise, the proper motion of the planet Earth. Give God his due or suffer the awesome and terrible 'rotating planet' punishment (darn, can't use that one the Sun is already rising and setting so the Earth is already rotating). Ooo, how about, fear and dread the hideous and unbearable 'orbital' punishment (nope, can't use that one, there are already seasons, so the Earth is already in orbit). I know! Whimper and cower before the mighty 'relative galactic motion' punishment (and the ancient peoples will notice this how?) Yes, clearly God is referring to celestial motion, not something as mundane and relatively harmless as an earthquake. Who would possibly fear anything as insignificant as that?
If you can not grasp the distinction between plate tectonics (earthquakes) and celestial mechanics (planetary rotation and orbits) nor comprehend that ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, ancient Latin, or any other contemporary ancient language does not contain an equivalent to Modern English's planet Earth (which would be required to describe this planet as 'moveth' or 'moveth not' through space), then I can not explain it to you. Your insistence on the planetary definition of Earth (ground, water, AND atmosphere - two of which are NOT 'dry land' or 'habitable parts') over the reasonably similar ground/earth definition will prevent all comprehension on your part.
planet - derived from the Latin or Greek: to wander - In ancient time was one of the seven celestial bodies that 'wandered' against the background stars - the Moon, the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn
Part 6
“No example of so-called speciation is uncontested.”
Riiihgt, like all these right? www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Oh I was sooo hoping you'd pull this back up, you mean those '[>>]only[<<] four examples of speciation events' (that's a direct quote) which have failed to peak even the liberal, pro-evolution media’s interest? Funny that.
And what exactly is the definition of a species? To quote talkorigins "what constitutes a species... is a topic of [>>]considerable debate within the biological community[<<]." And according to Stephen Jay Gould, one of the high priest of evolution, "Cerion is the land snail of maximal diversity in form throughout the entire world. There's 600 described species of this single genus. In fact, [>>]they're not really species[<<], they all interbreed, but the names exist to express a real phenomenon which is this incredible morphological diversity." Hmmm, 600 species of snail that aren't really different species but are just different in appearance, like Darwin's finches (with, currently, 14 morphological and species), dogs (with 400 morphological and 1 species), etc (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould ). Now if a man you probably worship say defining a species is a bit arbitrary (and talkorigin agrees) exactly why should I believe talksorigin's assertion on speciation?
Yes I flagged myself
“A sword coming out of Jesus mouth is either literal or an insult to reasonability.”
Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword...
Sorry it took so long to respond Keruso.
This example of the sword coming out of his mouth being the Word of the Lord is appropriate and logical. However, it is still not a literal sword made out of steel, wood or whatever. Therefore it is in fact not literal in the true sense of the word. I suppose that one could make the argument that it is an invisible sword with some kind of quantum physiology, but I don’t think that that was what Paul and John intended. For Paul it was an attempt to help explain a spiritual truth and in John’s case an apocalyptic foreshadowing of the events to come; events that were likely difficult for not only him to explain on paper (as having been given a vision) possibly here even difficult to translate into our English and culture. Please notice, I said difficult, not impossible.
(I flagged myself)
AgentOrnery,
It is interesting as I have been studying Neo-Darwinism I have discovered that while it may be that DNA may or may not be evidence of common decent, if it is the case it does not necessarily imply natural selection in conjunction with random genetic mutations in fact is proven. It may in fact never be proven. While it may be that certain relatively insignificant changes may have been observed, it does not empirically prove the efficacy of them being able to independently co-opt together to obtain higher functioning orders of life and species.
By the way did you happen to see the new British poll that was done on the resurrection?
Agentorange
I find the two posts below (Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:02 pm and 4:32 pm) a very amusing read. How, all in one post you can claim that 'no one is saying' 3, 2.85, or 2 billion is 'precise' (ergo: an 'estimate' or 'an approximate judgment or calculation, as of the value, amount, time, size, or weight of something') but that I am the only one quoting an 'estimate'. That, somehow, the word 'estimate', when added to a paper, has a magically meaning of imprecision that differs radically from its synonyms 'about' (as in 'contains about 3 billion base pairs' www.genome.gov/15515096 ) and 'roughly' (as in, to quote you, 'both genomes are generally regarded as being roughly 3 billion in total'). And how you rationalize a 6.7% (2.8) rounding to 3 billion as reasonable but that adding 10% (3.135 or 2.85 + 10%) and rounding that as unreasonable (is that that new math again? cause I was always taught 2.8, 2.85, 3.135, or even 3.3 rounded to the nearest whole number were all 3).
"Truly you have a dizzying intellect." - The Dread Pirate Roberts
More soon…
“You are using 'bogus' purely with the intent to offend.”
Oh please. His CLAIM his ESTIMATE that you latched on to is bogus and consequently if you cling to it so readily then you’re not only partly a maker of bogus claims but a fool to boot.
“I also find it amusing that you seem to have NO problem with a 6.7% variance in size within the SAME genome, but are trying everything to discredit a variance of 10% between two DIFFERENT genomes.”
All members of homo sapiens share 99.99 idential DNA, while Chimps have more genetic diversity but they don't have a variance of 6.7% within their own species, if they do show me the article on this one too. A given species can't have such a wide variance or they wouldn't even be the same species in the first place.
Well, if you knew how to read and understand what ‘roughly’ means in reference to 3 billion and how it lines up nicely with both 2.80 and 2.85 billion you’d have no problems. Apparently you have a semantics troubles on what the definition of ‘roughly’ is.
“Wow, so then we have precisely 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our DNA! Or is it precisely 2,850,000,000 base pairs? I am so confused! 'rolleyes'”
No one I ever cited said we or Chimips have PRECISELY 3 billlion base pairs, rather that we have ROUGHLY 3 billion. Roughly and precisely obviously imply a diferent meaning, this is why you can't grasp it. Rolls eyes back…
“contains ABOUT 3 billion base pairs” you know, ‘about’, like close to, or almost, and certainly not ‘precisely’ or ‘exactly’. Read closer.
- www.genome.gov/15515096
“All the numbers we are discussing here are 'estimates', but that hasn't stopped you from shouting your preferred 'estimates' from the roof tops has it? And exactly which one is the new preferred one?”
Ugh, YOU were the one citing an ‘estimate’ I don’t recall citing anything that referred to as only an estimate. There is no new preferred one, there never has been. When we talk about the ‘rough length’ of something (you know like base pairs) they can round it up and in this case the 2.80 and 2.85 billion are generally referred to as ‘roughly 3 billion base pairs in length’ and not precisely 3 billion base pairs in length.
Take a crack at the other genetic and fossil evidence I mentioned in those vid links.
“Every one of your expert sources has been mute on the subject of chimp genome size, including this new one”
No they haven’t, refer to the articles again.
Chimpanzees and their 2.8 billion base pairs. Source:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7930
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf
Humans 2.85 billion base pairs. Sources: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03001.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3000742.stm
“So which is it, 3 billion or 2.8 billion?”
It’s 2,8 for chimps and 2.85 for us, do keep in mind that when reporting such figures, they use the term “ROUGHLY 3 billion base pairs” and not “EXACTLY 3 billion base pairs”, context it matters!
2.8 and 2.85 billion is roughly (gramatically speaking) 3 billion, see how that works? When they refer to the 3 billion figures, they do so for laymen’s to grasp.
Regardless, both genomes are generally regarded as being roughly 3 billion in total, howerver when refered to their actual length they are 2.80 and 2.85 respectively and are therefore very close in total size/length or what have you and therefore you’re comment of chimps having 10% more DNA is dead wrong. Get over it already and address the other evidence I gave.
Agentorange,
Quote: www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf etc.... 10% more DNA…okaaay. Now that we’ve put that one to bed, please comment on this evidence as well.
Again with the reporters. I don't mind if Marks' number is wrong. However, I am funny in that I do demand evidence from someone who actually gets a paycheck for their knowledge of primate genetics, not someone who gets their paycheck for their linguistic skills. Every one of your expert sources has been mute on the subject of chimp genome size, including this new one... For all I know these journalist and PR reps are quoting sources far older than 2002 or, as it is beginning to appear, making these numbers up. So this is definitely not 'put to bed'. I also find it humorous that these numbers don't agree with each other now:
Chimpanzee DNA
newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7930 August 31, 2005 2.8 Billion by Robin Orwant Journalist for New Science Magazine
vs
www.genome.gov/15515096 August 31, 2005 3 Billion By Geoff Spencer PR specialist NIH
So which is it, 3 billion or 2.8 billion? Both article are from the exact same day and both were supplied as evidence by you against Marks' 10% difference. 6.7% is a rather large margin of error inside the Chimp genome for it to still be even 95% identical to human DNA.
Part 1 B - Part 2 is still giving me problems
Human DNA
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03001.html October 21, 2004 which quotes several dozen sources publish between 1992 and 2004
vs
www.genome.gov/15515096 August 31, 2005 3 Billion By Geoff Spencer PR specialist NIH
So, according to your logic so far, 3 Billion 2005 number is the better because it is newer than the 2004 or older number of 2.85 billion (no source is given for this number so its exact age is unknown). By your date priority logic, that means Chimps could be less than 93.5% identical before counting even one insertions, deletions, or mutations.
By the way, that's the same Geoff Spencer NIH PR guy (that you are now apparently discrediting) of whom you have recently said "based on his background and career it would seem reasonable that he would have a platform to give reputable representation of the facts and speak on behalf of those in the field for which he works".
Part 1 and 2 will have to wait, I'm having posting problems again! This is frustrating!
test
Part 3
Me: “Saying I am making a 'bogus claim', as you put it, is calling me (and, in effect, Jonathon Marks) a liar. My friend, I begin to think you need to invest in a dictionary.”
Quote: Whatever,... Your claim of Chimps having 10% more DNA is wrong as is Marks ‘estimate’ that you clung to without bating an eye and all the while crying about how I was referring to other articles, which were more recent and contradicted your/his claim. If you didn’t lie, you made an outright wrong/bogus claim. Deal with it. Chimps don’t have 10% more DNA, get over it, lets move on to more evidence already.
Yes, I know, my demand for a credited and creditable expert source is SOOO terribly unreasonable. Poor dear...
Me: “And you are still blaming me for the number as if I wrote the paper”
Quote: You earlier used his estimate to back up your horrid claim of 10% more DNA and now that you realize it’s hollow you’re attempting to back pedal to save face. This is why you’ve spent more time devoting to ridicule me by referring me to a dictionary as opposed to actually researching articles to back up your claim.
First, you seem to be confused. Am I 'clinging' to unquestionably or 'back peddling' from Marks' 10% number? One can not do both. For clarity, I will state plainly, I am doing neither. I accept Dr. Marks as the only expert to give any idea of the Chimpanzee Genome size, however I also am open to any credited and credibility number (as I believe I have said before, I would truly be interested in the precise count, if such a number exist). Just because I have higher standard of scienctific credibility than you does not imply I am less open (if fact this is the same high standard I apply to the Bible - funny how your standard is so heavily lopsided). I am simply more cautious (with ample reason). So if you don't like the number take it up with Jonathan Marks, the expert, just as you have demanded of me in reference to your NIH PR guy, Geoff Spencer (whom you, with your most recent links, are now suddenly discrediting).
And it is funny, one minute you claim I don't have an article and the next minute you admit I do. That new math is really messing with your head...
Second, how very funny! How can I, a foolish, moronic, ignorant, deluded "glossy eyed mouth breather", possibly perform the mental gymnastics required to 'ridicule' you with a simple English lesson. According to you, I am not even capable of the type of 'low brow' ridicule you have repeatedly demonstrated so such subtly should clearly be beyond my pitiful abilities. Seriously, you are truly hilarious! I mean... hehe, orange man very silly, make Keruso laugh whole bunches! Do again! Pleaz!
Part 4
Quote: "If [A] you didn’t lie, [then] [B] you made an outright wrong/bogus claim."
Funny thing about 'if/then' it implies either A or B is true. So if, as you claimed, you never called me a liar, then A isn't even a possible option and should never have been written. Nor should B contain the word bogus, because you are still saying 'if you didn't lie, then you (or Dr. Marks) lied.' You not fooling anyone. You are using 'bogus' purely with the intent to offend.
As for B-wrong, I am simply quoting a Evolution and Primate Genetic expert on the matter, something you still have failed to do. So, as I've said, if you don't like it, take it up with Dr. Marks. I also find it amusing that you seem to have NO problem with a 6.7% variance in size within the SAME genome, but are trying everything to discredit a variance of 10% between two DIFFERENT genomes.
“That means he has no reason to FUDGE the number in favor of Creation”
Quote: Ahem…..Marks’ conclusion was an ‘estimate’...
Wow, so then we have precisely 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our DNA! Or is it precisely 2,850,000,000 base pairs? I am so confused! 'rolleyes' All the numbers we are discussing here are 'estimates', but that hasn't stopped you from shouting your preferred 'estimates' from the roof tops has it? And exactly which one is the new preferred one?
Quote: I’ll accept Marks had it wrong and so should you.
How magnanimous of you! Very generous, really! A truly great and costly sacrifice on your part, one from which I'm sure you will never recover! (lolrotf, Orange man funny. Make Keruso's side hurt heaps, hehe) Have you actually read any of his papers? It is clear this guy knows his profession (Primate Geneticist) and it is unlikely he is far off the precision mark. You also need to make up your mind on whether this paper does or does not exist. 'nada' articles and 'Marks had it wrong' does not compute.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/
Keruso
“This 'ignorance' of science of which you speak, do you have some actual testing numbers that show this, because,”
I am referring to the parents generation, and how overall most people are quite scientifically inept and unable to know and distinguish the difference between pseudo science like creationism and intelligent design and real science backed by evidence like evolution. And you apparently don’t see the problem in letting laymen’s choose what’s best to teach as science….horrid! Even worse is you want the ‘kids to decide’ while in class, as if they knew the differences from pseudo science and real evidence supported science.
However, compared globally our kids, public schooled or not don’t measure up well against many other kids in respect to science and math, that too is a fact.
“Yes, I know you'll disagree, but then ask yourself where is the anger coming from?”
What anger? I am communicating with a person (you) that thinks the whole universe and everything in it is 6000 years old, and thinks that ‘letting the kids decide’ is somehow a logical way to go about teaching them anything.
“Why such intolerance of those who believe in creation?”
Uh oh, did I pick at your scab or something? I am not picking on you, I am only trying to shed light on some evidence regarding a science theory that for whatever reason people like yourself can’t handle. Ahh, why’s everyone picking on me! Help help I say, persecution here, a person is attempting to show evidence for a science theory!
You know Keruso, I would have more respect for you if you simply researched issues you claim to know and talk about. You put all that effort in trying to make it appear like I am the bad guy, all the while you never bothered to back up your original claim regarding 10% more Chimp DNA. I guess for you it’s much easier to argue over such things then address the actual facts.
“Fear before him, all the earth [or dry ground]: the world [or habitable part] also shall be [>>]stable, that it be not moved”
How does this not indicate the EARTH DOESN’T MOVE again? It might not literally say ‘earth moveth not’, but it implies the very same thing regardless.
“A 'stable' earth”
This can be read so many ways it’s embarrassing and regardless how it’s read it’s still wrong. The earth moves and in more ways than one, deal with it.
“Just because angels are called stars does not mean the reverse is also true”
Calling a massive ball of gas an angel is wrong and no amount of word games can hide that. But thinking that such things could (somehow) come crashing down to earth only makes it worse. And both of these notions were thought by them.
“Revelation does not refer to falling stars in the sense in of which you write, that is meteorites or balls of plasma.”
Well if they are meteors or balls of plasma (blood)? Then why didn’t they who are revealing such divine wisdom clearly define the two so it’s more apparent so it’s not lost in translation.
“No example of so-called speciation is uncontested.”
Riiihgt, like all these right? www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Way to get side tracked and not address a singe piece of evidence I mentioned earlier. But for good measure I will repost them so it’s apparent I’d like your input on them.
Now that we’ve put that one to bed, please comment on this evidence as well.
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
evidence for common ancestry erv
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
evidence for common ancestry Human chromosome 2 fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
PS. You can thank me later for correcting you on the whole chimp and human DNA bit.
Keruso,
“Ah yes, and how DNA is 'aligned' and 'insertions and deletions' are determined and counted is a fascinating read (link above). It seems evolutionist consider any size insertions or deletions as 1 to 1, i.e. 1 to 25 counts the same as a 1 to 1, 2, 5, or 10.”
The 98% similarity is based on the 40 million base differences between chimp and human genomes this is the lowest possible exact measurement, which results in a 1.33…% difference, do try to comprehend that..
“As I said, all the others are disputed as either true birds or true dino with quills, bristles, or fuzz, not some hybrid.”
Riiiight. Never mind all the anatomical similarities from certain theropod dinosaurs and the first primitive birds, it’s all just coincidence for you.
No, I am just stating perhaps you were looking at pictures from casts and not the real thing, obviously the bones can’t be in numerous places at once and generally the bones are kept in museums only, while casts are sent out abroad.
“And does that change that no one seems to know how she goes together?”
Total non sequitur. NEWSFLASH, ‘Lucy’ isn’t the only specimen we have of Australopithecus afarensis, so obviously lining up her skeleton doesn’t hinge off of ‘Lucy’ only. ‘Lucy’ is old news, we have numerous Afarensis specimins, and you act like she’s the only one!
“If we share DNA then there is no Designer. If we don't share DNA then there is no Designer.”
Another non sequitur. With regards to ERV’s and HC2 it’s demonstrating a shared evolutionary past as DNA is a living record. No designer/god would purposely leave MORE evidence around for evolution and a natural process like fusion to occur if they could *poof* fully formed being into existence. Somehow this escapes you.
“where were Neanderthals in the family tree 30 years ago?”
30 YO it wasn’t certain where they were in relation to us (sapiens) but thanks to more fossil find and DNA, it’s evident they weren’t our direct ancestors. 30 YO them being our ancestors was a possibility, however as more evidence has come to light we know they weren’t direct ancestors, but instead like us branched off from homo heidelbergensis.
“you see, I had Haeckel's Diagram 1870's in my 1970's high school text book,”
B o o – h o o. They were drawings, not bio scans like these. Haeckel's idea on embryology wasn’t exactly right, however clearly more closely related organisms share longer periods of development throughout their growth, while the most dissimilar organisms differentiate sooner.
http://www.mk-richardson.com/images/science%20high%20res.jpg
Since you’re so fond of embryonic development and it’s cues to evolution, perhaps you should read this.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php
Agentorange,
Me: “Let see, your quote of 1% difference (1.33% actually) equals 4% difference how?”
Quote: Oh dear. It’s b/c Chimps have their own insertions and deletions, that’s how.
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/natureculture.pdf
Ah yes, and how DNA is 'aligned' and 'insertions and deletions' are determined and counted is a fascinating read (link above). It seems evolutionist consider any size insertions or deletions as 1 to 1, i.e. 1 to 25 counts the same as a 1 to 1, 2, 5, or 10. I also love how the same two chimp and human DNA samples can be aligned three at least different ways via arbitrary insertion of gaps and how this evolutionist admits that the matching is, well, arbitrary leading to a likewise arbitrary count of insertions, deletions, and 'errors'. This process is laughable as ANY two random four base strings will match with regularity to a very high degree using this methodology. I recommend everyone read the link above it is very enlightening.
Me: ‘Yep, ALL the Dino-birds were frauds, of which I believe there have been exactly 3”
Quote: You’re deluded pal. I list over a dozen specie specimens all having feathers or proto feathers and you instantly dismiss them? Horrid.
As I said, all the others are disputed as either true birds or true dino with quills, bristles, or fuzz, not some hybrid. And there is that oh so friendly 'pal' again...
Me: “Oh and I do love how Lucy's seems to gain and lose an arm bone and how her rib arrangement changes.”
Quote: Did you even think that perhaps one of those you're looking at it a cast and not the original?
Funny, how none of these pictures state they are castings as honesty would demand. And does that change that no one seems to know how she goes together? And they can't recast the missing parts or take better care of the original cast? And how does casing change the length or size of bones? It amazes me that such an 'important' find is handled with such disrespect by the very people who worship her!
Me: “I see an incredible economy of design.”
Quote: You’re missing the point. A designer wouldn’t leave 7 identical ERV’s in the same genetic locations of two species now would he?
What a designer or wouldn't do is a little beyond the human race. We don't even know what 90% of the DNA does. I also find it interesting that all evidence is proof against design and that NO evidence can prove it. If we share DNA then there is no Designer. If we don't share DNA then there is no Designer.
Part 2
Quote: [Neanderthals] evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis like Homo Sapiens did, but both in different regions. Neanderthals to the north while Sapiens in Africa. All you creationists can do is fall back to hoaxes as you'd never want to confront actual fossils.
You have missed my point - where were Neanderthals in the family tree 30 years ago? And where will Neanderthals be 30 years from now? Scientist have demonstrated, unequivocally, through a long history of admitted failures and frauds, an unwavering, unscientific bias toward evolution. That they will make and publish any claim of support long before any examination or verification is done or testable facts are available and they will perpetuate any hoax as long as it is useful (you see, I had Haeckel's Diagram 1870's in my 1970's high school text book, 70 to 100 years after it was declared a complete fraud, where was the outpouring of evolutionary outrage at the survival of this "bogus claim"?) The simple fact is, in their over zealous desire to prove evolution, anything goes, even 'useful' frauds. If evolutionist put half as much energy in to cleaning house and crossing their t's and dotting their i's as they put into fighting and insulting Creationist or Intelligent Designers, they might actually have a leg to stand on.
Me: “First the phrase 'the earth moveth not' does not appear in any English version of the Bible I can get my hands on”
Quote: Time to revise your bible then 1 Chronicles -"The earth ... shall be stable, that it be not moved." There are others of course. Regardless if it’s talking about earthquakes, orbits, or revolutions, the earth moves and in more ways then one so to say it moves is fundamentally flawed.
1 Chronicles 16:29-30 "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name... Fear before him, all the earth [or dry ground]: the world [or habitable part] also shall be [>>]stable, that it be not moved[<<]" Posted by Keruso (me) Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:58 pm
Funny how you strategically and selectively edited my verse to suit you... You are proving my above point about evolutionist and their intellectual dishonesty and anything goes attitude. Simply, if you are willing to abuse and misrepresent the very public and easily referenced Bible to try and prove your case, what else are you willing abuse and misrepresent?
Orbits and planetary revolutions (Astronomy) are not the source of earthquakes, plate techonics (Geology) are and not even science classifies them as the same. A 'stable' earth (dry ground and habitable parts) is one that does not shake. My 'habitable parts' verse clearly does not support your contention that the Bible claims the planet Earth does not move. Playing word games won't change that.
Part 3 & 4
Me: “The few times the Bible refers to fallen stars it refers to fallen angels,”
Quote: Right, b/c they were even MORE ignorant, and thought stars were actually angels.
Again you point your name calling finger in the wrong direction. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek says anything of the kind. The lights in the night sky are never referred to as 'angels'. Just because angels are called stars does not mean the reverse is also true. That flawed leap of logic is all your own.
Quote: In revelations it refers to falling stars.
Again you demonstrating your lack of Bible knowledge and your willingness to misrepresent it and information I supply to your own purpose, even after multiple corrections on a matter. I repeat, Revelation does not refer to falling stars in the sense in of which you write, that is meteorites or balls of plasma. It refers to angels - commonly refereed to as "shining stars" because they are beings of light - though in this case of the fallen verity, being cast to earth from heaven (as in the seat of God's throne and paradise definition - which is the stage for 99% of the book of Revelation - not the void of space definition, in case you might be confused.)
And it's 'Revelation', singular not plural with a capital 'R' being as it is the title of a book.
Me: “Interesting, you don't deny there is no freedom of choice when comes to evolution.”
Quote: Not I don’t and it’s not b/c it’s evolution, it’s b/c it’s science and supported by the evidence. Should there be a ‘freedom of choice with regards to other science theories like gravity, atoms, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. ? No, there shouldn’t be. These are well observed and supported phenomena.
I would disagree about evolution being 'well observed and supported phenomena' unlike the other completely testable and proven sciences that you are trying to bucket with it. As I've said, adaptation and mutation is not the lone purview of evolution however speciation is. No example of so-called speciation is uncontested.
Me: ‘but adding "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." There are many in scientific circles that take exception to that statement.”
Part 5
Well the following quotes from you, agentorange, are insulting pieces of hogwash. To quote, well, you, agentorange: "have some dignity and some respect for others and yourself and try to be considerate." Apparently this respect and dignity is only required of other people who specifically mistreating YOU, like Danny/Bob did, your fellow evolutionist, who was flagging your post. Nice double standard. How could I not respect and trust the opinions of such a person impeccable integrity?
Quote: Ya, WHO? Let me guess…the clowns from the Disco Institute right?
The majority of the people of these United States. The country where tens of thousands of men and women [mostly Christians] have strived and died to secure the rights of Americans. Again I fear the ignorance isn't of science but of history.
Me: “Could you show me the exception of rights for the 'ignorant' in the American Constitution.”
Quote: The populace is ignorant on science, so how exactly do you expect them to form an educated decision on such a concept? They were already teaching all the processes involved with evolution, changing the curriculums name doesn’t change that. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Quote: With respect to science, we teach what is supported and not based on democratic hand waving by glossy eyed mouth breathers. This notion you put forth is horrid and as foolish as the ‘lets the kids decide’ illogical nonsense that the Disco Institute puts forth.
This 'ignorance' of science of which you speak, do you have some actual testing numbers that show this, because, you see, it is a proven fact that most home schooled children are brought up Christian and yet they somehow manage to, in majority, out score most public school students in science (as well as all other areas of education) in mandated state and federal standardized test. So are you saying that standardized tests are bias towards Creation?
Your venom shows exactly why evolutionist and their unproven folly don't deserve respect or consideration. Even in YOUR heart of hearts you clearly don't believe it. Yes, I know you'll disagree, but then ask yourself where is the anger coming from? Why such intolerance of those who believe in creation? It doesn't hurt you at all, except that it keeps reminding you that you don't really believe in evolution either, and that the other option is abhorrent to you...
To quote from a letter to Captain Bernard Acworth from C.S. Lewis, "What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
Keruso,
“Saying I am making a 'bogus claim', as you put it, is calling me (and, in effect, Jonathon Marks) a liar. My friend, I begin to think you need to invest in a dictionary.”
Whatever, Marks’ article is from 2002, do consider that too. Your claim of Chimps having 10% more DNA is wrong as is Marks ‘estimate’ that you clung to without bating an eye and all the while crying about how I was referring to other articles, which were more recent and contradicted your/his claim. If you didn’t lie, you made an outright wrong/bogus claim. Deal with it. Chimps don’t have 10% more DNA, get over it, lets move on to more evidence already.
“And you are still blaming me for the number as if I wrote the paper”
You earlier used his estimate to back up your horrid claim of 10% more DNA and now that you realize it’s hollow you’re attempting to back pedal to save face. This is why you’ve spent more time devoting to ridicule me by referring me to a dictionary as opposed to actually researching articles to back up your claim. Everyone can see right through it.
“That means he has no reason to FUDGE the number in favor of Creation”
Ahem…..Marks’ conclusion was an ‘estimate’ and one based a little too early perhaps as it turns out it’s wrong. I’ll accept Marks had it wrong and so should you. But since you’re into DNA and evolutionary evidence, please review the vids I posted and I’ll wait for your next comments. If I hear ‘god made it that way’ in reference to the ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2, I think I’ll shreek. I am sure you can see why ‘god made it that way’ isn’t falsifiable and therefore not a science explanation.
Keruso,
‘So anyone who works at a hospital is qualified to do brain surgery and anyone who works at a nuclear plant is qualified to run the reactor?”\
No, that’s not what I am implying, but based on his background and career it would seem reasonable that he would have a platform to give reputable representation of the facts and speak on behalf of those in the field for which he works. If you doubt him as a speaker, go to the article and review the work from the authors.
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf
Quit trying to sidetrack the argument here.
“I also find it amusing that I am expected to validate my information AND yours.”
Hey, I am the one asking for your articles that demonstrate Chimps have 10% more DNA as you’ve indicated….still nada, nothing. Here, have some egg on your face already.
Chimpanzees and their 2.8 billion base pairs. Source:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7930
http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf
Humans 2.85 billion base bairs. Sources: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03001.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3000742.stm
10% more DNA…okaaay. Now that we’ve put that one to bed, please comment on this evidence as well.
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Human evolution and missing links
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE
evidence for common ancestry erv
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
evidence for common ancestry Human chromosome 2 fusion
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
No ‘other transitionals’ right? Wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM
seedplanter,
Even though I quoted agentorange in my post to you the entire post is meant for you, not agentorange. Sorry about any confusion.
agentorange, Part 1 A
Last one!
“With proof, you still call me a liar. And you call a well respected geneticist a liar, just because of the YEAR on the article?”
Quote: I am not calling anyone anything. Marks, the same geneticist you cite accepts evolution, so it’s quite ironic of all the people you cite, you cite one that doesn’t agree with your principle view that evolution doesn’t/can’t occur.
Really? Dictionary.com
bogus - not genuine; counterfeit; spurious; sham.
spurious - NOT genuine, authentic, or TRUE
lie - to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive
Saying I am making a 'bogus claim', as you put it, is calling me (and, in effect, Jonathon Marks) a liar. My friend, I begin to think you need to invest in a dictionary.
And you are still blaming me for the number as if I wrote the paper. Jonathan Marks wrote it, a man who is an expert in the field of Primate Genetics, which you do not deny, and, as you rightly point out, is an Evolutionist. That means he has no reason to FUDGE the number in favor of Creation. If I had pointed to a Creationist number you would claim bias and shrugged it off that way -- and I wouldn't have blamed you. However, I give you a reputable number from a reputable expert from your side of the fence and some how I'm the one with issues? Accept it or don't but quit making it sound like I made it up.
agentorange, Part 1 B
Yes! It's working!!
“The Harvard Article adds something, which you agree is not part of the Nature article, and this improves its reliability how?”
Quote: No, it CITES the nature article and in doing so alludes to the fact that both we and Chimps have roughly 3 billion base pairs. Hence, why I quoted it. - “Among the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of BOTH humans and chimpanzees, researchers found differences in 40 million sites. It is in those sites where the differences between the two species lie.”
It allude to but does not quote 3 billion from the Nature article, well gee that make it all better... shaking head
agentorange link: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.htm
Yes, let take a closer look the Nature article, shall we. Again I point out there is no mention chimpanzee or their genome. Now let's examine the numbers given, 237 million base pairs plus 186 million base pairs equal 423 million. Divide 423 million by 3000 million and we get 14.1% (that's means 85.9% of the genome is not discussed). No chimps, no genome size estimate, and only 14% of the human genome discussed: yep I can see how one would get the current 96% identical number from this article... more shaking head
Part 2 A, agentorange
One billionth attempt to get this post up too...
Quote: Here’s the Nature analysis doc on Chimps DNA, nothing about 10% more DNA.
www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf
In fact, it says nothing one way or the other. That is not proof for or against Marks' 10%.
Me: “Again, you want me to believe three Computer Science & Engineering professors and one Anthropology doctor and professor over a doctor and professor of Genetic and Anthropology?”
Quote: No, I am advocating that you should agree with more recent, more confirmed data (like the ones I pointed out) based on deeper analysis by a wider group of scientists (like from Nature and HGP), as opposed to some ‘estimate’ by a single person.
Ah, I see, the date is more important than the credentials of the source. Friend, on this we will never agree. I have not seen any evidence that this chimp estimate is from one expert, let alone the more than one you claim (all 3 potential expert papers you quote don't say anything about genome size and the ones that do aren't by experts). In fact, you haven't proven it is more recent data or that it isn't juat a loose rounding of the 3.3 billion number. Jonathan Marks an expert in Human and Primate Genetics with obvious grasp of the finer details of genetic comparison.
www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9172.php
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/main.html
Agentorange,
Me: “I would disagree about the literalness of the imagery. God may need to talk down to us because of the understanding gap between us, but he isn't going to insult our intelligence either.”
Quote: Talk down to us?
This discussion wasn't aimed at you but at seedplanter. Your ID only got in the mix because seedplanter quoted you and I want to be clear that it was you speaking. Sorry, It wasn't until later that I realized you might think it was directed at you, but since your knowledge of the Bible is abysmal and all second hand, nothing I said there will convince you of anything nor was it intended to.
Part 2 B, agentorange
I have been trying to post this for over a week, hopefully this time it will go through.
Me: “And again no credentials on the author...”
Quote: Geoff Spencer works at NHGRI, I would say that would qualify him automatically for biological discussions. If you want info on him research it yourself. Besides, we’re not arguing over the commentary, or the author, but instead the facts they report and the facts don’t’ show 10% more Chimp DNA. Deal with it.
Ahh, qualifications are based on our place of employment. So anyone who works at a hospital is qualified to do brain surgery and anyone who works at a nuclear plant is qualified to run the reactor? Silly me, I thought one actually needed a highly specialized education (whoohoo, no need for college for the kids) -- oh, wait -- on second thought, perhaps managerial, secretarial, public relations/communications, and custodial requirements gotten a lot tougher in recent years?
I also find it amusing that I am expected to validate my information AND yours. Do you mean Geoff Spencer (spencerg at mail dot NIH dot gov) a Public Relations Specialist working for NIH?
science.education.nih.gov/LifeWorks.nsf/Interviews/Geoff+Spencer
www.genome.gov/15515096
Cont Part 3 & 4
Keruso,
“I would disagree about the literalness of the imagery. God may need to talk down to us because of the understanding gap between us, but he isn't going to insult our intelligence either.”
Talk down to us? Well, if so that doesn’t bold well for the purposes of a ‘revelation’ in the first place. It sounds more logical and reasonable for an omnipotent god in his infinite wisdom would have known to leave us the critical, need to know detailsin said revelation that would in time demonstrate their efficacy as opposed to leaving us with ambigious wordings that are less than direct. Well if he wants a revelation to come through as being seen as authoritative and accurate, the worst thing is to leave such passages lost in translation.
“A sword coming out of Jesus mouth is either literal or an insult to reasonability.”
Or, it’s a clever symbolic metaphor. Allegorical writing was quite common in that era, at least consider it and put it into perspective.
Let me know if you find an article demonstrating that Chimps have 10% more DNA than us, if not then I will consider it doesn’t exist and you made a mistake in your words earlier.
seedplanter,
Quote: You might be an atheist if…
Quote: You say that Christians don’t think for themselves but then make fun of them when they disagree with you.
Nice One!!
agentorange: “In revelations it refers to falling stars.”
Quote: AgentOrnery the Bible is full of imagery that is obviously not always intended to be taken literally (i.e. a sword coming out of Christ’s mouth). In this case in point it is apocalyptic imagery.
I would disagree about the literalness of the imagery. God may need to talk down to us because of the understanding gap between us, but he isn't going to insult our intelligence either. A sword coming out of Jesus mouth is either literal or an insult to reasonability. The Bible, in general, inclines me to believe God is reasonable and thus the sword must be literal. (And considering men are literally dying by this sword, I see no reason to doubt it literalness.)
Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Remember the Power of God, which is so often forgotten.
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Seedplanter,
You must understand, (and you already likely know that I don’t take it literally to begin with) I am only applying the same horrid logic and literalism that fundamentalists use to back their erroneous science claims or others in the first place. When it refers to god being a rock, no one takes that literally, but when similar obvious metaphors and symbolic passages are used they take them literally, it’s utterly illogical.
I mean they think the ‘tree of knowledge’ was (somehow) a real tree and ignore the subliminal underpinning meanings behind them all of it and instead opt for literal reading. Don’t they know St. Augustine said the scriptures aren’t supposed to be read in this manner?
The other side they don’t speak on is how at Nicaea so many previously important books (14 I think) were just up and removed, some 400 years after the events, and as if they could somehow by voting on it make sense of it at that point.
One can’t claim in one hand that the books are all divine and inspired by god and then in the next admit that 14 of the books were removed some 400 years after the fact. By what logic is it that man can supposedly usurp ‘god’s word’ and just remove them and somehow not nullify the veracity of the texts inadvertently? I’m sure you see the logical problem there.
“that no Jew thinks that the Book of Job is to be taken as a literal historical event.”
For the most part, I’d agree. Apologetics are for more rational IMO.
CALLING ALL CHRISTIAN'S!!! IT IS NOW TIME TO CONSECRATE OURSELVES BEFORE JESUS OUR KING. WE WILL NOW UNITE IN THE NAME OF JESUS IN PRAYER AND WE WILL REVOLT AGAINST THIS TYRANNY WITH NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE. BE PREPARED FOR A NEW WAVE OF PERSECUTION. WE WILL RESIST AND DISOBEY THE UNJUST LAWS OF THIS COURT IN CALIFORNIA. AND WHEN THEY SEND US TO JAIL, WE WILL EVANGELIZE THE ENTIRE PRISON SYSTEM UNTIL EVERY JAIL IN THIS NATION BECOMES A CHURCH SPILLING REVIVAL FIRE AND REPENTANCE ALL OVER THIS NATION. THE WICKED CANNOT STOP GOD AND HIS POWER. WE SHALL NOW GO TO A MUCH HIGHER COURT THAN EVEN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WE HEREBY STAND OUR GROUND - WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED OR SHAKEN. THESE PAGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE A COMPLETE FAILURE AND THEIR SECULAR HUMANISTIC SYSTEM IS CURSED TO PERPETUAL DESOLATION AND SHALL BE NO MORE FOREVER. THESE BULLS OF BASHAN GIVE THE CITIZENS THE "right" TO SLAUGHTER THEIR OWN CHILDREN, BUT IF THE CITIZENS HAVE THEM, THEY ARE THE NOW THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE. I REJECT THESE TYRANNICAL JUDGES' SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND THEIR RULING IS ENTIRELY WORTHLESS REFUSE WORTHY ONLY TO BE FLUSHED DOWN A CESSPOOL FILLED MAGGOTS THAT EAT THEIR OWN FLESH.
CHRISTIANS DEFEND YOUR CHILDREN. THEY ARE THE INHERITENCE OF THE LORD. FOR EVEN AS THE MOTHER OF MOSES HAD TO PROTECT MOSES, IN THIS PAGAN DEBAUCHEROUS LAND, WE MUST PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. DEFY THEIR RULING AND STAND AND SEE THE SALVATION OF YOUR GOD IN JESUS' NAME!
http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
“In revelations it refers to falling stars.”
AgentOrnery the Bible is full of imagery that is obviously not always intended to be taken literally (i.e. a sword coming out of Christ’s mouth). In this case in point it is apocalyptic imagery. I don’t think there is really any good reason to even think that this is referring to comets or asteroids. This is expressing God setting up His reign to the exclusion of all other rulers and kingdoms (again, just in case an atheist is taking this too literally, this does not mean that it only pertains to monarchies. lol). If there is any reason to doubt this interpretation, just look at how the same pronouncements are used in Scripture referring to past events (Isaiah 13:10 refers to Babylon).
Dennis Praeger who refers to himself as a religious Jew mentioned today on his radio program while discussing the problem of pain with an atheist, how that no Jew thinks that the Book of Job is to be taken as a literal historical event. The Scriptures are chocked full of poetry and psalms. Much of these so-called Bible discrepancies are nothing but straw-man arguments on steroids.
You might be an atheist if…
You say that Christians don’t think for themselves but then make fun of them when they disagree with you.
Concerning the “discrepancy” of the scarlet or the purple robe in Mat 27:28 and John 19:2.
And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when they had plaited a crown of thorns… (Mt 27:28, 29)
And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe…(John 19:2)
There is no discrepancy, both a scarlet and a purple robe were put on Jesus. The scarlet robe was put on Jesus sometime before the crown of thorns. The purple robe was put on Jesus sometime after the crown of thorns.
Concerning the “discrepancy” of Judas’ death:
Ac 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Mt 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
There is no discrepancy. Both scriptures describe a portion of the event surrounding Judas’ death. Together, the scriptures describe its totality. Again, we may find a few explanations, but there is no discrepancy.
1. After hanging himself, that which he attached himself to, broke, he then fell headlong into the midst of the field. His bursting may signify a ripening of the body before falling into the field.
2. After hanging himself, he was eventually cut loose, falling headlong into the midst of the field. He may have even been thrown into the field where he tumbled and fell headlong.
Keruso,
“Interesting, you don't deny there is no freedom of choice when comes to evolution.”
Not I don’t and it’s not b/c it’s evolution, it’s b/c it’s science and supported by the evidence. Should there be a ‘freedom of choice with regards to other science theories like gravity, atoms, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. ? No, there shouldn’t be. These are well observed and supported phenomena.
‘but adding "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." There are many in scientific circles that take exception to that statement.”
Ya, WHO? Let me guess…the clowns from the Disco Institute right?
“Could you show me the exception of rights for the 'ignorant' in the American Constitution.”
The populace is ignorant on science, so how exactly do you expect them to form an educated decision on such a concept? They were already teaching all the processes involved with evolution, changing the curriculums name doesn’t change that. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
With respect to science, we teach what is supported and not based on democratic hand waving by glossy eyed mouth breathers. This notion you put forth is horrid and as foolish as the ‘lets the kids decide’ illogical nonsense that the Disco Institute puts forth.
Keruso,
“I was not talking about the 10% and you know it, I was talking about the 96%.”
Fine, whatever. Find me a article that supports your claim that they have 10% more DNA and perhaps we’ll be done with that one. Till then, you're still comming up short in the cred department.
“Let see, your quote of 1% difference (1.33% actually) equals 4% difference how?”
Oh dear. It’s b/c Chimps have their own insertions and deletions, that’s how. I find it ironic you ask that question after I gave you the nature article decribing why.
‘Yep, ALL the Dino-birds were frauds, of which I believe there have been exactly 3”
You’re deluded pal. I list over a dozen specie specimens all having feathers or proto feathers and you instantly dismiss them? Horrid.
“And, exactly where do Neanderthals belong in our family tree these days?”
They evolved from Homo Heidelbergensis like Homo Sapiens did, but both in different regions. Neanderthals to the north while Sapiens in Africa. All you creationists can do is fall back to hoaxes as you'd never want to confront actual fossils.
“Oh and I do love how Lucy's seems to gain and lose an arm bone and how her rib arrangement changes.”
What are talking about? Did you even think that perhaps one of those you're looking at it a cast and not the original?
“I see an incredible economy of design.”
You’re missing the point. A designer wouldn’t leave 7 identical ERV’s in the same genetic locations of two species now would he? Do you know what an ERV is? Nor would he make a natural process like a fusion appear as if had occurred to show common ancestry.
“First the phrase 'the earth moveth not' does not appear in any English version of the Bible I can get my hands on”
Time to revise your bible then 1 Chronicles -"The earth ... shall be stable, that it be not moved." There are others of course. Regardless if it’s talking about earthquakes, orbits, or revolutions, the earth moves and in more ways then one so to say it moves is fundamentally flawed.
“The few times the Bible refers to fallen stars it refers to fallen angels,”
Right, b/c they were even MORE ignorant, and thought stars were actually angels. In revelations it refers to falling stars.
danny? first?
oldguy,
Bob, is that you?
oldguy
Why do you come to the CP? It seems like Christians give you heart burn. Why don't you do yourself a favor and leave.
By the way Keruso, if the invisible man in the sky didn't invent gravity do you think you would float up into space? Your "God created all natural processes" is childish nonsense.
Keruso, every religious belief you have is wishful thinking. Your beliefs do not have one shred of evidence. You have been brainwashed to believe faith is a virtue, but faith is nothing more than a mental illness. Faith is also a lazy excuse to not think.
All religions exist because people are afraid to think. It's so much safer to blindly accept religious indoctrination. Thinking is dangerous. Thinking is a sin.
"I'm afraid of my Father's disapproval and disappointment."
Right. You live your life being afraid of nothing.
Pathetic. Sickening. Disgusting. I want nothing to do with your childish insane cowardly religion.
"God created all natural processes."
Prove it.
oldguy,
"If you refuse to consider the existence of Gravity, nothing I say or do will help you accept it."
oldguy: Keruso, Are you sure you want to compare a natural process like gravity to a supernatural idea like heaven?
Yes, it actually is perfect. God created all natural processes.
Romans 1:20 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:
Nor does it invalidate my point. There is no proof for anyone who chooses not believe. If you don't want to believe in Gravity, not even falling off a cliff will convince you it exist, but that won't stop the ground from killing you.
oldguy: That's an interesting idea. You think a world without God would be even worse than it is now? People would become savages if they didn't have a God to fear?
Yes, let's look a what then absents of God has done, the Holocaust, Socialist Communism (Russia is doing so well now), deadly tainted toys from China, etc and think what will happen if extremist get their hands on nukes. Even those things done in the 'name' of God, the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Inquisition, Jihad, etc. None of these are condoned by Jesus. "Love thy enemy" and "turn to them the other cheek" do not allow even Christian holy wars and persecution.
oldguy: Sorry, this idea of yours just makes me glad I don't have the god disease. What a horrible way to waste a life, believing that you need to avoid the wrath of an imaginary bloodthirsty god.
Yes, charity and love toward all humans is a terrible waste of ones life. Mother Teresa certainly wasted her life and I am sure as she breathed her last she felt very empty surrounded by those who loved her...
I am not the least afraid of God's Wrath. I'm afraid of my Father's disapproval and disappointment.
And people will not be condemned to eternal fire for what they have done, but because they wouldn't give it up, not even for paradise. That is what forgiven means.
oldguy,
oldguy: The insanity of Islam is not evidence for any other religion.
But apparently it is evidence against them... How convenient.
"If you refuse to consider the existence of Gravity, nothing I say or do will help you accept it."
Keruso, Are you sure you want to compare a natural process like gravity to a supernatural idea like heaven?
"If it were not true, the world would have imploded years ago - as it will when God gives into to your wishing and bows completely out of human affairs."
That's an interesting idea. You think a world without God would be even worse than it is now? People would become savages if they didn't have a God to fear?
I have seen no evidence a God sticks its supernatural nose into human affairs. Unfortunately the people who do believe in this God have been killing each other for centuries because they believe in different versions of God.
A minority of humans will always find some excuse to kill each other, but getting rid of the God idea will at least eliminate one of those excuses. Another reason to get rid of the God idea is because it's obviously just a man-made invention.
"I'd rather be wrong and a person I can live with, than wrong and pay the price for all eternity."
Sorry, this idea of yours just makes me glad I don't have the god disease. What a horrible way to waste a life, believing that you need to avoid the wrath of an imaginary bloodthirsty god.
agentorange,
Part 3 and 4 are for you. I seem to be running into a posting limit. I'll post part 1 and 2 when the sight let's me.
oldguy
Jesus: A woman is man's help mate.
oldguy: That's typical of religions. Women exist to serve men. That's better than how Muslims treat females, but I'm not impressed.
This is not as a slave but as a equal - a gift to be loved. Torturing and murdering women for failure to where a veil is not Judeo-Christian standard.
oldguy: Jesus is the only way to heaven? Prove it. Better yet, prove there's a heaven.
I can not prove that which you do not want to even concider. If you refuse to concider the existance of Gravity, nothing I say or do will help you accept it.
oldguy: Religious people never consider the possibility everything they believe is an invention, something an ancient person made up because he wished it was true.
Oh I have consider if it's not true. If it were not true, the world would have imploded years ago - as it will when God gives into to your wishing and bows completely out of human affairs.
But it also doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I won't know the difference in oblivion. However if you are wrong, you will hardly fail to notice the intense pain of being eternal burned alive. I'd rather be wrong and a person I can live with, than wrong and pay the price for all eternity.
oldguy: Heaven is exactly what a feeble person would wish to be true.
oldguy: A feeble person would also wish for a guaranteed ticket to heaven, so these gullible brainwashed people are happy to accept the idea that praising Jesus is the ticket they want.
Yes, feeble people have long been known to stick to their 'wishful thinking' even under the threat of ridicule, torture, and death.
Atheist gives $22 million to Catholic fund:
“Let’s face it, without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization,” Robert W. Wilson (an atheist, philanthropist) said. “Shunning religious organizations would be abhorrent. Keep in mind, I’m helping to pay tuition. The money isn’t going directly to the schools.”
With such brilliant articulation, no wonder why Christians are not breaking the door down to the humanist churches crying out for science to save them.
Heaven is exactly what a feeble person would wish to be true.
A feeble person would also wish for a guaranteed ticket to heaven, so these gullible brainwashed people are happy to accept the idea that praising Jesus is the ticket they want.
"the truth claims of Jesus"
Please see the Jesus and Mo cartoon I recommended earlier.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/03/14/same/
“Jesus is the only way to heaven? Prove it. Better yet, prove there's a heaven.”
Maybe you should consider checking out The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright. The resurrection is demonstrable evidence for the truth claims of Jesus. As per heaven, I’m sure that it would not matter to you whether or not someone has been there, so I guess that you will have to wait and hope that it is not to late when it is your time to proceed into the next life to make the appropriate plans.
Oldguy, you seem to be arguing in circles. “The insanity of Islam is not evidence for any other religion.”
The illogical contrivance of skeptics is not evidence against Christianity.
Jesus: A woman is man's help mate.
That's typical of religions. Women exist to serve men. That's better than how Muslims treat females, but I'm not impressed. Why didn't Jesus say men and women are equal? Was Jesus a sexist pig? It's interesting that most preachers and all priests are males. In the secular world women are presidents of countries and corporations, but in the religious world women still live in the Dark Ages.
Jesus is the only way to heaven? Prove it. Better yet, prove there's a heaven.
Religious people never consider the possibility everything they believe is an invention, something an ancient person made up because he wished it was true. Religious people need to learn how to say "I don't know." Scientists say "I don't know" all the time. That's called being honest. Calling the Bible the word of God and claiming this is dogma that can't be questioned is not being honest. Everything should be questioned. Nothing should be sacred just because it's in an old book.
The insanity of Islam is not evidence for any other religion.
oldguy,
Quote: Jesus: "Easy - I REALLY REALLY know the truth."
Quote: Mohammed: "Same here."
And what are those truths....
Mohammed: Convert to Islam or die
Jesus: You choose, but know there are consequences
Mohammed: Celebrate the murder of your enemy (anyone remember the 9/11 oversea muslim reactions?)
Jesus: Love thy enemy, pray for those despitefully use you
Mohammed: The ways to Heaven are arbitrary, dependent on Allah's mood - unless you die a martyr killing infidels like the men of 9/11 or other suicide bombers.
Jesus: is the only Way, by his sacrifice he purchased forgiveness for those who believe
Mohammed: Don't lie to other Muslims men
Jesus: Don't lie to anyone
Mohammed: Eye for an eye
Jesus: Turn to them the other cheek
Mohammed: Women are unworthy beings
Jesus: A woman is man's help mate
Mohammed: Infidels should own no property and be poor and needy
Jesus: Help the needy and poor, no matter what they believe
Gee, I could see how you might confuse the two.
Two thumbs down. Nobody liked the "Jesus and Mo" cartoon.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/03/14/same/
Well, old guy said "ppphhhbbbtttt!"
and then keruso said "thhpppghtttbbbt"
and then old guy said "ppptthhhhbbbt"
Keruso "I am suggesting that its unaltered state and age are supporting evidence that it is true. The consistency of its message is the proof that it is true."
This is from a cartoon called "Jesus and Mo". It's about Jesus and Mohammed sitting at a bar having a conversation with the barmaid.
Barmaid: "Like you, all the other kinds of true believers in the world claim to be absolutely certain they know the truth."
Barmaid: "Like you, they protect their 'knowledge' from rational scrutiny by declaring it to be above and beyond reason."
Barmaid: "And like you, all these various true believers think that what makes them different from all the others is they alone REALLY do know the truth. So what is it that makes you different from all the others?"
Jesus: "Easy - I REALLY REALLY know the truth."
Mohammed: "Same here."
Part 3
Me: “And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me”
Quote: No they aren’t, they never claimed chimps have 10% more DNA. It’s an analysis of the 40 million differences within our both 3 billion base pairs. 40 million differences is barely over 1% difference in entire genomic comparison. Read it again. www.genome.gov/15515096
I was not talking about the 10% and you know it, I was talking about the 96%.
Me: "And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me. They agree that the 98% (or 96%) is not a comparison of the entire Genome. They even supply and example where only 38 base pairs of the 100 base pair mDNA sample match (that 38% identical as opposed to 96%). They agree the 96% number should be qualified, yet it still show up WITHOUT QUALIFICATION everywhere."
To quote the article: "The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence..."
Let see, your quote of 1% difference (1.33% actually) equals 4% difference how? Seems to me that's 2.67% short, but then I'm from the old school of math. This new math, as I understand it, is a bit quirky.
Quote: Sorry, right you said they were ALL frauds and thus don’t count, so here are some, explain them away. Your exact words “The series of "Dino" birds that have ALL turned out to be frauds and other fossil frauds.”... Since I assume you think all or many of the fossils are fake, how do you explain these?
Yep, ALL the Dino-birds were frauds, of which I believe there have been exactly 3, the most famous of which was funded by National Geographic.
Ah yes, 'I assume', now what is that saying about assuming? I can't quite seem to recall... I do not believe all or even most fossils fakes. However, Nebraska Man anyone? How about Piltdown Man? Java Man? And, exactly where do Neanderthals belong in our family tree these days? It keeps changing. Oh and I do love how Lucy's seems to gain and lose an arm bone and how her rib arrangement changes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224363,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/lucy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
Quote: Here’s Theropod Dinosaurs with feathers, certainly not all frauds... Avialians (birds) look up Confuciusornis, ...
Aren't Avialians (birds) um considered true birds as the word in parentheses implies? And all the rest are hotly disputed, as either true feathered birds or dinos with quills or bristles but no feathers. The only dinos that were possibly both bird and dino have turned out to be cleaver frauds. (I do subscribe to pro-evolution science magazines - yes that is plural - you know. In fact I own the National Geographic Archaeoraptor issue and their imaginative but unrealistic feathered baby T-Rex and Deinonychus issue)
Part 4
Quote: If you don’t like fossils, here’s some on genetic evidence. ERR’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion.
I see an incredible economy of design.
“I'm sure many archeologists will be shock to discover they are not scientist.”
They aren’t ‘scientists’ in the normal vernacular of what scientists do. Such as physics, astronomy, biology, etc. In a morbid sense archeologists do work within science, never the less their finds that back up archeological finds within the bible don’t back up literal quasi science readings in the bible. It's scripture not science. Case in point’ the earth moveth not’, where as mentioned already it certainly moves and in more ways than one...
morbid - suggesting an unhealthy mental state or attitude; unwholesomely gloomy, sensitive, extreme, etc. ex: a morbid interest in death.
Oh now there are levels of 'scientists'. And this 'morbid sense' within which archeologists apparently works within science disturbs me. Are they unhealthy in mental state? Or are they just a sensitive, unwholesomely gloomy bunch?
And we've already discussed 'the earth moveth not' quasi-bible knowledge, but I'll repeat. First the phrase 'the earth moveth not' does not appear in any English version of the Bible I can get my hands on - Biblegateway.com. Second, in English, earth with a little 'e' refers to ground - Earth, with a big 'E' is the planet. Hebrew is even stricter as it limits 'erets' (the transliterated Hebrew word) to only dry land, excluding soil and rock under bodies of water. Third, the closest match - 1 Chronicles 16:29-30 "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name... Fear before him, all the earth [or dry ground]: the world [or habitable part] also shall be [>>]stable, that it be not moved[<<]" - is clearly talking about earthquakes not orbits or planetary rotation. Forth, the original meaning of 'planet' is 'wanderer' or 'wandering star' (Latin and Greek) and included only 7 bodies: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
“And what is the common name for a falling meteor, is it not a shooting or falling STAR?”
Quote: And this proves my point of how ignorant they were of such things ... Calling them ‘stars’, doesn’t change what they actually are and it’s wrong. If you’re saying then perhaps the bible is referring to asteroids that will come down to earth, then would expect, with any revelation that such knowledge be accurate and describe what they meant, as opposed to leaving a revelation to be so ambiguous to be lost in translation.
I'm afraid you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. We, and by we I mean the English speaking nations, are the one who call meteors and comet debris falling stars. WE are the 'ignorant' ones of which you speak. The Bible doesn't speak about falling lights. The few times the Bible refers to fallen stars it refers to fallen angels, which are also called stars. Lucifer means 'morning star'.
oldguy,
Keruso "Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)?"
oldguy: Are you suggesting the Bible is true and the Qur'an is false because the Bible is older?
No sir, I am suggesting that its unaltered state and age are supporting evidence that it is true. The conistancy of its message is the proof that it is true.
oldguy
You know nothing about what you are talking about.
You were raised in the Catholic faith,weren't you? You rejected it when you were old enough to know it was wrong, didn't you? I don't blame you for rejecting it. But you were never introduced to the real Jesus.
Maybe one day you will come to know the real Jesus who died for your sins and rose from the dead to give you forgiveness of sin and eternal life if you accept what He did for you by asking Him to forgive you of your sins, come live in your heart, and be the Lord of your life.
If you ever do, then God will change your life. He wil give you a new nature that is after His own. He will fill that emptiness that is in your heart. He will heal your wounded spirit. He will give your life meaning and purpose as you walk in obedience to Him. You will know that He is what His Word says He is.
Even though you reject God, He still loves you, He still cares for you, and He still wants a personal relationship with you.
agentorange20,
“As the Florida article demonstrates (link below), evolutionist DON'T permit questioning and neither does the new Florida Science standard”
Quote: Oh boy. They were already teaching the processes of biological evolution, however they didn’t refer to it by evolution, and instead used ‘biological changes over time’, which is ironically what evolution exactly is. Not acknowledging a word for how a process occurs doesn’t negate the process, it ‘s just word semantics.
Interesting, you don't deny there is no freedom of choice when comes to evolution. The wording change was not limited to substituting evolution for 'biological changes over time', but adding "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." There are many in scientific circles that take exception to that statement.
www.christianpost.com/article/20080220/31263_New_Fla._Standards_Use_Word_%27Evolution%27.htm
“Most of the population was against this policy and the school board enacted it anyway,”
Quote: Most of the population is downright ignorant of science, let alone evolution and so ignorant to think changing ‘biological changes over time; to ‘evolution’ is a huge sea change.
Could you show me the exception of rights for the 'ignorant' in the American Constitution. I can't seem to find it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Ahh, so this is how liberty and majority rule dies in America, under the label of 'sciencific ignorance'. The death knell of Democracy and the freedoms this country was founded on. How bleak the American future is. Our forefathers would be so proud that the country they fought and died to create and maintain is at this threshold.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
"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[<<].
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, [>>]deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[<<], That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and [>>]that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth[<<].
I fear the ignorance is not about science, but about history.
Keruso "Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)?"
Are you suggesting the Bible is true and the Qur'an is false because the Bible is older? I don't get that logic. Just because some myths are older than other myths does not make those myths true. Also, if ideas have not changed for centuries, that doesn't mean those ideas are correct. It only means people accepted those ideas because their parents accepted them. Every generation should question the ideas of the previous generation, but religious people just blindly believe anything. Perhaps the problem is religious indoctrination at a very young age.
Has anyone noticed there's no evidence that any holy book is the word of God?
I suggested earlier that religious people should be willing to say "I don't know", instead of saying something is a fact when they really couldn't possibly know for certain it's a fact. Just using a little common sense should make a person strongly doubt any book is the word of God. That's a very wild claim and it should be treated like a wild claim. Instead the Christians claim it's a fact, despite there being no real evidence for it at all.
BTW ... big BIG faux pas. In PART 2 of my post ... "Paul" should be "Luke". Sorry 'bout that.
ifeelfine
Yes, I guess I understand a little more of what you mean by feeling the bible is truth for spiritual only. But a couple of things; first, if God was able to impart spiritual truth through His chosen men (through the Holy Spirit), why not likewise all truth? Are you saying that He was not concerned with imparting anything other than spiritual truth? Secondly, we're back to picking out the parts then that are just spiritual, and wouldn't that be a matter of opinion? Why would He do that? To me, that would seem to be a perfect recipe for more arguing about what was pertinent, and God knows better than anyone how humans love to justify their own pet views, so why would He purposely give them fodder for that?
Muggle
Yes, I'd like to read them. I'll give you my email, or you can get it from star, let me know.
ifeelfine72,
PART 2:
A little more. One can ascertain through the context in Acts that the account is more of a conversational reference, rather than a "purely historical" reference.
Paul was accounting for what Peter was saying to his brethren. We know from what's written about Peter that he was impetuous, quick to anger at times, and had a strong sense of justice. I'm sure he probably still resented Judas for his betrayal, and even though he now knew it to be prophetical fulfillment, he would rather have seen it perpetrated by someone who wasn't a trusted compadre. I would think that Peter probably felt a certain sense of satisfaction in visualizing Judas with his guts spilled out on the ground, and then sharing that "wonderful" image with his friends.
Even more likely, is that Peter wanted to drive home the point, "betrayal of our Lord and Savior equals death". He probably decided that what happened to Judas to be a very satisfying metaphor to stress that, and chose to express it in the grossest way he could think of.
Anyway, I gotta go make dinner for my wife and son. I kinda feel like ... spagetti! :^) Mmmmm!
God Bless. I'll talk to you later.
ifeelfine72,
PART 1:
Here's the first explanation I promised for the 'Field of Blood', Matthew 27 VS. Acts.... I gotta stay on my toes here. I'm also working on a model of population increase for star2. Haven't forgotten about ya, star2.
For the crowd:
Matthew 27:5 - "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself"
Acts 1:18 - "(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out."
So which is it? The answer is actually ... both. We know from Matthew that Judas was despariaged after he betrayed Jesus. He tried to return the silver to the high priests ... they wouldn't take it. He threw it at them and ran off, later leaving the city to go hang himself from a tree. The reference from Acts refers to how Judas' body would most likely later have been found. Either the tree branch or rope broke, and his body fell, probably traveled a couple feet and was found headlong (most likely, face down). If he'd not been discovered for a while, he would have had time to "ripen" a bit before falling, and his guts would easily have come spilling out ... maybe after the crows attacked him like a pinata ... Yes, graphic :^)
How did the land become his? After Judas discarded the money at the temple, it would not have just lay there on the floor, forever. The running explanation from scholars is that it was used to purchase the land Judas died on, and his body was buried there.
See, the priests would NOT have wanted anything to do with "blood" money, even after Judas could no longer claim it. They wanted to sustain their illusion of legitimacy for condemning Jesus to death. So, how to spend it ... buy something in the traitor's name. The land where Judas died was probably relatively secluded, away from the main city, and fairly useless to anyone else. Thus, the most logical purchase ... a home for Judas' corpse.
...continued
ifeelfine72
Quote: "Can you explain away all the factual inconsistancies in the Bible? There are a lot of them. Anyway, your logic is flawed."
Generally, yes I can explain (not explain away, which implies I would ignore them) those so called 'factual inconsistancies' I am aware of. The trend I find is those so-called contradiction are a problem with us. We forget the original meaning of English words, we forget the Bible was original written in two other language (one radically different from our own), and we add constraints beyond those laid down by the Bible itself. agentorange20 has demonstrated several examples of what I mean.
As used by the Bible:
earth is dry land not planet (which, in English, is Earth, with a capital E not a little e). Genesis 1:9-10
heaven/firmament is everything from the surface of the dry land to the edge of the Universe. Genesis 1:6-8 & Genesis 1:14-15
'star' is also used to refer to angels. Isaiah 14:12-13
birds/fowl actually refers to anything that flies, including insect, bats, and pterosaurs Genesis 1:20
Quote: Who said anything about a fable? I hope I didn't, because if I did, I used the wrong word.
So if concider the Bible is not factual, what term would you then call it? Any term that implies it is not factual leaves the quandary how can it then be the Word of God, a God who can not lie?
Quote: "And if the message never changed then why the 1000's of different translations (in English alone) of the Bible"
First, the Hebrew Bible and Greek message has never changed. The number of English translations has nothing to do with that. Translating that into English is another matter.
Second I like to something that says that there are "1000's" of English translations, because to my knowledge there are less than 100 and probably less than 50. Translating the Bible isn't an undertaking one does overnight. It requires many years of Hebrew and Greek language and grammar study followed by years of translations work.
Quote: It doesn't add up. It feels like you need it to be completely literal for your faith but I know you don't take it literally - no one does.
I am afraid you are incorrect. I do take it literally, even the parables have a literally meaning.
oldguy
Me: "The Bible, in its entirety, seems pretty important to God."
Quote: That's what the Muslims say about the Qur'an.
Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)? Do it's laws remain the same from one chapter or book to the next? Is the Qur'an consistant from beginning to end?
I know the Bible has and is.
oldguy
People of your persuation believe in a "science, falsely so called' that has no evidence to back it up with. Abiogenesis has no clue as to how life came into being and have no evidence to support the claim that life started as some kind of one-cell protozoam . Evolution then goes to describe how this assumped simple form of life changes over time.
Macroevolution has never been observed in the lab nor in nature. All man has observed is microevolution; changes within a species. There is no evidence that the diverse forms of life that we see today came about by life changing over time.
Then the radiometric dating methods that are used to date the earth and anything connected with the earth is unreliable. It often gives millions of years for the age of a fossil or whatever when it is known that the fossil or whatever is not very old at all or it will give vast differences of ages for different parts of a mammal. There is no evidence at all for the age of the earth and yet evolutionists continue to lie to the public that they know.
Evolutionists claim that the ape-man came before the human but there are fossils finds that show humans in a lower starta than the ape-man. Evolutionists know that but they hide this truth or try to explain away the truth and then claim to the public that the fossil records prove that evolution is true when they know that it is not.
Evolutionists are deluded and they are deceitful.
There is no evidence that supports evolution. Evolution is not a science.
It is the fanciful imagination of people who choose to reject the creator of the Universe and all that is in it, the Lord Jesus Christ who is blessed forever. Amen!
To believe in evolution requires faith because there is no evidence to support it. Faith is the basis of any religion. Therefore, evoultion is a religion and it should never be taught as a science.
Go ahead and make your fancy arguments that I am wrong. Those who know the truth know that you are wrong. Hopefully, one day you will too.
"The Bible, in its entirety, seems pretty important to God."
That's what the Muslims say about the Qur'an.
Who is right, the Muslims or the Christians? It's very obvious both religions are wrong.
"My holy book is better than your holy book" is only wishful thinking. Nobody has any real evidence for any holy book or any religious belief. Everything is made up. Only gullible people believe any of it.
If religious people were like scientists there would no longer be any religions. Scientists never accept anything without evidence, and they are ready to throw out anything if new evidence disproves it.
Religious people are different. What they believe has no evidence, and they ignore any evidence that disproves their ideas. Even worse, they invent evidence for their beliefs. In most cases, they don't even know what real evidence is. For example, none of the following is very good evidence: dead witnesses, ancient books, wishful thinking.
Religious people should be willing to say "I don't know" instead of claiming their myths are true beyond any doubt. If scientists don't have enough evidence for an idea, they admit it. They don't claim something to be a fact when they can't know for sure.
Keruso - Can you explain away all the factual inconsistancies in the Bible? There are a lot of them. Anyway, your logic is flawed. Who said anything about a fable? I hope I didn't, because if I did, I used the wrong word. Its not logical to say that men are fallible but not when writing the Bible. And if the message never changed then why the 1000's of different translations (in English alone) of the Bible? It doesn't add up. It feels like you need it to be completely literal for your faith but I know you don't take it literally - no one does.
ifeelfine72,
Quote: 'Not a single one of those verses says to take the Bible literally.'
Let me put it another way then, since 'all Scripture is God breathed', his 'word is true from the beginning' and God can not lie, how then can one take any part of the Scripture, the Word of God, to be a fable? A fable is a fictional tale to teach a lesson but, even though its intention may be good, it is still a fabrication, i.e. a lie. The Bible is a book of absolutes. It can not bury the truth behind lies, behind fiction and fantasy, and still be the Word of God.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) "All Scripture is God-breathed..."
Psalm 119:160 (KJV) 'Thy word is true from the beginning'
Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Proverbs 14:5 (KJV) A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 19:9 (KJV) A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
If you are Christian, then you should also remember that Jesus upheld the authority of the Hebrew Scripture, from beginning to end. However he had no qualms about challenging Jewish Traditions that had come to supersede and overturn the Scriptures. If Jesus believed the Hebrew Scriptures, then why don't you?
Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Nor should one forget that the Bible comes to us through 2100 years (Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls) and 1850 years (Christian with 24,000+ different text) with a proven unaltered message. This is impossible in the hands of fallible men. Dozens of authors and tens of thousand of copyist never changed the message of the text. The Bible, in its entirety, seems pretty important to God.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
GMG, by the way,
Thank you and ifeelfine72 for the compliment. I actually am planning on submitting a children's book manuscript, entitled "Meanie Beanie" at some point in the near future. I also have a few short horror stories I've written I'd be happy to share some time.
I also have a full novel in the works, but only in my head. I should probably get it out soon, while I'm still twisted :^)
Take care and God Bless.
Ifeelfine72,
>> Judas' death always puzzled me (check out these two verses Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5). So which is it? <<
Aaah yes, the Field of Blood. Man, that one cheesed me off when I first read it.
I actually have a pretty good resolve for it, but I’ll have to give it to you … “after the break”.
“Text your vote for Matthew with 27:5. Text your vote for Acts with 1:18.
Seriously though, I have a lot of work to get done this afternoon. I’ll go over it though, early this evening. I’ll cover some others, too.
Talk to you later.
God Bless.
Muggleborn - Thank you for the encouraging words; I appreciate them. I'm not sure I'll ever take the Bible literally - God will have to tell me pretty directly if that is what I am to believe. As for other discrepencies. Judas' death always puzzled me (check out these two verses Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5). So which is it? How did he die?
Another one is the color of Jesus robe (is it scarlet, ie red or purple). Check out Matthew 27:28 and John 19:2.
I know these are little things but they definitely add to my convictions. The wonderous things God has done in my life prove to me the spiritual truth of the Bible but these things add to my convictions that some of the facts are wrong.
wilderness,
Check out my post on those references a page or 2 back.
ifeelfine72
PART 2:
Sometimes I feel like a Christian version of ‘X-Files’, Agent Mulder. “The Truth is IN there [The Bible]” :^)
I’m praying for you ifeelfine, that you continue to gain wisdom, and that your mind becomes lucid in the Holy Spirit … same prayers I make for myself.
Let me know if there’s a favorite discrepancy you would like to address. Explanations are out there, and I’d be happy to find them with you. God Bless.
ifeelfine72,
PART 1:
I think I know where you are coming from. You believe that the Bible contains absolute spiritual Truth, which was endowed to its human authors through the power of the Holy Spirit. The men who wrote these books, under grace, were allowed to deliver God’s message in their own words, and some of the historical and practical references may be flawed, due to the authors’ own fallibilities, but not in the spiritual message, only within the context of their knowledge of detail; Absolutely truthful on a spiritual level … but not “necessarily” factual from an associative detail standpoint.
Many other evangelicals who preach the Word believe this, so you’re not alone.
I, myself believe, similarly that the Bible contains the absolute spiritual Truth of God’s Word. That part’s obvious from the way we see the Word delivered to us through observations that the authors recollect in some cases from their own experience. ‘Proverbs’ is a great example.
But ALSO, I believe that the details are true as well. If you dig a little deeper into some of the apparent discrepancies or contradictions, you begin to realize that many of the references are made, in the author’s own words, with some detail left out (perhaps just irrelevant to the prevailing message). The detail can be extrapolated when carefully studied and cross-referenced, but YES, this sometimes creates questions for believers growing in their faith. It can definitely shake up the faith.
It’s important to pray to God the Father, before reading the Bible, and ask Him to fill us with the Holy Spirit, to give us clarity of thought and the ability to discern between our own false interpretations and what God is really saying. We must ask for grace and wisdom to be able to understand the Word the way He means us to.
Don’t let outside influences affect your judgment when reading the Word. I have disagreements with God, too. Many do. But ask yourself, “Is my disagreement based on how I’ve always felt about it? Does this feeling come from the Holy Spirit, or myself? … Perhaps, even the enemy (a.k.a the devil, for unbelievers or other novices, like me)?”
As for the facts … dig a little deeper. Google can be a wonderful tool. I, myself use it a lot to find references that address the issues. These have all been discussed, before. And I read both viewpoints, believer and skeptic. I’ve found many solid arguments for both sides, but long story short, once a dig through some of the more impetuous arguments of believers, I find the satisfactory answer that God wanted me to find. Most non-believer arguments begin to crumble under careful scrutiny.
Concerning the “discrepancy” of 1 Co 10:8 and Number 25:9:
And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand (Numbers 25:9).
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand (1Co 10:8).
There is no discrepancy. There may be a few explanations, but there is no discrepancy.
One valid explanation is that the plague lasted for more than one day. Another explanation states that 1 Co 10:8 (in light of verse 7) describes the plague in Exodus 32 (which is spoken of in verse 35) and not the plague in Numbers 25.
GMG - I gave one example already with the discrepency in numbers killed in the plague (23K v 24K) and there are tons others. I believe with all my heart that Jesus came to save us all from our sin and help us connect with God. And that is the Truth that I was speaking of. That being said, the Bible may be divinely inspired but it was still written by fallible men as shown by the difference in numbers I stated before and other factual errors in the Bible. Does that make a little more sense?
>>>GMG, you and some others come across every bit as abrasively to me and I'm sure to the atheists here because you are every bit as strong in your convictions as I am - so trust me, you and others definitely seem angry to me too. If you would look at what you and others write with a truly open heart, you would see that - but sometimes we are all too blinded by our convictions.<<<
I cannot speak directly for others, but I can speak for myself. I work very hard at NOT being abrasive, and at the same time presenting my beliefs unashamedly and without apology. Which doesn't mean that I believe that I am never in error. However, it's through discussion of differing viewpoints that should lead us to further study in God's word, and on-going self-checks for the attitude of our heart.
And finally, >>>I believe that the Bible is the Truth but not factual (because it isn't). The Truth it represents is spiritual.<<
I do not understand. It might help me if you would give some example to go by.
>>>Even if you're not a fundamentalist or not an emergent church fan - there is still a wide range of beliefs in the middle. I am part of that group and it seems like those voices get stomped down by fundamentalists. Things like "if you believe that, you must not be a Christian." And I just don't like it.<<<
Now, I know that there are differing beliefs on a number of different issues. And I am also convinced that no one has everything 100% right. But what we are all called to do is to "search our hearts" in relation to our motives and attitudes. The Christian walk is a journey, we aren't "born again" running marathons, but rather drinking milk and crawling. Which is exactly why God gave us His word, to grow us in the understanding of His will. And we are all at different stages of course. And we all have our weaknesses which interfere with our growth.
We are also called to fellowship, to share in joy and pain, to uphold and correct, to teach and to learn, to "press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." Phil 3:14 Fellowship is not a "denomination" thing, but rather a family in Christ. And it is not inclusive of the world (secularism). God didn't call us to liberalism, but rather to a narrow way, very much in opposition to the "world's" changing views. Of course, this very fact will cause us problems in the very world we live in, amongst our neighbors, co-workers, friends, and even family members sometimes, but Jesus warned us that this would be so.
continued
ifeelfine,
Ok, I can work with that.
You said, >>>GMG - I definitely have some anger towards some Christians, yes, absolutely. I feel like Christianity is being stolen by the fundamentalists. And that doesn't sit well with me.<<<
First of all, define fundamentalist. Some of these terms don't have such definitive definitions anymore. I call myself a conservative bible believing christian. To me this means that I take the bible literally, as God's word to me, on His will for me. So I endeavor to take all things within context, with consideration for it's meaning and purpose. Let me give a simple example.
Rom 13:8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. (9)For the commandments, "You shall not commit aduletery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (10)Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Now, vs. 9 is easy. All those things listed hurt others, and you sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end. So it's easy to see that caring for the hurt of others AS MUCH AS you care about hurt to yourself will result in you not hurting others in like manner. vs 8 and vs 10 complete the whole picture, or idea. Love fulfills the law, because love fulfills the commandments.
Vs 8, "Owe no one anything except to love one another....". Well, obviously if you break any of those listed commandments you will owe something to someone. But look in the verses above. They also speak of taking responsibility for specific things that might be owed.
Vs 9, "Love does no harm to a neighbor...." Again, breaking those commandments results in harm to someone.
Now, if you take any of these verses separately, for the most part you could assign any number of meanings outside the context of what they say together. I'll leave it to you to come up with examples, a number of them pop up in the my head right away. So does this mean that this is the final word on this particular subject? Well, those 3 verses encompass a lot, that's for sure. But this is why we are to study God's word diligently, because in so many cases there are addendums. As in, "loves does no harm to a neighbor"...does this mean that if I tell someone something they don't want to hear and they become hurt, angry, or whatever that I have caused them harm and have sinned? Well, we're also told things like "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten" Rev 3:19, and "but, speaking the truth in love..." Eph 4:15. And of course, there are likewise verses that say not to be contentious, etc. etc. So we know that God has given us many things to guide us to the place of knowing His will.
Continued
I’m sorry if my post seemed redundant ifeelfine, I did not see your post until after I posted mine. So, you consider yourself in the middle. Where do you fall in line with the resurrection? This seems to me to be the crux of the matter. I am sure by the way that you would probably consider Paul a fundi: Now I beseech you, brothers, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned…
(I flagged myself)
GMG, I think ifeelfine comes here to get in better touch with herself. She likes to use the post as a sound board to see how far left she is (politically and scholarly). If she gets too close to center, she knows she needs to work a bit harder at it.
ifeelfine: “No where in the Bible does it say we are to take it literally.”
First of all this is an argument from silence. If you desire to build your beliefs on the silence of Scripture, why not become a Hindu or Buddhist? After all silence is what they listen for.
To respond to your discrepancies: The Jews were quite religious about the Scriptures including copying them. This does not mean that there were never mistakes by the copyists. Just because there were mistakes in some manuscripts it does not necessitate that Scripture is not to be taken literally or historically.
ifeelfine, I am curious if you believe in miracles at all, particularly the resurrection. I am also wondering, are you familiar at all with N. T. Wright?
GMG - I definitely have some anger towards some Christians, yes, absolutely. I feel like Christianity is being stolen by the fundamentalists. And that doesn't sit well with me. Even if you're not a fundamentalist or not an emergent church fan - there is still a wide range of beliefs in the middle. I am part of that group and it seems like those voices get stomped down by fundamentalists. Things like "if you believe that, you must not be a Christian." And I just don't like it. GMG, you and some others come across every bit as abrasively to me and I'm sure to the atheists here because you are every bit as strong in your convictions as I am - so trust me, you and others definitely seem angry to me too. If you would look at what you and others write with a truly open heart, you would see that - but sometimes we are all too blinded by our convictions.
Now, to answer your questions: I believe that the Bible is the Truth but not factual (because it isn't). The Truth it represents is spiritual. I had a journalism professor in college who was a former editor of one of the country's largest newspapers. He always said that we weren't writing the truth, we were just writing the facts. And I believe the Bible is true but not necessarily factual.
As for my other statement you cited it was in response to something you or someone else said - I don't recall what at the moment.
Muggleborn - I love the response you gave me to my challenge! Good on you.
ifeelfine,
Tell me something. Do you ever post anything for a purpose other than to antagonize christians? I only ask this because it seems that you post statements, as if they are foregone conclusions, and any attempt to address the issues you present are met with sarcastic, belittling, circular statements in response. Do you come here to release your anger? Because if you come here to have discussions, you make it very difficult to do so.
For instance, one of your response was >>>I believe that scripture is breathed by God - but just because it is Truth, doesn't mean its fact.<<< Huh????? and >>>I thought the Bible was literal and that you didn't need to interpret anything? I guess that isn't the case, is it.<<< another Huh???
Want to have a discussion? So tell me, what do you mean by these statements?
Muggleborn
If you ever write a book, will you let me know? Because if you do, I promise I will run right down and buy it! You are hillarious!!!!!!
Keruso,
“I'm sure many archeologists will be shock to discover they are not scientist.”
They aren’t ‘scientists’ in the normal vernacular of what scientists do. Such as physics, astronomy, biology, etc. In a morbid sense archeologists do work within science, never the less their finds that back up archeological finds within the bible don’t back up literal quasi science readings in the bible. It's scripture not science. Case in point’ the earth moveth not’, where as mentioned already it certainly moves and in more ways than one and no amount or archeological finds supporting the accounts of Joshua can verify that.
“And what is the common name for a falling meteor, is it not a shooting or falling STAR?”
And this proves my point of how ignorant they were of such things .What we call ‘shooting stars’ aren’t stars at all, but are debris like comets, asteroids, or meteorites that pass through or just outside the earth’s atmosphere. Calling them ‘stars’, doesn’t change what they actually are and it’s wrong. If you’re saying then perhaps the bible is referring to asteroids that will come down to earth, then would expect, with any revelation that such knowledge be accurate and describe what they meant, as opposed to leaving a revelation to be so ambiguous to be lost in translation.
“As the Florida article demonstrates (link below), evolutionist DON'T permit questioning and neither does the new Florida Science standard”
Oh boy. They were already teaching the processes of biological evolution, however they didn’t refer to it by evolution, and instead used ‘biological changes over time’, which is ironically what evolution exactly is. Not acknowledging a word for how a process occurs doesn’t negate the process, it ‘s just word semantics.
“Most of the population was against this policy and the school board enacted it anyway,”
Most of the population is downright ignorant of science, let alone evolution and so ignorant to think changing ‘biological changes over time; to ‘evolution’ is a huge sea change.
Since I assume you think all or many of the fossils are fake, how do you explain these?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
If you don’t like fossils, here’s some on genetic evidence. ERR’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Keruso,
“Again, you want me to believe three Computer Science & Engineering professors and one Anthropology doctor and professor over a doctor and professor of Genetic and Anthropology?”
No, I am advocating that you should agree with more recent, more confirmed data (like the ones I pointed out) based on deeper analysis by a wider group of scientists (like from Nature and HGP), as opposed to some ‘estimate’ by a single person.
“And again no credentials on the author...”
Geoff Spencer works at NHGRI, I would say that would qualify him automatically for biological discussions. If you want info on him research it yourself. Besides, we’re not arguing over the commentary, or the author, but instead the facts they report and the facts don’t’ show 10% more Chimp DNA. Deal with it.
“And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me”
No they aren’t, they never claimed chimps have 10% more DNA. It’s an analysis of the 40 million differences within our both 3 billion base pairs. 40 million differences is barely over 1% difference in entire genomic comparison. Read it again. www.genome.gov/15515096
“I have never refer to 'transitionals', so you are confusing me with someone else.”
Sorry, right you said they were ALL frauds and thus don’t count, so here are some, explain them away. Your exact words “The series of "Dino" birds that have ALL turned out to be frauds and other fossil frauds.”
Here’s Theropod Dinosaurs with feathers, certainly not all frauds.
Dromaeosaurids, look up Velociraptor, Builtreraptor, Sinusonasus
Coelurosaurs, look up Sinosaurpteryx, Scansoriopteryx,
Tyrannosaroids, look up Dilong and Eotyrannus
Ornithomimosaurs and Alvarezsaurs, look up Shuvuuia, Epidendrosaurus, and Alvarezsaurids
Oviraptorsaurs, look up Caudipteryx and Citipati, Yixianosaurus, Jinfengopteryx,
Deinonychosaurs, Troodon, Microraptor, Deinonychus, Epidenosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx,
Avialians (birds) look up Confuciusornis, Longipteryx, Archeopteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornis, Enantiornis, patagopteryx, Hesperonis, Enantiornis, Ichthyornis
Keruso,
“With proof, you still call me a liar. And you call a well respected geneticist a liar, just because of the YEAR on the article?”
I am not calling anyone anything. Marks, the same geneticist you cite accepts evolution, so it’s quite ironic of all the people you cite, you cite one that doesn’t agree with your principle view that evolution doesn’t/can’t occur. Are you next going to cite a cosmologist that accepts the universe isn’t 6000 years old too?
I am simply stating you citing an ‘ESTIMATE’ based on before the Chimpanzees genome was mapped and thus is logically and evidently wrong and I referred to other articles that show why you and Mark’s ‘estimate’ are wrong. Go show me a current article that backs up your claims of ‘10% more DNA than humans’ and that we don’t roughly have 3 billion base pairs, then come back.
“Here are two 1992 articles declaring the DNA 6 feet long and 3 billion base pairs.”
We are talking about YOUR argument that a Chimps genome is ‘10% longer or larger’ and thus far you’ve backed it up with an old, outdated ‘estimate’ that is built on NO evidence at all. We don't care if DNA unravled equals 6 feet, we care about compraing Chimp and human genome lenghts, remember? Refer to more current articles that establish your nonsense of 10% larger and you might have something.
“The Harvard Article adds something, which you agree is not part of the Nature article, and this improves its reliability how?”
No, it CITES the nature article and in doing so alludes to the fact that both we and Chimps have roughly 3 billion base pairs. Hence, why I quoted it. - “Among the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of BOTH humans and chimpanzees, researchers found differences in 40 million sites. It is in those sites where the differences between the two species lie.”
Here’s the Nature analysis doc on Chimps DNA, nothing about 10% more DNA.
www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/DIR/Chimp_Analysis.pdf
On a serious note ... it's not gonna all get done, today.
Muggleborn’s mouth became a desert, and his lower lip quivered as he nervously loosened his collar away from his neck. Beads of sweat rolled down the tightened features of his reddening visage, pushed out from his pores by the fear that welled up in his forehead like a balloon ready to burst. And ifeelfine72 held the pin.
Muggle’s eyes darted amongst the gathered, wondering if he had gone too far this time. His memories of when he was 10 taunted him as the echoes of laughing, sneering children in the schoolyard began to drown his consciousness. He felt faint. He recalled the slow, steady rhythm of chicken cackling they had made when Alfalfa Spanky Poindexter McGee had triple-dog-dared him to stick his tongue to the flagpole.
That fateful moment was upon him, again. Ifeelfine72 stood defiantly, arms folded; his eyelids narrowed and focused, but pupils wide with proud exuberance.
Would history repeat itself? Should MuggleBorn just walk away? He thought back again to that day in the schoolyard, realizing now it was a mistake not to accept the challenge of sticking his tongue to that flagpole. Especially, once he remembered it was the first week of June. And they were in Florida.
Muggle turned his head to the crowd; his courage reborn as his eyes met those of Mary Jane Watson with her quiet confidence whispering to him on the wind … “You can do it”. She was counting on him to save the Recreation Center.
With a small crackle escaping his throat, MuggleBorn lifted his head to face ifeelfine72.
“I’ll do it. I’ll ski you from the K-12.”
“Huh”, ifeelfine asked, quizzically.
MuggleBorn stammered. “I mean … I’ll do it! I’ll help you resolve some or all of the biblical discrepancies you are referring to.”
“Bring it on …. P..P..P..PUNK!”
ifeelfine72,
I don’t know how anyone would consider taking it all literally anyway. St. Augustine, one of the most well known church fathers was outspoken against it.
Muggleborn - Are you busy this afternoon? Somewhere I have a list of 30-40 different factual discrepencies in the Bible and I could haul out the list and if you can, shoot them all down.
A note on 1Corinthians 10:8 Vs. Numbers 25:9 (23,000 deaths Vs. 24,000) deaths,
I apologize if I missed a post that explains this; I’m doing this on my lunch break.
Many scholars & apologists explain this “apparent” discrepancy by pointing out that Paul referred to a number of deaths “in one day”, in ‘Corinthians 10:8’. The ‘Numbers 25:9’ reference refers to 24,000 dead as the “total”. The best possible explanation is that Paul was trying to emphasize the quickness and severity of the consequence itself, rather than leave an implication that the consequences may be off in the future somewhere and therefore avoidable.
Theoretically, based on this one can extrapolate that 23,000 died almost immediately as a consequence of the infraction, and then perhaps 1,000 more “residually”, once the infraction was dealt with.
Sorry the explanation is so … “geeky” … but I’m a geek, after all :^)
Keruso - Not a single one of those verses says to take the Bible literally. You and GMG are using some fancy equations to make it so (if this equals this and this equals this, then it must also equal this) and it doesn't work that way. I believe that scripture is breathed by God - but just because it is Truth, doesn't mean its fact. And it isn't. You can't explain the inconsistancies in some of the factual numbers anymore than GMG can. If you could, you would.
And again GMG, your making some pretty big leaps - heck, one could say interpretations - on the passage in Thess I quoted. I thought the Bible was literal and that you didn't need to interpret anything? I guess that isn't the case, is it.
ifeelfine
>>>GMG - But that verse doesn't say to test only in the context of the Bible - it makes no such demand. No where in the Bible does it say we are to take it literally."
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost – 2Peter 1:21.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.
Now, if God insures that we have His true word through the agency of the Spirit to His men, and the men appointed wrote His true word, and the Bible is the record of that true word, don't you think we should believe what it says? The Bible is not God's suggestions for considerations based on anyone's loose interpretations, but rather He provided us with a written format outlining His will for His children. So yes, 1 Thess 5:21 "Test all things but hold fast to that which is true" means to consider all things through His authority, which He has provided for us in His written word to us. That means to test all things through the context of the Bible.
agentorange20,
Quote: No, no, no. Perhaps we misunderstood each other. You gave the implication that he bible referred to the actual word ‘dinosaur’ when indeed it doesn’t and that was what I was trying to point out.
Exactly how does "So you know the Genesis 1 says God created birds before dinosaurs" imply the word "dinosaur" is in the Hebrew Bible? The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew, so the whole accusation was ridiculous from the start, designed only to ridicule and belittle and it backfired. And now that I've shown how silly that assertion was, it becomes misunderstanding.
“You will not believe Archeology,”
Quote: No, I DO accept some of what the bible supports for archeological HISTORY, alas that isn’t science, that is archeological history and there is a difference there.
I'm sure many archeologists will be shock to discover they are not scientist.
Dictionary.com
archeologist - an anthropologist who studies prehistoric people and their culture
anthropology - The [>>]scientific[<<] study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.
Me: “as I've said, the Bible say the Universe was expanded, but then you ignored that too”
Quote: Right, the same bible that refers to ‘heavens’ in which it refers to both where the stars are and where rain comes from, ya that scientifically non accurate bible again. There is no 'water above the firmiment/atmosphere', nor can stars come falling down to earth, etc.
And here again you show you overwhelming Bible knowledge. Heavens and firmament, as used by the Bible, covers everything from the surface of the dry land and seas to the edge of the Universe. Hebrew makes no distinction between the Earth's atmosphere and the vacuum of space (and last time I checked, no one has seen the edge of the Universe). Further, nowhere does the Bible claim the birds fly among the stars nor does it claim the rains come from 'above the firmiment/atmosphere'. And what is the common name for a falling meteor, is it not a shooting or falling STAR? However, since you are probably referring to a Revelation verse, I should point out that angels are often referred to as stars in the Bible. In fact, Lucifer means morning star. Revelation is referring to fallen angels.
Quote: I am not contending that the universe hasn't expanded, the evidence shows it IS expanding (it’s not done yet pal) but that a literal 6000 year old universe and earth and amny other verses don’t conform to what science shows. Again, it’s scientifically wrong in this regard and so it’s more like a mixed bag.
Exactly where did I say the Bible says the Universe had stopped expanding? However this is side-stepping the point, isn't it? The Bible say the Universe was expanded 4000 years before the Big Bang Theory, and that is the point. You ask for science and when you get it you attack grammar like it changes the revelation.
Part 2
Me: “The Bible doesn’t not 'declare by fiat”
Quote: What! The bible is its own source of vindication; this is why it declares by fiat that IT is correct in all regards whereas anything contradictory isn’t, as this is its very nature.
In regards to science you said you couldn’t trust them, you tried to say that men are bias and fallible, well NEWSFLASH pal, the same fallible and bias men penned the very book you gush over, so whatever you contend of men being ‘bias and fallible’ swings equally back onto your argument for the veracity of the bible.
Since you enjoy testing science, explain the genetic evidence I gave for evolution. Namely ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion.
Yes, ignore the fact that the Bible DEMANDS YOU TEST IT, which you clearly have not done. Fiat statement do not permit testing and they do not give you a choice. The Bible does not force you to believe, it lays it out like it is and allows you to choose (and suffer the consequences). There is no law requiring you to learn the Bible. However, how does this compare with evolution? As the Florida article demonstrates (link below), evolutionist DON'T permit questioning and neither does the new Florida Science standard. Most of the population was against this policy and the school board enacted it anyway, where was the choice, the Democratic majority rule? What was the definition of fiat, again? "An arbitrary decree or pronouncement, esp. by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it." When did Democracy come to mean 'evolution rules'? America is dying and you are applauding.
www.christianpost.com/article/20080220/31263_New_Fla._Standards_Use_Word_%27Evolution%27.htm
And what you fail to understand is the Bible has done the impossible, dozens of writers and tens of thousands of copyist over the span of four millennia have never changed the fundamental laws of Judeo-Christian beliefs, EVER. No text has survived so unaltered (no errors change the message of the text and the errors are few) and, in the case of the Christian Testament, in so large a number (over 24,000 in three languages). The Bible is in harmony from beginning to end and remains unaltered for a provable 2100 (Hebrew) and 1850 (Christian) years. This is an impossible feat for fallible men. Only an influential God could cause both the Bible to remain intact and insure the needed proof survives the degradation of time. This God would also be more than capable of guiding the hand of the fallible writers away from their fallibility and to his infallibility.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
And why is it, when you write the word 'pal' it feels so negative? Like an appellation of disgust hidden behind an otherwise friendly word? We do not practice what we preach, is that it?
Part 3
“So, I showed you the article, and you admit it, and yet you still insult me and call me a liar.”
Quote: Your article was from 2002! And refereed to the Chimps genome length as an ‘estimated’ 10% larger, not that this is confirmed and it certainly wouldn’t be confirmed till it’s mapped and analyzed! Nevertheless, you made some [>>]horrid claim[<<] that 'Chimps have 10% more DNA that humans', and then the only thing to back it up was an ESTIMIATE that was dated at 2002, or prior to the mapping of the Chimpanzee genome. The nature and Harvard articles I pointed out are from 2005 and 2006 and show that their DNA is 96+% identical to ours (which was after all what the initial argument was about and why you referred to some [>>]bogus claim[<<] that Chimps have 10% more DNA).
With proof, you still call me a liar. And you call a well respected geneticist a liar, just because of the YEAR on the article? My, my, we certainly practice what we preach about respect and dignity.
Dignity looks something like this -- Well, yes you are correct, the article does say that chimps have 10% more DNA, but I feel the article is a little outdated. Perhaps that has changed?
You do realize that the estimated size of the Human DNA predates the completion of the Human Genome Project by at least 8 years (and probably more)? That human DNA, when uncoiled, is 6 feet long and that 10% is more than half a foot? The Genome projects were not need to determine this nor has the estimate changed since the completion of the Genome Project.
Here are two 1992 articles declaring the DNA 6 feet long and 3 billion base pairs.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/human-genome-mapping-sequencing.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/IE/Whose_Genome_is_It.html
Me: “First, as before, this Nature article says nothing about the size of Human or Chimp DNA.”
Quote: Oh, I agree but it does explain the relative genetic issues. Back on that Harvard article (which cites the Nature article mind you) it refers to this –
“Among the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of BOTH humans and chimpanzees, researchers found differences in 40 million sites. It is in those sites where the differences between the two species lie.”
The Harvard Article adds something, which you agree is not part of the Nature article, and this improves its reliability how?
Part 4
Quote: Here’s another: http://www.genome.gov/15515096
Quote: “Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, [>>]like most mammalian genomes[<<], contains about 3 billion base pairs”
So then now you content that 'most' mammals have only 3 billion base pairs? Because that is what this article contends. And again no credentials on the author...
Quote: Want another, here: - www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/
Again, you want me to believe three Computer Science & Engineering professors and one Anthropology doctor and professor over a doctor and professor of Genetic and Anthropology? And I find it interesting that you fly off the handle about use of an approximate number made by an expert in Primate Genetics, however I am expected to accept the approximate number from persons completely outside the field of Genetics.
And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me. They agree that the 98% (or 96%) is not a comparison of the entire Genome. They even supply and example where only 38 base pairs of the 100 base pair mDNA sample match (that 38% identical as opposed to 96%). They agree the 96% number should be qualified, yet it still show up WITHOUT QUALIFICATION everywhere.
Quote: Since you mentioned there are no bird to dinosaur transitionals, refer a page or two back & research the list of all those and then tell me that again.
Same goes for the vids and liknks I put up on hominids and their transitionals.
I have never refer to 'transitionals', so you are confusing me with someone else. All I have said (and proved) is that the Bible puts Dinos (and all land animals) after Birds (and all flying creatures). However, your transitionals are hotly disputed and the proto 'feathers' look more like quills or bristles than feathers. Anything with true feathers are birds, not a dinos. I do get popular science magazines (yes plural) and they haven’t missed a so called dino-bird yet.
Quote: No where in the Bible does it say we are to take it literally.
Actually it does.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) "All Scripture is God-breathed..."
Psalm 119:160 (KJV) 'Thy word is true from the beginning'
Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Proverbs 14:5 (KJV) A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 19:9 (KJV) A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.
Since Scripture is God breathed and God can not lie, all Scripture must be literally true.
GMG - But that verse doesn't say to test only in the context of the Bible - it makes no such demand. No where in the Bible does it say we are to take it literally. There are a few verses that might be interpreted that way (in Timothy I believe) but many don't interpret them that way. I don't have "whatever feels right theology" anymore than you do. Although I'm sure you won't admit this because you don't believe it but I can guarentee that you interpret the Bible every bit as much as I do. You just have different pair of glasses. Evidence for this would be your response to my question on the number (23k v. 24k). How can you hold a literal view of the Bible when there are numerous contradictions like that? You can't - so you fudge it. And that isn't literalism and you know it. I just happen to be honest about my interpretation, can you be honest in yours? God bless and goodnight! :)
"Well, the Bible isn't to be taken literally anyway."
Were you quoting the Jesus Seminar? The Bible is to be taken literally were it is intended to be taken literally. While there may be doubts as to exactly what that may entail, one can be certain that it includes matters of doctrine and faith.
ifeelfine
>>>I'll look to the Bible for wisdom - 1 Thess 5:21 Test all things but hold fast to that which is true! <<<
Yes, most definitely, we test all through the authority of the bible. But if you do not believe that the Word of God has this authority (because "fallible" men wrote it, making some of it wrong, or fallible if you will), then how do you determine which part has the authority of God?
You know feetxxxl, and his defense of homosexuality, in which you concur. Do you know that he is using the same arguments (that of his 1John 1 witness, the spirit witness, etc.) to now state that fornication is too broad of a concept, it puts you under the law, therefore premarital sex is not wrong? And he claims the same 1Thess 5:21 as his authority.
The view you have of the Bible, as not literal but good for faith, allows for a very liberal, broad spectrum, whatever feels right kind of theology. Jesus said "narrow is the path....", and that doesn't sound very liberal or broadly scoped to me.
Explanation for 23 vs 24? Maybe, for the sake of even numbers, one rounded up and one rounded down.
For anyone that gave me a thumbs down - explain the numbers. And GMG to answer your question, I'll look to the Bible for wisdom - 1 Thess 5:21 Test all things but hold fast to that which is true!
GMG - How do you determine which of those two numbers is right?
ifeelfine
>>>I believe it was inspired by God but it was definitely written by fallible men.<<<
So then, how do you determine which is which? Which part is of God, which part of man?
Well, the Bible isn't to be taken literally anyway. Check out these verses(1Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9) - which is it 24k or 23k? And there are many other examples I have run across. We Christians would be much better off - and not look so ridiculous - if we didn't insist on trying to make the Bible literal. It's not - by definition its not. I believe it was inspired by God but it was definitely written by fallible men.
Keruso
No, no, no. Perhaps we misunderstood each other. You gave the implication that he bible referred to the actual word ‘dinosaur’ when indeed it doesn’t and that was what I was trying to point out.
“You will not believe Archeology,”
No, I DO accept some of what the bible supports for archeological HISTORY, alas that isn’t science, that is archeological history and there is a difference there. Star can speak on my behalf that I have pointed out genetic evidence for Aaron's priestly descdendants.
“as I've said, the Bible say the Universe was expanded, but then you ignored that too”
Right, the same bible that refers to ‘heavens’ in which it refers to both where the stars are and where rain comes from, ya that scientifically non accurate bible again. There is no 'water above the firmiment/atmosphere', nor can stars come falling down to earth, etc.
I am not contending that the universe hasn't expanded, the evidence shows it IS expanding (it’s not done yet pal) but that a literal 6000 year old universe and earth and amny other verses don’t conform to what science shows. Again, it’s scientifically wrong in this regard and so it’s more like a mixed bag.
“The Bible doesn’t not 'declare by fiat”
What! The bible is its own source of vindication; this is why it declares by fiat that IT is correct in all regards whereas anything contradictory isn’t, as this is its very nature.
In regards to science you said you couldn’t trust them, you tried to say that men are bias and fallible, well NEWSFLASH pal, the same fallible and bias men penned the very book you gush over, so whatever you contend of men being ‘bias and fallible’ swings equally back onto your argument for the veracity of the bible.
Since you enjoy testing science, explain the genetic evidence I gave for evolution. Namely ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion.
Keruso,
“So, I showed you the article, and you admit it, and yet you still insult me and call me a liar.”
Your article was from 2002! And refereed to the Chimps genome length as an ‘estimated’ 10% larger, not that this is confirmed and it certainly wouldn’t be confirmed till it’s mapped and analyzed!
Nevertheless, you made some horrid claim that 'Chimps have 10% more DNA that humans', and then the only thing to back it up was an ESTIMIATE that was dated at 2002, or prior to the mapping of the Chimpanzee genome. The nature and Harvard articles I pointed out are from 2005 and 2006 and show that their DNA is 96+% identical to ours (which was after all what the initial argument was about and why you referred to some bogus claim that Chimps have 10% more DNA).
“First, as before, this Nature article says nothing about the size of Human or Chimp DNA.”
Oh, I agree but it does explain the relative genetic issues. Back on that Harvard article (which cites the Nature article mind you) it refers to this –
“Among the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of BOTH humans and chimpanzees, researchers found differences in 40 million sites. It is in those sites where the differences between the two species lie.”
Here’s another: http://www.genome.gov/15515096
“Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs”
Want another, here: - www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/
Since you mentioned there are no bird to dinosaur transitionals, refer a page or two back & research the list of all those and then tell me that again.
Same goes for the vids and liknks I put up on hominids and their transitionals.
MuggleBorn
Thanks for the cool article!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html
To quote it: If things changed, he said, "we'd have Pike's Peak boat tours."
Hehe, that's priceless....
Ok goodnight, and this time I really mean it...
agentorange,
I think post you made Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:35 pm demonstrates so well the point I have been making (I have had to mixed the order of the points to get them and my responses to fit in only three post and will enter them so that Part 1 is highest not lowest).
Part 1
Me: “I can not condense twenty years of pro-evolutionary source reading into one paragraph. I have discussed the 98% identical chimp/human DNA”
Quote: "Yes, and wrongly. You pointed out an ‘estimate’ from a 2002 article that they contain 10% more DNA (base pairs then us) to which you still haven’t backed up. Again, [>>]I call BS[<<]."
So, I showed you the article, and you admit it, and yet you still insult me and call me a liar.
agentorange link: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html
First, as before, this Nature article says nothing about the size of Human or Chimp DNA.
agentorange link: by Alvin Powell www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.15/11-chimp.html
vs
my links: by Jonathon Marks www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9172.php
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Marks
Second, let's see, Alvin Powell, a writer for a University paper of unknown background (probably a journalism student), verses Jonathon Marks, a well respected professer, Genetist, and Biological Anthropologist with 25 years of experience, and you want me to believe which one?
Part 2
Me: “You have not tested the truthfulness of the Bible yourself”
Quote: [>>]You’re crazy[<<], I’ve read the bible and the Koran, both are quite abysmal in respect to science knowledge.
Really? To borrow a quote from another post:
Me: “So you know the Genesis 1 says God created birds before dinosaurs.”
agentorange: No, it doesn’t. Site me the verse where it indicates it specifically.It never uses the word 'dinosaur' much less 'bird' (I think) in the genesis creation account.
First you complain about me quoting verse, now you demand them. Make up your mind!
Let's see, the Hebrew Bible was translation into English in 1611 and the word 'dinosaur' was coined in 1842 (just 20 years after the first dino bones were unearthed - 1822). I don't know why the word 'Dinosaur' didn't make it into the English Bible.
http://www.unmuseum.org/whatdino.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV
Genesis 1:20-23 (NIV) And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let [>>]birds[<<] fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." .... And there was evening, and there was morning-the [>>]fifth day[<<]. (However, to be honest, the actual Hebrew word translated as birds - or fowl - refers to ANYTHING that flies, including flying insects, bats, and pterosaur - but it still includes birds - http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=05775&version=kjv).
Genesis 1:24-31 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind [>> this would include all land dinos, or specifically, Theropods <<]."... And there was evening, and there was morning-the [>>]sixth day[<<].
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:20-31;&version=31;
Yep, you know the Bible real well. I can't imagine why I would doubt you've given it a fair hearing....
Me: “I have given proof science supports the Bible, but you discount it”
Quote: No you haven’t, you haven’t given anything in which the bible demonstrates genuine science knowledge that we know today. Show me where the bible refers to Quantum Mechanics or gravitational theory and so on.
You will not believe Archeology, which last time I checked is a field of science. And I have specifically said the Bible generally does not refer to ‘science’ as you are defining it, especially highly mathematical fields like QM and gravitation, but you knew that already, that's why you insist on that proof. Insist on the impossible so you can't be proved wrong.
The Bible isn't a primer for advanced mathematics. It's primer for the human condition. However, as I've said, the Bible say the Universe was expanded, but then you ignored that too.
Part 3
Me: “[Hebrew] Testament hasn't changed in 2100 to 4500 years, yet science hasn't stay the same”
Quote: That is a strength of Science [>>]moron[<<]. Science tests all things in the quest for truth of knowledge, while religions just declares by fiat what is what and with no evidence to back any of it. Science progresses and advances new knowledge while the bible refers to 3000 YO empty rhetoric in such regards.
Gee, how courteous we are. And talk about a fiat statement. I know what the strength of science is, I love real science, it's cool (and testable). Facts do not change however, so this changing nature of 'science' implies exactly what I meant: we have been (and still are) learning and we still get things wrong (to quote you "Both are products of fallible men after all.")
The Bible doesn’t not 'declare by fiat'. It demands testing: 1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Test everything. Hold on to the good." Again you show your overwhelm Bible knowledge.
And, as you've just defined and demonstrated, Evolution is not science, it's a religion (of which there are many 'denomination' like Gouldism, Dawkinism, comets-meteors-aliens-seeded-Earthism, etc.). You accept evolution which hasn't been proven by empirical, repeatable science, yet you do not give the Bible's demonstratively higher level of accuracy even a second thought, even though more and more archeological evidence says it is correct. (Yeah, I know, at this point you'll argue it hasn't been proven.)
Me: “And as I said genetic and geologic dating doesn't instill me with any confidence, humans error and are very bias.”
Quote: Well, then you should equally apply this logic towards those who penned your bible then too [>>]fool[<<]. Both are products of fallible men after all.
Such anger in this post! Why is it "intellectually fulfilled" evolutionist always get angry when challenged? Have I hit a weak spot in your defense? A unfulfilled heart and soul, perhaps?
And I DO apply my logic equally. I STILL test the Bible and I will NEVER STOP testing the Bible. Testing the Bible strengthens my faith, not weakens it. As you say (and I agree), man is fallible, however the Bible has demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that it is 'God breathed' 2 Timothy 3:16. But don't worry, I enjoy testing it AND science, so I won't be stopping.
Finally, I have been nothing but civil and yet you resort to name calling. Tsk tsk. ...Name calling always has been a sure sign of a just cause... 'roll eyes' Perhaps you should examine you're anger for something more, like an unconscious realization of self deception that your "intellect" is unwilling to face.
Quote: "Good, tell danny/bob or what ever alias he uses to hit the road. enough is enough already, have some dignity and some respect for others and yourself and try to be considerate."
Perhaps some words to live by...
Night
aritonang
We can't always understand why things go the way they do but there is a reason for it. God tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:18, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."
Whatever the reason(s) for the delay in you going to Israel, you can still be here with us all at CP for a while longer. Amen?!
Dear friends,
It was a real let down for me. The group reschedule our trip to May 08 because of the recent multiple homicide on one of the important Jerusalem yeshiva. And -Star, I dont know -since the Israeli said they prefer us not to bring our own laptop there. I said hey I am a returning pilgrim, but they said they are sorry but no laptop is official and they dont know when the ban is going to be lifted. So I guess I am stuck here in West Java.
MuggleBorn
Re:I'll stay in God's Word as vigorously as I can. Pray for me.
Okay.
Thanks for the update on what we were talking about.
Thanks for the article. It gives support to the great flood described in the Bible.
Holy Hanna Barbera, this has been one intense discussion.
Star2, thanks again for the response and I just wanted to let you know I'm working on it. One of my colleagues may be interested in helping to take on the task. He's an expert in underwater acoustics, so I know he'll be up to the math :^) Sorry again that my responses are so sparse. I've been ultra-mondo busy lately, and have a feeling I won't get a chance to post here as often as I'd like through the spring & summer months, but I'll stay in God's Word as vigorously as I can. Pray for me.
Star2, AgentOrange, et al,
I just wanted to throw in a couple tidbits regarding the flood. I read an interesting article a while back, and Google gave me another reference to it on the Nat'l Geographic news site.
It's an article about an underground ocean found beneath Asia. Current data shows that would probably not be the sole source of a world wide flood, but I believe it's still being studied. And since it took an earthquake to reveal it, there may be future evidence to discover that it's not the only one. It's at least an interesting read.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html
There are other articles related to studies of radiometric decay dating methods, and acceleration of decay over exposure to water. I'll hunt up the links and try to post them tonight.
agentorange
Part 1
I place my faith in the God of the Bible who has changed my life. He has been faithful to His Word in my life in many areas. I accept by faith that His Word is truth even if I don't understand it all that much or if at all in many parts.
God has revealed to mankind through His Word how He did things when He created the heavens and the earth. I accept what He says as truth and try to interpret the evidence that man has from it as best as I can.
From Genesis 1 we can see that creation took place in a very short period of time and that it was a process. God has revealed to mankind that He created fish, birds, and animal life all after their own kind in their mature state and plant life after their own kind in different stages of maturity. This implies that when He created each kind of animal life or birds, or fish He created both the male and his counterpart, the female, with the capablility of reproducing offspring like themselves. Thus, fish give birth to fish, hawks give birth to hawks, cows give birth to cows, and humans give birth to humans, and etc. There is no crossing over of the different kind of spicies and there is no transition of one kind of animal life to an entirely different kind of animal life.
The Word of God also makes it very plain that God gives to each species their nature; what their instincts are, their behavior, and etc.(see Job 39 for examples)
God's Word also plainly states that the human was a unique creation of God. The human, unlike all the other forms of animal life, was created in the image of God and was given life by God breathing into him the breath of life. God commanded the man to have dominion over all creation. The Word of God also shows that the humans, Adam and Eve, were created in their mature state with the ability to walk, talk, reason, think creatively, to reproduce, and to have communion with their Creator.
agentorange
Part 2
Last night I watched your videos again, both in their entirety. I understand more better now what you were trying to show and your last post to me today confirms to me that my conclusions were correct.
I do not see it the way you do. If one starts out with the premise that all life evolved from some common ancient life form, then it would be natural and logical that one would conclude that humans eventually evolved from an ancient ape based on the evidence.
But, I reject that premise. I accept by faith that God created everything like He has revealed in His Word. So, I start out with the premise that God created everything like He described in His Word.
For whatever reason God made different kinds of animals in simialr ways and they show similar but different designs. Thus, the different kinds of apes will have many characteristics that are similar but will be uniquely different in other areas. These apes will have some similar designs as the human. However, the human is totally unique. He is vastly superior to the ape, and was made to have a relationship with the Creator. The ape and all other life forms were not not made to have one.
I do not accept the dates given for the fossils. The dating methods are unreliable. Many articles written in reputable scientific journals like Science have shown that. Sometime back I gave you many articles that were written showing the unreliabilty of many of the different dating methods.
These dating methods start out with the premise that all the radioactive substances started out in it pure form. I reject that assumption. I believe that God created the earth at various levels of maturity. This would render any dating of the earth or anything else connected with the earth impossible.
agentorange
Part 3
I believe God's account of the world-wide flood. God's Word says in Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were open." From this we see that God broke up the ground allowing the water underneath to come gushing out. It probably came out with great force washing the people away and burying them in the mud. Now, some how, the rains came down from the sky and every form of life was killed except, of course, those that were in the ark.
The Word of God implies that there was no rain prior to the great flood (deduced from Genesis 9:13). So, some how when the waters came gushing out from beneath the crust of the earth that that precipitated the rains.
The Word of God says in Genesis 8:2, "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped:..." The waters from the earth and the rains continued together for forty days and forty nights (Genesis 7:12), and then God stopped both of them at the same time.
If all that was on the earth was subjected to the continual breaking up of the ground, and the gushing waters then it is logical to conclude that all life forms were buried under all the mud and at differnt levels.
If this is the case then it is not unreasonable to expect to find different remains of plant life, and animal and human fossils to be observed at different strata.
I believe that the animal and human fossils that have been found were all contemporary. So, what your videos have shown are merely the different animials and humans that were alive at the time of the flood.
agentorange
I accept your apology.
CP told me on the phone that he has been blocked from being able to come back.
Star2,
Good, tell danny/bob or what ever alias he uses to hit the road. enough is enough already, have some dignity and some respect for others and yourself and try to be considerate. I might not agree fully with others views, but censorship is something I am totally against and for this his account should be deleted.
I appologize for asserting it was a christian doing it, I only deduced this as the articles I saw were those I posted on. I also suspected bob/danny was the culprit as he too has flagged me (why?) of all people that logically you'd think he'd agree with, but only till GMG confimred it was it realized. Again, I appoligize.
GMG and agentorange
first/danny2/danny had all his comments deleted from the articel Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Award for 'Expelled'
CP said that they identified the flagger and that he was using three different names. They said that they deleted all his comments. Since danny2 cannot be found in the article I mention above then GMG and I were right in who we thought it was.
Star,
“I looked at your videos. The first one was kind of messed up and I really couldn't view it. However, the second played real well. You did a good job on putting it together. ‘
Try re-launching the 1st one, it may take a while to load, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with it. If so, let me know. i've also added a recent lecture by biologist Ken Miller, it's in 9 parts and he might have some answers for regular questions you or others might have on what evoltutionary theory is and isn't
”I don't see that it shows anything other than the skull of some gorillas and ape like skulls that show variations within the ape species. I don't see it showing any thing like hominid transitionals.”
None of those pictures were of Gorillas. The earlier ones are more ape like, if not fully ape as this was around 5-6 million years ago which is when the evidence (not just the fossils but also DNA) suggests the lineage between the common ancestor of Chimps and Humans split.
In the first vid, mid way through, around Habilis and Ergaster and Erectus they become less and less apelike and more and more human like. This is exemplified in the trending growth of the size of the cranium From around 400cc is the first few species in the Australopithecines, to around 800cc in the time of Habilis and Ergaster, to around 1200cc in the time of Heidelbergensis and around 1600 by the time Sapiens is depicted.
Also, when one observes the projection of the face and how flat it is, it too becomes flatter around the time of Georgicus and we see the brow ridge decrease in size. We also see a trending of a larger more modern human like posture and skeletal structure as time advances. Evolution is a branching pattern and not a linear ladder, so many of these species would have existed in small parallel windows of time and perhaps habitats.
The more modern Homo Sapien specimens like Omo I and Omo II and Idaltu show up around 200,000 years ago, while the oldest mtDNA genetic evidence dates the Sapiens lineage back to 195,000 years ago. It’s just a coincidence, I am sure.
GMG and agentorange, and anyone else
I just called CP. They have identified the person who has been flagging stuff today and have blocked this person. This person has been going under 3 different names today. The said that all comments that were flagged were restored.
Good idea agentorange, I went back and flagged mine also.
And I'll add my thumbs up to CP, and to adult discussion/debate on a responsible level.
I went back and flagged my repeated posts, once is enough. Can we get a 'Thumbs Up' for the CP admin and to Free Speech!
Be civil and remain true to principles, like free speech. So long as it's not violating the forum rules and isn't hate speech, let freedom reign!
Chris333
I phoned CP yesterday to complain but the one I talked with said I had to call back Monday morning. Apparently the one who answered the phone gave the appropriate people my message because they obviously restored a lot of stuff but not everything. I emailed them this morning about that. I got an email this morning. They said the flagger(s) had been identified and blocked from the system.
I know you reported the flagger. Have you received an email from them yet?
God be with you as well aritonang in your travels and life,
To the one who is flaggin, I now assume it is first/danny/bob, in any case the administration has been notified. This is not a dictatorship.
aritonang
God bless you. Won't you have a computer in Israel?
Chris,
These flaggings are strange, I have just got back from a long weekend and see every article comments are deleted. Anyway, I am going on a sabbatical year off to Israel soon and I might not be writing to you via TCP commentary anymore. Nice knowing you, Chris. Pass my regards to Prophet, Ender, Tamna, Star and others.
Our Lord Jesus Christ Bless you Chris and keep you always
Aritonang
Well first, do you feel pretty powerful at this point? You are really showing all the meanies that weren't very nice to you who has the last say here. Good for you!! Everyone will finally get to see how truly immoral, errr I mean moral you are, because you are getting rid of all these liars. That will show everybody. How DARE anyone question evolution. After all, you'd think we lived in a democracy, to hear all these people's comments. But, you surely do know best. It's about time someone gagged these unscientific christians! Sure glad you could be around to take care of this. Hey, I just got a great idea; ever thought about running for president? We sure could use someone as decisive, moral, truth-seeking, and knowledgable as you. Give it some thought. I'd sure vote for you, you're my kind of man!
Sincerely, the tooth fairy.
Okay, let's see if first is finished flagging.
agentorange, settle down. I've found a total of four sites so far that have been flagged out. They all have at least one person in common, and that one person has threatened several times to "flag everbody if anyone flags me again", or words to that effect. And it wasn't a christian. (originally posted today at 1:48pm)
Ahhhh, the flagger is working fast. Seven minutes between my post and agentorange's. I will continue to post until this stops. And yes, I'm pretty sure I know who you are. You are rather transparent you know. (originally posted at 1:52pm)
Now the flagger has added a fifth site, one of the few I have posted on. Don't believe he's posted on that one, but I'll have to go back and look (originally posted at 2:03pm)
Went back and looked, nope, you never posted on "Justices Hear Arguments". So now, you're out to get my posts too in order to get even. Well, one more flag and I will report you to the administrator of this site, and I will name you also. Please grow up. (originally posted at 2:10pm)
yes star, it is first/danny2/danny/bob. (originally posted at 2:21pm)
And I have discovered that FIRST is being very busy, flagging out many other sites now too, so far the count is nine. So first, since I discovered the ones you initially flagged were where you posted, you decided to try to wipe out the evidence? Naughty little boy. (originally posted at 2:25pm)
I would just say let go of the hate. hatered isn't healthy, let it go, move on.
agentorange
I got the links before they were flagged. I went to your youtube webpage and added it to "My Favorites". So now I can go see your stuff anytime I want.
Star,
Here are the vids again. copy the links and let me know what you think, questions, etc. This is by no means an all inclusive list, but instead a brief overview of some of the fossils.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
I didn't catch your last message
Star,
Here are the vids again. copy the links and let me know what you think, questions, etc. This is by no means an all inclusive list, but instead a brief overview of some of the fossils.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
agentorange, settle down. I've found a total of four sites so far that have been flagged out. They all have at least one person in common, and that one person has threatened several times to "flag everbody if anyone flags me again", or words to that effect. And it wasn't a christian. (originally posted today at 1:48pm)
Ahhhh, the flagger is working fast. Seven minutes between my post and agentorange's. I will continue to post until this stops. And yes, I'm pretty sure I know who you are. You are rather transparent you know. (originally posted at 1:52pm)
Now the flagger has added a fifth site, one of the few I have posted on. Don't believe he's posted on that one, but I'll have to go back and look (originally posted at 2:03pm)
Went back and looked, nope, you never posted on "Justices Hear Arguments". So now, you're out to get my posts too in order to get even. Well, one more flag and I will report you to the administrator of this site, and I will name you also. Please grow up. (originally posted at 2:10pm)
yes star, it is first/danny2/danny/bob. (originally posted at 2:21pm)
And I have discovered that FIRST is being very busy, flagging out many other sites now too, so far the count is nine. So first, since I discovered the ones you initially flagged were where you posted, you decided to try to wipe out the evidence? Naughty little boy. (originally posted at 2:25pm)
Star,
Yes, I do remember. He also went on censoring on my comments even though one could say I was making a point which fitted his views.....but it seems that's not good enough. Even me questioning him resulted in being flagged.
And I have discovered that FIRST is being very busy, flagging out many other sites now too, so far the count is nine. So first, since I discovered the ones you initially flagged were where you posted, you decided to try to wipe out the evidence? Naughty little boy.
yes star, it is first/danny2/danny/bob.
star2,
I would have responded to your post last night.....but SOME joker thinks it's fun to flag people.
You can always turn down the volume on the vids, here they are.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
GMG,
well, whoerver it is, this stuff has got to stop. I only suspected it was a christian deducing it from the artitcles I saw flagged and that it's happened before.
agentorange
Please repost your youtube video id on evolution. You did do a good job on putting it together. I didn't like the music you used for video 1 but I did like the music you used for video2.
what a joke. someone has gone around and censored all the comments here and on here -
www.christianpost.com/article/20080306/31441_Homeschooling_Families_Threatened_by_Court_Ruling.htm
www.christianpost.com/article/20080307/31422_Darwinism%3A_The_Imperialism_of_Biology%3F.htm
This is pathetic an outright abuse of the system and I shouldn't be too surprised considering this place and what I've seen before.
Judging by how it's only these two articles, and on not other topics, one can logically justify that in all likeliness it's some rouge christian that can’t handle dissenting opinions and rather to openly speak out chooses to outright censor people and those they've responded to so as to hide any evidence that their opinions had weight, were correct and made certain people look foolish, if not downright wrong.
If censoring is the best card you have to play, then it is more evidence of how shallow your faith indeed is.
*This is a forewarning* If this or future comments of mine, or others are wrongly censored, that is they don't violate the terms as listed on this site, I have no qualms about creating multiple dummy accounts and doing much the same thing in response. Of those affected by this censoring, I urge you to also consider this as an option to this unjust censoring.
If you want to censor people, fine let’s play that game and we'll see how it goes when myself and the numerous others that were wrongly censored here begin censoring out everyone else’s opinion on every single article. In the end neither of our voices will be heard and if that is what it takes for you to stop wrongly censoring people then so be it.
agentorange, settle down. I've found a total of four sites so far that have been flagged out. They all have at least one person in common, and that one person has threatened several times to "flag everbody if anyone flags me again", or words to that effect. And it wasn't a christian. (originally posted today at 1:48pm)
Ahhhh, the flagger is working fast. Seven minutes between my post and agentorange's. I will continue to post until this stops. And yes, I'm pretty sure I know who you are. You are rather transparent you know. (originally posted at 1:52pm)
Now the flagger has added a fifth site, one of the few I have posted on. Don't believe he's posted on that one, but I'll have to go back and look (originally posted at 2:03pm)
Went back and looked, nope, you never posted on "Justices Hear Arguments". So now, you're out to get my posts too in order to get even. Well, one more flag and I will report you to the administrator of this site, and I will name you also. Please grow up.
Now the flagger has added a fifth site, on of the few I have posted on. Don't believe he's posted on that one, but I'll have to go back and look
agentorange, settle down. I've found a total of four sites so far that have been flagged out. They all have at least one person in common, and that one person has threatened several times to "flag everbody if anyone flags me again", or words to that effect. And it wasn't a christian. (originally posted today at 1:48pm)
Ahhhh, the flagger is working fast. Seven minutes between my post and agentorange's. I will continue to post until this stops. And yes, I'm pretty sure I know who you are. You are rather transparent you know. (originally posted at 1:52pm)
You having fun?
Ahhhh, the flagger is working fast. Seven minutes between my post and agentorange's. I will continue to post until this stops. And yes, I'm pretty sure I know who you are. You are rather transparent you know.
agentorange, settle down. I've found a total of four sites so far that have been flagged out. They all have at least one person in common, and that one person has threatened several times to "flag everbody if anyone flags me again", or words to that effect. And it wasn't a christian.
Man I worded things all messed up on that last one. I'm tierd and going to bed, have fun with this debate. I pray that the lost get saved and I urge you other believers to pray for these people by there name. GOD bless!
As far as death in Eden. The tree of life existed in the garden and eating from the tree keeps sustained life for ever. So there really wouldn't of been any death. After they sinned they were kept from the tree and the whole garden actually. Then the tree was taken out by the flood is a most supported thought, since it destroyed all life on land. There are trees of life in paradise and the Holy city, the new Jerusalem.
( Rev. 2:7, 22:2, 22:14).
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Your videos show and tell nothing. In fact nothing has been proven, a lot of it has been disproved though. Any form of dating we have ever come up with has failed us. They have dated one end millions of years apart from the other end of bones, real trust worthy that is. Just because they teach that evolution is a fact, doesn't mean they are telling you the truth. If I ever saw an ape lose it's hair, walk and talk, or give birth to a human then I would second guess. Although it would probably be a hoax as is everything they come up with, they would probably use genetics to keep people like you from trusting GOD. I highly doubt that you ever read the bible, it says a lost person can't understand it. So even if you did read it, you wouldn't even know what your reading. There are verses in the bible that tell us scientific things we had know way of knowing until our technology was more advanced. Like the earth is round, we didn't know that! any secular person of the times thought is was flat. Also that there are springs at the bottom of the sea, we couldn't dive to those depths then, in fact people were afraid to go to far in the sea. GOD knows His world that's why He knew these things before us. Those where just off of the top of my head but there are more. I don't expect you to understand but if it wasn't true then I wouldn't be here, I'm proof enough that GOD and His Word are real. I know without a doubt I'm going to heaven when I die, and know one will ever talk me out of it!
Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
Jer 51:36 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee; and I will dry up her sea, and make her springs dry.
Now it’s obvious that no person could of known these things, also is shows GOD knows what He is talking about.
agentorange
I looked at your videos. The first one was kind of messed up and I really couldn't view it. However, the second played real well. You did a good job on putting it together.
I don't see that it shows anything other than the skull of some gorillas and ape like skulls that show variations within the ape species. I don't see it showing any thing like hominid transitionals.
“You have found no article that say Chimp DNA is the same size as human DNA and Common sense says for it has to be small'”
I wasn’t the one claiming they were identical in length to begin with!. I only indicated that accounting for insertions and deletions that they are very similar. To back it up I referred to recent articles from Harvard and Nature. You were the one claim their DNA is 10% longer and therefore YOU must back up YOUR claim. Back it up already.
“(Dark Energy, Dark Matter)”
Do you even know why these are used? We actually have a lot of evidence for them and just like atoms we can’t directly observe them either, but we can indirectly observe them. But although we can’t directly see a single atom you don’t doubt them now do you, so why do you so readily doubt dark matter or dark energy?
“Anyone who refuses to accept and discuss the flaws of evolution is not trust worthy.”
What flaws? Go ahead, lets hear um.
“So you know the Genesis 1 says God created birds before dinosaurs.”
No, it doesn’t. Site me the verse where it indicates it specifically.It never uses the word 'dinosaur' much less 'bird' (I think) in the genesis creation account.
“And you want me to believe the same geologist that says it takes million of years to bury a tree upright, that is until Mt. St. Helens did the exact same thing in less than a day?””
Not all layers of rock are made up of the same material, nor do they form under the same mechanisms. Sedimentary rock is laid down (and layers of ash like from your dumb Mt. St Helens Eruption) are laid down relatively faster than igneous rock (like from lava from flows) are laid down. Such a type of layer don’t require millions of years, but igneous build of layers does. Like the igneous build of the Hawaiian Island Chains. We do find very old trees under sedimentary layers as these type of layers can be laid down fast enough for it to occur, which isn’t the case with igneous rock. Case an point, in Hungary where mine workers found Cyprus trees from the Miocene after removing sedimentary layers.
www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=63433
“Oh yes I know. So, what happened to all the Anti-matter?”
What are talking about? Almost equal parts of matter and antimatter were produced during the inception of the Universe, each part cancelling each other out. The slight excess of matter (1 part in 100 billion) that survived is what the universe is made of. But since we’re on cosmology, why do starts and galaxies appear millions or billions of light years away if the universe is only 6000 years old as you think it should be?
“The series of "Dino" birds that have ALL turned out to be frauds and other fossil frauds.”
Here’s Theropod Dinosaurs with feathers, certainly not all frauds pal.
Dromaeosaurids, look up Velociraptor, Builtreraptor, Sinusonasus
Coelurosaurs, look up Sinosaurpteryx, Scansoriopteryx,
Tyrannosaroids, look up Dilong and Eotyrannus
Ornithomimosaurs and Alvarezsaurs, look up Shuvuuia, Epidendrosaurus, and Alvarezsaurids
Oviraptorsaurs, look up Caudipteryx and Citipati, Yixianosaurus, Jinfengopteryx,
Deinonychosaurs, Troodon, Microraptor, Deinonychus, Epidenosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx,
Avialians (birds) look up Confuciusornis, Longipteryx, Archeopteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornis, Enantiornis, patagopteryx, Hesperonis, Enantiornis, Ichthyornis
Are these all fake too then?
Hominids
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html www.becominghuman.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
www.archaeologyinfo.com/index.html
www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html w
ww.glendale.edu/skull/ http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/faq/encarta/encarta.htm
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex5
“You have not tested the truthfulness of the Bible yourself”
You’re crazy, I’ve read the bible and the Koran, both are quite abysmal in respect to science knowledge.
“Testament hasn't changed in 2100 to 4500 years, yet science hasn't stay (sic) the same”
That is a strength of Science moron. Science tests all things in the quest for truth of knowledge, while religions just declares by fiat what is what and with no evidence to back any of it. Science progresses and advances new knowledge while the bible refers to 3000 YO empty rhetoric in such regards.
“I have given proof science supports the Bible, but you discount it”
No you haven’t, you haven’t given anything in which the bible demonstrates genuine science knowledge that we know today. Show me where the bible refers to Quantum Mechanics or gravitational theory and so on.
“And as I said genetic and geologic dating doesn't instill me with any confidence, humans error and are very bias.”
Well, then you should equally apply this logic towards those who penned your bible then too fool. Both are products of fallible men after all.
“I can not condense twenty years of pro-evolutionary source reading into one paragraph. I have discussed the 98% identical chimp/human DNA”
Yes, and wrongly. You pointed out an ‘estimate’ from a 2002 article that they contain 10% more DNA (base pairs then us) to which you still haven’t backed up. Again, I call BS. Since you doubt our close genetic relation with Chimps, why don’t you read a more recent article from Harvard University and Nature.
www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.15/11-chimp.html
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html
“Eden did not have death.”
Didn’t adam and eve have to eat to survive like abiological organisms do? Of course, so obviously it would have involved eating things (which means there is death) for them to live. Secondly, adam and eve had finger nails and hair yes? Well, both are the result of dead cell growth.
“This is not an 'indifferent' God. And death did not exist before we sinned”
I love how you attempt to refute science with biblical verses…not very logical. You can’t even show any evidence to prove that adam, eve or the garden ever existed much less that death never occurred prior to it. Take a look at all the fossils we find of extinct organisms and try to tell me death hasn’t occurred till us, and I’ll keep laughing.
The Egyptian 5th and 6th dynasties were going on completely uninterupted durring this supposed 1 year flood. Add to it that the Great Pyramid of Giza and the Sphinx were built in about 2570 BC, a good 100-200 years before the flood occured. Yaweh's flood supposedly carved the grand canyon, yet it didn't knock down the little pyramids and sphinx? Keep in mind the Sphinx is today in pretty good shape showing little signs of water erosion.
agentorange20
Me: “God created birds before dinosaurs”
Quote: Sorry, but where does the bible say this? In referring to created animals it talks about which day which ones were created and that’s it. Look at the geological records of extinct life; they certainly didn’t all exist all at the same time. We can’t find Dinosaurs even remotely near the same layers as hominids, and modern teeth less birds don’t show up till Dinosaurs were already long gone.
So you know the Genesis 1 says God created birds before dinosaurs. And you want me to believe the same geologist that says it takes million of years to bury a tree upright, that is until Mt. St. Helens did the exact same thing in less than a day? I've seen more than enough evidence to doubt the honesty and accuracy of geologic dating. And is the fossil record comprehensive? There's an awful of unexplored 'geology' out there.
And the Bible does say "Let the waters bring forth abundantly" where it doesn't for land animals. That would indicte God created much more sea life than land life.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201;&version=9;
“He created the Universe from 'waters' not a 'bang'.”
Quote: Good, another science error in the bible. You do realize the Big Bang only explains the evidence for the Universe expanding and doesn’t explain where the Universe came from right?
Oh yes I know. So, what happened to all the Anti-matter? The equal parts that the equation says should exist but doesn't. The Bible starts with ordinary matter, exactly what we observe, which doesn't sound like an error to me. It too describes the Expansion of the Universe! And it did it 2100 to 3500 years before Modern Science.
And I have to go... Life calls.
agentorange20
Me: “We committed spiritual suicide in the Garden.”
Quote: Dude, this is a symbolic metaphor, it wasn’t a real event. If it was a real event, back it up with evidence too. If you’re a biblical literalist as think this even REALLY happened, then you likely also think the earth/universe are only 6000 years old and if that’s the case you obviously can’t refer to those mtDNA and Y-chromosome methods for identifying the oldest Homo Sapiens as they date waaay beyond 6000 years. I am not certain if Ken Miller takes Genesis literally.
It is not symbolic. It is history. It explains everything. And there is no proof for you. You have not tested the truthfulness of the Bible yourself. You have taking others word on what it says without consulting it. I can give you no proof because you've decided it a lie without a fair hearing. I have given proof science supports the Bible, but you discount it. The Hebrew Testament hasn't changed in 2100 to 4500 years, yet science hasn't stay the same. And as I said genetic and geologic dating doesn't instill me with any confidence, humans error and are very bias.
Ken Miller can't take Genesis literally if he advocates evolution. They are not compatible.
Quote: However, as I pointed out, that Marks article you referred to is from 2002, which is before we were done with mapping the Chimps genome and last I recall it doesn’t contain 10% more genetic information like you said they do. If I am wrong point me out, then back it up.
What? You have found no article that say Chimp DNA is the same size as human DNA and Common sense says for it has to be small'
Me: ‘And I learned, from evolutionary sources, that I've been lied to.”
Quote: Such as…….?
I can not condense twenty years of pro-evolutionary source reading into one paragraph. I have discussed the 98% identical chimp/human DNA. The series of "Dino" birds that have all turned out to be frauds and other fossil frauds. I have watch theories be Band-Aid beyond reasonability (Dark Energy, Dark Matter). What I have learned is that anything goes as long as it proves evolution and retractions and corrects only appear when someone has a 'better' theory. I no longer trust scientist or, for that matter, journalist. Anyone who refuses to accept and discuss the flaws of evolution is not trust worthy.
agentorange20
Quote: Sorry to hear about your mother, truly I am. Cancer is the result of normal ordinary harmful genetic mutations that naturally occur. Mutations are virtually always neutral, however rarely they are harmful or beneficial and this harmfulness results in cancer as a defunct cell goes on replicating its inherited wrongly copied DNA. I don’t know if you’re correlating sin with cancer, but I don’t buy that and nor should you. Plenty of good, god fearing people get cancer as do many others that believe in other gods or no god.
Thank you for your symphathy, but I will see her again.
Cancer is a 'normal ordinary harmful genetic mutations' that was never intended to be. Eden did not have death. Disobedance (sin) brought death. Last time I checked cancer kills, therefore it is a result of sin. And my mother was/is God fearing. No one has ever said being 'God fearing' stops disease or death.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Me: “Not the system evolution describes. God is not capricious or sadistic and death is evil.” 1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Quote: What if god in this sense is just indifferent, ever think of that? Death and life is a natural process, all things die, even stars burn out.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Luke 12:6-7 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.
This is not an 'indifferent' God. And death did not exist before we sinned.
“You don't need a base pair list to determine Chimp DNA is 10% bigger than Human, all you need is the appropriate sized ruler. The fact is both Genome sizes are estimates not base pair counts.”
The initial comparisons that you’re likely referring to were done analyzing base sequences, which aren’t base pairs, know the difference then come back. Well, we’ve mapped both ours, rats, mice, gorillas, and Chimps Genomes, so we know how many base pairs they have in compared to us and for Chimps it’s not 10% larger, if it is back it up with some evidence that proves it is. Base pairs are what genes are made up and base pairs is what is used as that ‘ruler’ to establish genetic size as you so eloquently put it. For an idea of how many base pairs we have per chromosome, here take a look. You’ll also find all the nice genetic diseases associated with each chromosome.
www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/chooser.shtml
“Speciation has not be 'observed' in labs or anywhere else, however artificial manipulation has been observed. Artificial manipulation, adaptation, and neutral mutation are not the sole purview of evolutionary theory.”
You’re hilarious. Google ‘observed speciation’ chap.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsify
“The Globalness (sic) of the Flood story validates it. But then you ignored all that trying to belittle the Hebrew global flood.”
What evidence is there for it? Is it possible according to physics? No, certainly not. If it occurred you have a lot of explaining to do. As in why don’t we see a genetic bottleneck in all life forms 6000 years ago? Where did all water come from and go? How did so far kinds create such diversity in only 3000 years?
“I didn't say tectonic plates are pillars. I said the convection currents of lava under them are 'pillars'…..And I have no problem with the reading since it specifically refers to 'shaking', clearly refering to an earthquake,”
Well, either way it’s still wrong. Pillars are like columns which are solid objects, while those convection currents aren’t solid, nor are they a singular column like. They are quite literally like flowing level of magma, nothing solid there. And the earth’s mantle certainly does shift and shake according to these plates, while the bible literally says the earth doesn’t move. Again the earth moves, and in more ways than one deal with it.
“You probably know that would rather difficult since this was proved true rather early in modern times...”
3RD time - and I’d like to SEE what ARTICLE in SCIENCE you’re referring to which said it would NOT be like glass. If it’s such common knowledge as you imply, then you should have no problem backing it up, back it up with a current article. If you can’t back it up, then it’s mere hearsay as a result. Back up your claims in which some science article made this claim or will have reduced your own authority.
“Yes I believe Adam and Eve are real people too and I believe science has proven what the Bible has said for more than 2100 years. “
Ya, where? I already showed how the mtDNA and Y-chromosome analysis of the oldest H. Sapiens lineages date back 160,000 years, which is waaay beyond the 6000 years put forth by the bible.
“I don't trust the dating methods however. It's based on the assumption of evolution.”
Actually we have nearly 4 dozen dating methods, so which don’t you get? Actually, the dating methods don’t rely on any process of evolutionary theory at all. The radio metric dating techniques rely totally on physics, and chemistry. Here are some dating methods that all collectively agree that age of the earth is 4.5 billions years old. I am sure it’s just a coincidence ;)
argon-argon dating, iodine-xenon dating, lead-lead dating, potassium-argon dating, radiocarbon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, uranium-lead dating, uranium-thorium dating, uranium-uranium dating.
“Every analysis assume natural processes and evolution”
It appears you don’t understand how science works then. Science can ONLY test and analyze the natural, not the supernatural (god). If some global event whipped out all but 8 people and all but 2 animals of each species or kind we’d see it in their genes, alas we don’t. The Mayans and Aztecs lived in the jungles and not mountains….yes, they are mistaken in regards to a flood.
“I'm afraid you misunderstand. Even if there had been the expected 100,000 genes, DNA would still be mostly 'non-coding'. The point is they still got it wrong. For people "who know how it works" they keep running into a lot of surprises.”
No, I think you’re misunderstanding. We thought (a guess based on no hard evidence prior to mapping the genome) that 100% of the genome would be protein coded, however after closer inspection which revealed evidence on how and what is coded it turned out only a small % of it is protein coded, which is why we later coined most of it as ‘junk dna’ as it doesn’t code for proteins and plays a lesser role if at all.
They didn’t get anything wrong to begin with, it was a simple guess based on current evidence, which wasn't much. Get it? Just like how we thought the sun revolved around the earth b/c it appears to from our vantage point, this too was wrong and we now know better.
The only one that got it wrong here is you by referring to some old article in which Mark points out that it’s ‘estimated that Chimps have 10% more DNA’, not that they do, or it’s certain they do, but it’s ESTIMATED. And estimate that is wrong.
agentorange20
Quote: I appreciate you replying with the link. Honestly, thank you. However, this article is from 2002, which was before we finished mapping the Chimps genome and publisheding it in 2005. I does mention the possible fusion of the Chimp chromosome too though. Marks say it's 'estimated that they have 10% more', not that they do and last I recall from the more recent articles I've read, they don't. -
Yes I know the Chromosone 2a & b spoke of, I did read it after all, and that is there the extra 10% comes from. 2002 is long after 1973 and nothing in your article discount the accuracy of that number. You don't need a base pair list to determine Chimp DNA is 10% bigger than Human, all you need is the appropriate sized ruler. The fact is both Genome sizes are estimates not base pair counts.
Quote: (to Star) Anything that conflicts with your bible you deem as wrong. you wont investigate it, you wont even bother to research it at all. you have no gumption or interest to learn anything, hence you're a flat earther.
I'm afraid it's not that simple. The Bible has demonstrated it's worthiness but you have given it no chance to prove it to you.
Quote: (to star) I am sure he does star, I am sure he does. So could you please comment on those 2 vids I gave you. and lets recap for good measure. macro-evolution = speciation, which has been observed both in labs and in the wild countless times. and abiogenesis and evolution aren't the same thing, do not rely on the same evidence.
Speciation has not be 'observed' in labs or anywhere else, however artificial manipulation has been observed. Artificial manipulation, adaptation, and neutral mutation are not the sole purview of evolutionary theory.
agentorange20
Quote: “First 'earth' in the Bible refers to dry land not a planet. Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth..."
Well it seems you and Star (a YEC) have some explaining to do with each other on what’s what. She literally thinks there was a global flood, while you apparently do not. Perhaps you two should have a short dialog on where the differences in interpolations lie.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. I believe in the Global Flood. The Globalness of the Flood story validates it. But then you ignored all that trying to belittle the Hebrew global flood.
Me: “Second according to geology the contential plates are held up by 'pillars' of lava. “
Quote: The tectonic plates aren’t pillars or columns, but are quite literally plates or mantle that ride along the thermal magma currents of our planets inner core. Oh but don’t tell star that, she likely doubts plate tectonics too. I guess if you loosely view it that way it could almost work, but not really.
I didn't say tectonic plates are pillars. I said the convection currents of lava under them are 'pillars'.
Quote: Well, earthquake or not, the earth moves and more ways than one as it revovled around the earth and spins on its axis and undergoes earthquakes. If someone takes it literally in all aspects (that’s you Star) they can’t reconcile this literally.
I believe in the literal interpretation too. And I have no problem with the reading since it specifically refers to 'shaking', clearly refering to an earthquake, not to planetary motion in general. Context is everything. You can abuse anything out of context.
“Great! Wonderful! And this change the fact that scientist said it couldn't happen how?”
Quote: and I’d like to SEE what ARTICLE in SCIENCE you’re referring to which said it would NOT be like glass.
You probably know that would rather difficult since this was proved true rather early in modern times...
Sorry to hear about your mother, truly I am. Cancer is the result of normal ordinary harmful genetic mutations that naturally occur. Mutations are virtually always neutral, however rarely they are harmful or beneficial and this harmfulness results in cancer as a defunct cell goes on replicating its inherited wrongly copied DNA. I don’t know if you’re correlating sin with cancer, but I don’t buy that and nor should you. Plenty of good, god fearing people get cancer as do many others that believe in other gods or no god.
“Not the system evolution describes. God is not capricious or sadistic and death is evil.”
What if god in this sense is just indifferent, ever think of that? Death and life is a natural process, all things die, even stars burn out.
“We committed spiritual suicide in the Garden.”
Dude, this is a symbolic metaphor, it wasn’t a real event. If it was a real event, back it up with evidence too. If you’re a biblical literalist as think this even REALLY happened, then you likely also think the earth/universe are only 6000 years old and if that’s the case you obviously can’t refer to those mtDNA and Y-chromosome methods for identifying the oldest Homo Sapiens as they date waaay beyond 6000 years. I am not certain if Ken Miller takes Genesis literally.
However, as I pointed out, that Marks article you referred to is from 2002, which is before we were done with mapping the Chimps genome and last I recall it doesn’t contain 10% more genetic information like you said they do. If I am wrong point me out, then back it up.
‘And I learned, from evolutionary sources, that I've been lied to.”
Such as…….?
“God created birds before dinosaurs”
Sorry, but where does the bible say this? In referring to created animals it talks about which day which ones were created and that’s it. Look at the geological records of extinct life; they certainly didn’t all exist all at the same time. We can’t find Dinosaurs even remotely near the same layers as hominids, and modern teeth less birds don’t show up till Dinosaurs were already long gone.
“He created the Universe from 'waters' not a 'bang'.”
Good, another science error in the bible. You do realize the Big Bang only explains the evidence for the Universe expanding and doesn’t explain where the Universe came from right?
agentorange20
Me - “And this means science hasn't proven the exist of both an Adam and an Eve?”
Quote: Not the biblical Adam and eve. See I don’t know if you’re a biblical YEC, but to them they think Adam and eve were supposedly real people that lived only 6000 YO and that in no way conforms to the dates given by DNA. The DNA doesn’t back up the biblical claim just b/c they gave them the same names, the dates and regions are totally different as are the circumstances. An apologetic view has no problem seeing it though this way and I think that’s what you’re saying and most people view it this way.
Yes I believe Adam and Eve are real people too and I believe science has proven what the Bible has said for more than 2100 years. I don't trust the dating methods however. It's based on the assumption of evolution. Without evolution the comparision is meaningless.
“Last time I checked no ones looked for that genetic evidence.”
Quote: We can look at the genetic lineage and based on mutation rates in the mtDNA and Y-chromosome determine how much diversity exists now and in the past and there is nothing that occurred 6000 YO that resulted in a huge bottle neck where all offspring would have the same alleles. Only further back do we find genetic bottle necks. A genetic bottle would stand out like a sore thumb as it would reveal all offspring sharing much less diversity that should be present.
Ah, so human's can breed literally billion of animal and thousands of breeds in a few thousand years, but God, the creator of DNA, can't? Any anaylsis, if there really is comprehensive one, which is doubtful since we have limited capasity to record DNA/RNA at the level needed, assumes a time scale to change that no one can prove is constant. Every analysis assume natural processes and evolution.
Quote: Many early civlizations have such stories of floods as it's in the agricultural period where their lives were largely based close to - water.
The Aztecs and Mayan are famous for their mountain homes. Are you telling they would mistake a Amazon flood for a Global Flood?
Quote: The initial guess on DNA was decades prior to being mapped, so when it was mapped in 2000 it became apparent our hunch was wrong, and one that had no evidence behind which is why it was wrong. Some guessed the entire genome would be protein coded b/c couldn't logically see it mostly not being protein coded, which is how it really is. It's like how we thought the sun revolved around the earth, but after evidence was gathered we knew that wasn't the case.
I'm afraid you misunderstand. Even if there had been the expected 100,000 genes, DNA would still be mostly 'non-coding'. The point is they still got it wrong. For people "who know how it works" they keep running into a lot of surprises.
agentorange20
Me: “I have explained Chromosome 2, it's not a fusion it a re-use-ion, you just don't like the explanation because it puts God in the picture and gives him reasonable intelligence.”
Quote: Well, you’ve not explained it to me. Do you know anything about genetic mutations? I am not trying to be mean, so please don't think I am, just a question. We know they occur naturally and observe them in the labs all the time. Here are some, translocations, deletions, duplications, and FUSIONS. Now, why would you interject god into a totally natural process?
Yes I know about mutations. My mother died of cancer and my brother-in-law has cancer. God has no part in cancer. Our disobedience, aka sin, does. Sin is a contagions that destroys literally everything.
Quote: Couldn’t god devise a system (evolution) that would in the end see to it that his ideal creation (us) would naturally come about based on the laws he has governed? Why would a god need to be involved, wouldn’t it be nobler for the god to just let the ball roll so to speak and life take its course resulting in us? Just an idea of course.
Not the system evolution describes. God is not capricious or sadistic and death is evil. 1 Corinthians 15:26 "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Human's brought death into this world by disobeying God. We committed spiritual suicide in the Garden.
Quote: Seems realistic to me. Ever heard of ‘Finding Darwin’s God’ by Ken Miller. In it, he explains how one can reconcile the bible and science, mostly evolution, for their own sake. ... a little on how Ken Miller is able to bring the bible and evolution together to exist. He brings a more appologetic stance towards it.
This is a subject I am EXTREMELY familiar with. I have already been there. I grew up a evolutionary creationist because I trusted science to hold to the scienctific principle. And I learned, from evolutionary sources, that I've been lied to. Science is unbias but scienetist are not. I would also bet Ken Miller doesn't believe Genesis is literal. God said he created each creature separately and according to its kind. God created birds before dinosaurs. The sun and star after the earth. He created the Universe from 'waters' not a 'bang'. Death came this world by the hands of a man.
And I will make you a similiar offer. Go to this link and read the Bible and give it a personal hearing instead of using hearsay to judge it's merits.
www.biblegate.com
I am sure he does star, I am sure he does. So could you please comment on those 2 vids I gave you. and lets recap for good measure. macro-evolution = speciation, which has been observed both in labs and in the wild countless times. and abiogenesis and evolution aren't the same thing, do not rely on the same evidence.