Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Notruthleft,

"How about before Darwen's "origin of life", there was no biology at all?which one is earlier?"

Firstly, Darwins book wasn't Origins of LIFE, it's called ORIGIN of SPECIES...BIG DIfference there as they imply different things too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species

Also, Biology as a form of science didn't really exist until Mendel came along and devised a means to explain heredity and how information is passed from parents to offpspring. Unfortunatly, these ideas didn't come till after Darwins book, howerver others in that same era had ideas on how traits were passed on, but they were wrong. So from this perspective, modern Biology didn't really begin till after Mendel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance

"Biology did just well before "evolution","

As mentioned, Biology didn't really exist till evolutionary hit the scene.

"and human beings haven't got any benefit out of the idea of "evolution".

Oh really? Do you not realize how the flu and many other vaccines are prepared ever year by the CDC is directly done in relation and knowledge gained from evolutionary theory of how viruses mutate and how best to stop them. Google ‘evolutionary medicine’ and tell me evolution hasn’t done anything for humans.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

The only reason we are able to devise and create drugs that make living with HIV tolerable is directly because of evolutionary theory and understanding how viruses mutate. You haven’t a clue do you? I pitty you.

“Again, maths, physics, chemistry, biology, computer science, etc. are science, "evolution" is NOT Science. Period. "

Sorry, but evolution is a falsifiable, testable theory that time and time again makes predictions which conform to the theory. Saying it’s not a theory or science out of ignorance and stomping your feet and yelling ‘Period’ doesn’t change the facts.

Intelligent Design Professor Loses Appeal for Tenure

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

hawk,

No comment or plead the 5th I guess for you? And what is your take on Human Chromosome 2 fusion and at least 7 identical ERV's we and Chimps share? the DI had nothing to say about these in Dover.

There is ample data out there on these isntances, but I will post links if needed.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

star2,

good night star. may you rest well and sleep sound.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

“www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm”

This is it? I don’t see ‘Nebraska man or Piltdown man’ anywhere in there star.


This is an Intelligent Design site supported by the Discovery Institute, you know the same Discovery Institute folk that wouldn’t even defend their garbage in court in Dover. You wouldn’t even support Intelligent Design as they all modern dating techniques to date the earth and life, better than nothing I suppose.

ID on trial in Dover
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qk3sRqsVrh4

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star,

do you have any evidence then for a 6000 year old earth/universe?

you so realize the speed of light is a constant (c) right? and with this we can measure distance, velocity and time in the Universe. so think about it, its not just evolution that is in conflict with a literal reading of the bible, but also cosmology and astronomy (NASA).

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"I will reply but it will later"

When? you've doged the question forever and when I point out how we sciency types figure stuff out you brush it off as say we 'assume it's true'. we use the same scientific method processes in all science to support theories and evolution is no different.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

star, “He mentioned that evolutionists believed the earth was 4.6 billion years old. He said that his research had it down to millions of years old. He gave his reasons why he said that.”

Fine, show the evidence to back up this claim and I’ll consider it.

“http://wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe23.gif’
“http://wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-03.htm”

This is your evidence for your Noachian flood? You’ll have to do better than that; this is old news that’s already been shown not to be anything. 1960@! Good grief. Haven’t you heard of the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh that dates to around 3000 BCE?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Here star,

I'll repost the explanation of how we determine things in science and why the evidence I gave earlier (human chromosome 2, erv's, fossils, etc) supports evolution.

“If that was true then it would seem logical that if two different species have some genetic similarities such as the 7 identical ERV between the human and the chimp then they both came from a common ancestor. Isn't that how you think angentorange?”

The idea goes like this star2. When we’re in the lab a discussion would be like this: ‘If evolution is true, we should be able to make falsifiable predictions (for instance, human chromosome 2, ERV’s, 99% identical base sequences) and these predictions if they conform to the idea that common ancestry is true, then it supports evolution.

Before we’d even finished mapping the human genome we already knew modern apes have 2 pairs of 24 chromosomes, while we have 2 pairs of 23 chromosomes. So the idea goes further: ‘now, if evolution is still true, if we and modern apes are somehow related, we must account for this missing chromosome somewhere and we should if evolution and common ancestry are true find evidence for this in our genetic sequences.’

After mapping the human and modern great ape chromosomes we searched and then found that human chromosome 2 matches and lines up perfectly with 2 other ape chromosomes. So the idea goes, this is an example of evidence which conforms to the idea of common ancestry and supports evolution. Get it? This is how falsifiable, predictable and testable evidence is included and used in science.

We also know that based on heredity, an offspring will naturally share more in common with its most common ancestor, so this too is a means by which we can know how closely living species are related.

“There is no proof that just because the 7 identical ERVs are shared between the human and the chimp that they both have a common ancestor. You conclude this because you think that all life orginated from a common ancestor.”

Science works in making testable predictions that are falsifiable. We make a theory (evolution) which states that all life shares ultimately a common ancestor, and based on this theory/model we should be able to make predictable and testable results that support or negate said theory.

Now, with the Human chromosome 2 fusion we made a prediction and it conformed to the theory of evolution. And with the ERV’s we again made a prediction that closely related species that shared a common recent ancestor should, if evolution is true, we should find identical ERV’s and we do.

Now last night you said you'd reply, so please do.

Intelligent Design Professor Loses Appeal for Tenure

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Hawk,

fine leave Afarensis out of it, what about the other hominids we have fossils of. they are neither ape nor just like us, please explain them.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star2,

"They conclude that the data they have proves evolution; but, like you, they start out with the presumption that evolution is true already"

Star, remember last night where I went over the whole process of the scientifc method and making testable predictions and then depending on those results they either support or don't support the hypotheisis and theory, remember how you'd said you'd have an answer for me on that....well I am still waiting. I showed you how in science we make falsifiable, testable predictions and based on the results they either support or don't support a hypothesis and or theory, please reply to why this is wrong or insuffucient in only evolution, but with all other forms of science it works just fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"He is ignorant of the truth"

No star, you're making the claim that both nebraska man and piltdown man are used in schools or colleges, back it up with evidence that is credible.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star,

“I have heard Dr. Ross on TV occassionally say how he has brought down how old the earth was by an x number of millions of years.”

Ok, what evidence? Keep in mind according the latest science evidence the earth is 4.6 billion years old, so even a million years is relatively nominal.

” I have often wondered why God has not removed him from the type of ministry he has. “

Maybe b/c god doesn’t do such things???

“I believe he does more to hurt Christians in their faith then he helps them because he is for ever trying to discredit the Word of God.“

Believe it or not star, most Christians are not literalists like you, many are apologetics b/c they realize that you can only deny evidence for so long and others like Catholics interpret such passages (like your no-way flood) as symbolic and metaphorical messages rather than matter of fact events that evidence can't support.

“However, this article that we are discussing seems to indicate that he is, at least, narrowing down how long he think it took the universe to come into being and perhaps is getting a little closer to the truth as outlined in the Word of God.”

Nope, all that article is about is genetics and only genetics, read it again star. Neither the words ‘universe’ or ‘earth’ are even used in that article; it’s only an article on genetics.

“How long ago do you evolutionists believe that humans have been on the earth? Does it measure up to what the article suggests?”

This article referred to an older study of 38 males for estimating the age of Y chromosome (male) lineage, and it mentions ‘eve’ as well referring to the mtDNA of the ‘African eve’ in which DNA was analyzed from around the globe. The most recent mtDNA analysis shows that H. Sapiens (us) dates back 195,000 years to an African origin that is unique to the San people, so now it doesn’t quite match up to the article you gave, but that’s b/c it’s 13 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen

We’ve also found artifacts and tools dating to around 190,000 years and more recent around 160,000 years in southern Africa. Refer to the link to read up on it. – https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Please explain the evidence for your 6000 year old earth/universe.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

star,

“www.creationministries.org/seminars.asp”

Great, another ALL STAR reputable site for accuracy, star this is getting repetitive cite me a valid scientific source and not this creationist propaganda sites already. Star, how can we be sure that this quote is even accurate, do they show pictures of this college class and the object in question, or is it mere hearsay? Try to think critically for a change.

“If this college student is still being taught the above about gill slits, then she is still being taught about the Nebraska Man and Peltdown Man and all the other fradulent fossil finds and conclusions.”

No, all it shows is they are teaching about the embryonic gill slits and not Nebraska or Piltdown man, big difference star. Besides, embryos is related ot biology whereas fossils are related to paleontology and secondly, as embryos we do have primitive gill slits that are used for a short time till the lungs fully develop.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star,2

Did you bother to read the entire article star? it doesn't support a 6000 year old earth at all.

“I do not accept Hugh Ross' position.”

And yet you cite him as a source for something regarding DNA, even though in the end you don’t agree with him either. Okay, that made no sense at all star.

“That is basically what Dr. Ross believes.”

Well, he is an apologetic star, and they exist for a reason and you know why that is. Its b/c they must attempt to make sense to modernity of emerging evidence in face of a 3000 year old book, that's why.

“However, I have noticed that over time he seems to be narrowing down how old the earth is and how long life has been around as new evidence arises.“

No star, he never mentioned 'the age of the earth' at all, re-read it, he only meantions genetics and how that ties in with how long 'modern man' (his words not mine) has been around. My oh, my, why would he use such a term like 'modern man', as if to imply other previous men weren't quite like us or quite as modern

You see star he’s referring to that scientific evidence again to draw his conclussions, something you explicitly ignore, so why do you use him at all as a source? you will cite him as a source b/c he refers to DNA, but when I give you other sources (more recent mind you) which are more detailed you don't accept them at all. That's hypocrytical that you'll accept his older evidence but not more recent DNA evidence.

The rest of your paragraph is short on evidence and basically a word salad.

“I mentioned this article because it has scientfic evidence that humans haven't been around as long as evolutionists claim”

Excuse me, but didn’t you notice the references to Hugh Ross’ works date back to 1995!! Hello, it’s 2008 star, a whole lot of new information has been discovered. Besides, he might refer to evidence, but it doesn’t conform to your 6000 year old earth/universe, so you using him as a source makes no sense as his claims and evidence he cites doesn’t support your stance anyway.

The most recent mtDNA evidence shows that the older H.Sapien DNA dates backs 195,000 years. go to the site and gave and read up on it already, jeeeez.



But, since you’re into evidence now,

Evolution Weekend Highlights Religion, Science Debate

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

notw06,

Ok, it's cited well done....but what does this quote prove in terms of supporting your view that evolution is false?

You didn't follow it up with anything, you just cited a small quote, that's about just as meaningless as not citing it at all.

Could you reply to my past links below on such instances of fossils please.

Your citing shows that ordinary DNA cell duplication invariably, but relatively rarely has copying errors....so what? How does this negate evolution? We've known for decades that DNA undergoes regular copying errors (mutations) and this is exactly how new genetic information is added as Hox Genes.

Mutation rates vary greatly between phyla and are affected by environment. Scientifically evaluating whether a mutation is generically harmful or beneficial is going to be almost impossible in the lab except in relation to the environment that the organism is being cultured in. Bacteria seem to come out at around 0.004 mutations per genome per replication.

In bacteria it has been proven that it is possible to stimulate a mutation to protect against predation in around 5-10 days (Gillot 1993 or Van den Ende 1973). Boraas 1998 has demonstrated such adaptions in the green alga Chlorella vulgaris after 100 generations.
Stability of the cultures in the lab certainly indicates that the rate of deleterious mutations is not high enough to damage the long term viability of the species.

So overall analysis of against total numbers of mutations have to rely on comparisons of DNA.

Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans
Nachman and Crowell (2000)

175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious mutations per generation 3, 1.72%. I've seen a figure of 98% of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28% are beneficial.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Star2,

You’re a YEC right? As in you believe the earth/universe are 6000 years old right?

Why then do you use a website that doesn’t support this/your view and instead refers to mtDNA and Y chromosome analysis to establish the age of modern H. Sapiens no older than 200,000 years?

www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/chromosome.shtml

“Several years ago, I reported on a parallel investigation of women's genetic variation.3 Because the differences found were so slight, theorists concluded that women can trace their lineage only a couple hundred thousand years at the most to a common ancestor, whom the scientists called "Eve" (I won't argue the name, but I would lean toward a more recent date of origin than 200,000 years).”

At the bottom of that site it also shows how old the articles are that this site references in this case. Not surprisingly, these references are of data that isn’t quite up to date and doesn’t show the newest most recent DNA evidence regarding Y chromosome and mtDNA lineage analysis.

Here’s the references from that site.

“REFERENCES:
1.Robert L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi and Walter Gilbert, "Absence of Polymorphism at the ZFY Locus on the Human Y Chromosome," Science, 268(1995), pp. 1183-1185.
2.Svante Paabo, "The Y Chromosome and the Origin of A11 of Us (Men)," Science, 268 (1995), pp. 1141-1142.
3.Hugh Ross, "The Mother of Mankind," Facts & Faith, vol. 2, no. 1 (1988), pp. 1-2.
4.Hugh Ross, "New Twists in Theories of Human Evolution," Facts & Faith, vol. 8, no. 2 (1994), pp. 45. 5. Pååbo, p. 1142. “
If you’re going to refer to the latest on DNA, go to where the most recent data is at and not some 10-15 year old data from some apologetic reference.

www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

star,

“An ape is still an ape and a human is still a human. No information that they gave proves that a human came from an ape”

If an ape is an ape, what is Homo Neanderthalensis? What is Homo Heidelbergensis? What is Homo Erectus? What is Homo Ergaster? What is Homo Habilis?

Are they, in your opinion all apes then, and if so on what criteria?

There is no way you read through all those articles and refered to the other links, again another knee jerk reaction from star.

“Why do evolutionists continue to put forth in the biology textbooks for children that the Nebraska Man and the Piltdown Man proves evolution?”

Show me where they do star. Both of these instances were found to be forged b/c of the materialistic scientific method, that’s its purpose. We have plenty of fossils besides those that demonstrate hominid evolution, you just can’t handle it and you don’t have an open mind so you won’t read into it.

Intelligent Design Professor Loses Appeal for Tenure

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

“The majority of paleoanthropologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis is on the main evolutionary line (or very close to it) heading toward modern”

Fine, since Afarensis doesn’t’ work for you, look at any of the hominids (Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, rhodesiensis, Heidelbergensis Neanderthalensis, Florensis) fossils (refer to links I gave below) and tell me none of those are transitional of vouch for evolution or common ancestry.



“I was having some fun about brontosaurus. This is the hoax I was taught was fact in govt school.”

I’m surprised you take the work of such things in a govt. class as it relates to biology, quite funny.
Brontosaurus (Apatosaurus) was never indicated to be a missing link (like you said) to anything, it was only defined as a saurapod dinosaur and it’s certainly not a hoax. The reason why Marsh put the wrong head on was what matched up and no other contradictory evidence was around. Since we found more apatasaurauses we know that it was initially the wrong skull.

But since you like Jonathan Wells so much, here’s him in a vid making a wrong scientific claim.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM

Intelligent Design Professor Loses Appeal for Tenure

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hawk,

If the fossil record is so bare as you claim, explain these.

Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html
www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977

Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html


“Three Israeli scientists”

There is some question IF ‘lucy’ an Australopithecus Afarensis is on our direct lineage as an acenstor, and it’s not b/c only those fossils, it’s b/c we have other early australopithicenes which were also bi-pedal and had flatter faces already like we and the more recent hominids had and this is why they think these other ancestoral apes might be the direct link as opposed to Afarensis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

“Donald Johanson, the discoverer of the first Au. afarensis “Lucy,””

Had you looked into it, Afarensis is a primitive ape, so naturally many of her traits are going to be quite close to extant (living) ape relatives. Afarensis is unique b/c of how her anatomy and skeleton structure allowed for upright bipedal motion, something found exclusively only today in humans, birds and those hominid fossils I mentioned above.

Apologists Ask Churches to Step Up Response to Militant Atheism

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

hey Karl,

you might want to check up on that source before you go laughging away....

http://www.lifescienceprize.org/data3.html

"© Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.* Peer reviewed paper published in Creation Research Society Quarterly 38: 151-158, 2001.[*Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach; Adjunct Professor of Physiology, Graduate School, Institute for Creation Research, 10946 Woodside Avenue N., Santee, CA "

Institute of Creation Research (ICR) yup, just like AIG another very (sarcastic) reptuable site. Did you catch that part where it says their work is 'scientifically peer reviewed'...no, neither did I. It only states they review their own work, nice. So to ensure accuracy of evidence ICR reviews itself....yea that's logical.

look what it says right off the bat that is WRONG.

"The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis..."

Apparently this site is as naive as many on this board in a thinking that the ORIGINS of LIFE and LIFE changing over time are the same thing.....they aren't.

Then is has this stellar one liner... "“Change over time,” “definition one” of evolution, actually describes devolution to extinction, the exact opposite of evolution."