Posted on 05/02/2013 7:45:45 AM PDT by fishtank
Of course, you have irrefutable proof of this. Please enlighten us.
“educated”, defined as “length of time immersed in a particular worldview”.
Of course, the more “educated” someone is, by the above definition, the more likely they are to adopt the worldview they’re immersed in.
Proves nothing except for an attempted “bullying”.
You get this all the time from the left - “all the smart people believe xyz”.
try again
How dare you insult an ape by comparing them to members of congress. I demand an apology!
First they allege a conspiracy - apparently they think the sequences of genes are only published IF they are very similar to chimpanzees.
“First, it looks as though all apes and monkeys contain significant portions of their genes that are very similar to parts of human genes. However, the primate genes also contain significant sections that are specific to their kind (e.g., chimp, gorilla, orangutan, etc.) that are not found in human genes.”
This is the meat of their claim - for which they provide ZERO evidence.
So they make up a conspiracy theory - and then make an assertion backed up with NOTHING.
A comparative analysis of similarity in DNA, at either the gene, or genome level - will show that among the apes - humans and chimpanzees are the most similar. Both humans and chimpanzees are more similar in DNA than either is to a gorilla.
As far as species go - would you expect a mouse and a rat to be more similar or less similar to each other in DNA than a human and a chimpanzee are?
| Far left | Liberal | Middle of the Road | Conservative | Far right | |
| Public universities | 13.3% | 52.4% | 24.7% | 9.2% | 0.3% |
| Private universities | 16.2% | 51.5% | 22.3% | 9.8% | 0.1% |
| Public, 4-year colleges | 8.8% | 47.1% | 28.7% | 14.7% | 0.7% |
| Private, 4-year, nonsectarian | 14.0% | 54.6% | 22.6% | 8.6% | 0.3% |
| Private, 4-year, Catholic | 7.8% | 48.0% | 30.7% | 13.3% | 0.3% |
| Private, 4-year, other religious | 7.4% | 40.0% | 29.1% | 23.0% | 0.6% |
What is your PhD in again? We never did get around to your own qualifications in that last thread.
The less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a creationist.
"One hundred quatloos the newcomer doesn't have a PhD."
Why, do you decide the truth of a statement by the qualifications of the person making it?
If so then evolution is almost certainly true by that criteria as there are very few biologists who do not accept the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
He’s heavily emotionally invested in denying creationism, though, for some reason.
Actually, there’s evidence in all those fields that show that long timelines are either not necessary or contradictory to observation.
Light from a star 100,000 light years away isn't evidence that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
DNA analysis shows overwhelming evidence for the common descent of species.
The evidence of the fossil record is not compatible with all species being alive contemporaneously.
Etc, etc.
But an a priori and emotional investment to useless creationism makes one unable to accept any evidence that contradicts. So, like the authors of this thread, one must allege a conspiracy theory to explain away the evidence.
I have an earned PhD in mechanical engineering from Texas A&M, and I am gainfully employed in my discipline.
All the creation scientists I know and/or quote have earned PhDs or MS degrees from established institutions.
I’ve said this before.
I don’t repeat it too often, only when necessary.
The less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a creationist.
I see your assumptions behind all your supposed refutations.
You don’t.
Wow. Only 29% of post graduates don’t believe God was involved with creation. So 71% of post graduates believe God was involved in the creation of the universe. That’s a very large majority of the smartest of the smart who believe in God being the source of all things. Interesting.
a) mice and rats are MORE similar to each other than a human and a chimp are in DNA.
b) mice and rats are LESS similar to each other than a human and a chimp are in DNA.
c) mice and rats are about the same amount of similarity to each other in DNA than a human and a chimp are similar to each other.
Without looking it up. What factor would you ascribe to your estimate (if answer a or b)? What would you base your estimate upon?
Do you think mice and rats belong to the same “kind” of animal?
Absolutely. Most scientists in America are (like myself) people of faith in God.
Despite this it seems that many creationists cannot make an argument against science without making it an argument against atheism.
Backed up with nothing? It is hard not to question your honesty as the sources cited are so hard to miss. The published research cited is freely available.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
Materials, methods, sources, processes all documented.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.