Skip to comments.Delusions of Evolution
Posted on 04/04/2009 10:51:32 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
click here to read article
Your right that there is nothing wrong with looking up things in the bible...I prefer to look up things I wonder about and not things everyone else thinks. Question for you. Did Jesus speak Hebrew?...Were Pauls letters in Hebrew?
It seems to be a FACT that you that don't seem to understand much of anything, not what a theory is, not what science is, and not what a formula is.
Seems now you don't understand what a FACT is either. You have not established a fact on this forum other than the fact you are very confused about many things.
Jesus probably spoke Hebrew at times but likely his daily discourse was Aramaic.
Paul's letters were likely in Greek.
Genesis and likely most if not all of the Old Testament prevailed through the centuries in Hebrew until the Greeks translated it.
He must have, but then Christ seems to have been able to speak several of the languages that were spoken in the region. If I recall correctly, seriac(?) was the local language.
Jesus was also "unlearned" meaning uneducated, no formal education, yet he was able to read the Hebrew transcripts in the temple, which shocked the pharisee's. I don't know if Pauls letters were in Hebrew, but all the gospels books were written in greek except one if that helps.
Thats what I meant. Aramic.
"That is why the Lord now says: 'sav lasav, sav lasav, kav lakav, kav lakav, zeer sham, zeer sham', so that when they walk they may fall over backwards and be broken, snared and made captive." (Is.28:10-13).
Isiah prophesied that he would speak Greek to his people.
Because it is. He's correct, you're not.
So we have you stating a mathematical formula as being a theory, and a theory as being science.
And you call me blind?
Well, when the shoe fits... On the one hand, we have freedumb2003, whose definition of theory in a scientific context matches the one used by the scientific community, who would probably be in a position to know it and get it right, on the other hand we have you and your own personal definition of it, which is at odds with how science actually uses the term, not to mention that you're the guy who can't even get it right when you try to make an objective, verifiable claim like the degree of DNA similarity between snakes/monkeys/humans...
Yeah, I'd say that freedom2003 has you pegged.
And since you're so far being oddly silent on my challenge that you support or retract your snakes/monkeys/human DNA claim, indications are that there are greater obstacles between you and accuracy than merely being blind to it.
Can someone please explain to my why the folks who most claim to be the righteous ones on this topic have are so fond of false witness?
Well done good and faithful servants.
I really doubt that the Lord would say such a thing to someone who was in the habit of posting blatant falsehoods and then fell silent when challenged on them.
Or do you really have such a low standard yourself, and expect the Lord to applaud falsehoods as well?
No, He’s not correct, and your validation is as about as worlthless as his.
F= M whatever is a freakin’ formula, not a theory.. TTOE is a theory, not science.
And, I am also right in the degree of DNA simularity between humans and other animals being greater than of apes.
Been through that argument before as well.
Posting biased crap will not help you there either.
Now you have me curious. Is it your belief that every animal and bird species that now exist were on the ark with Noah?
Is.28:10-13 I don’t find in scripture what you state...Is.28 Is prophesy against Judah. Is.28 1-6 Is The fate of Samaria. I do speak english, is english your second language and therefore only part of your answer is in english?
I agree with you on that one. But it seems there are posters here that have all the answers about God and Judgement for all. They have in inside track with God.He tells them who is good and who is bad, much like Santa Clause. I doubt that a hard nose attitude leads anyone to the love of Christ..
IOW, no reputable biological research proceeded the introduction of the ToE? All that biology that occurred before and during Darwins time is for naught?
Evolution is not foundational to biology. There's plenty of biology that can be studied without ever addressing how one species allegedly changed into another.
And in public high schools, it covers 1-3 days tops, according to every high school sophomore that I've ever asked.
Geez, fd, you know better than to equate Christianity and creationism with islam.
Whatever happened to mr. niceguy?
1. These are all life scientists?
2. You are about 9,987 short.
I can get 10 scientists to say that astrology is how they should live their lives. It is a numbers game.
You need a significant sample.
Chesterton put it quite nicely in his essay The Error of Impartiality.
First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count.
If science doesn't prove things, then how do you know how long anything has been anywhere? Why should I believe you then?
” also point that statement to anyone who says they believe in God but do not think he has the capability to create everything from nothing without using an illogical messy method such as evolution.”
I stated very clearly that God is capable of doing anything that he wants. I never said that he was incapable of using anything but evolution. Unlike you, I don’t claim to understand how God thinks.
I don’t understand how he can let a small child suffer from cancer for several years before dying at age 7. I don’t understand why miracles cure some people and not others. Do I trust that he has a reason? absolutely. Do I understand it? not at all. Do I still love and trust him above all else? Sure, but it goes way beyond my capacity for understanding. That is faith. It can’t be tested as science because no matter how much we learn, we will never understand why God does things the way that he does.
At least that is my belief.
I guess in your faith, you have an understand what God would and wouldn’t do. You know what he believes is messy and what he doesn’t Maybe you feel comfortable putting yourself in the place of God. I was taught that wasn’t a good idea.
When Cain slew Abel, he was banished from the soil and had a mark put on him so that no one would kill him...Now we have Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel...Abel is dead yet Cain left to live in the land of Nod and had relations with his wife...Where did she come from...Poop magic or were there other humans on earth at that time? Cains wife bore Enoch.
You might want to reread your posts. People denigrate themselves with promoting evil and trying to “educate” others - lead others - into deception. Satan is the Father of Deception. Now who are you emulating? Surely, you can figure that out. Since ‘It Is Written’ you can look it up - an open book test.
Since Satan is the father of deception (I will not put caps on Satan's works) Perhaps your the one that is being decepted.
Science isn't about truth. Haven't you got the memo?
Truth. This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
If you don't have truth, you can't have a lie. There's nothing to base that judgment on. All that's left is a quagmire of opinion with the most dogmatic being filtered out by peer review and used to establish *consensus*.
IOW, if you don't tow the party line, you can kiss your career good-bye.
” doubt that a hard nose attitude leads anyone to the love of Christ..”
Probably not. Let’s just hope they don’t turn others away. I don’t believe that they know any more about God, than most people. They, like us, are limited by what God has chosen to reveal about himself. God has revealed much, but there is much that is still a mystery.
I find science to be fascinating, and the more I learn about science, the stronger my faith in God becomes. The planet of Earth has been so carefully created, that there are many ways that the climate and currents, are kept in balance. When the oceans get too hot, there are hurricanes to transfer the warmer water into cooler areas. Talk about messy.
The immune system of the human body is another incredibly designed system. Fevers, sneezing, coughing, vomiting are all part of this incredible security system, that protects each and every one of us, with a success rate that is unmatched by most man made systems. That is all pretty messy too. Science and research is what helps us to understand the truly incredible nature of what God has given us.
Science is what taught us about infection, and what teaches us how to prevent it and to cure it. Science is what teaches us about geology and why we have earthquakes and volcanoes. It allows us to better protect ourselves from danger. God gave us the Bible to show us his power, and to teach us right from wrong. He told us of his Son through scripture. I believe that science is just another way of God revealing Himself and His creation to us.
Very well put....You and I could get along and talk of many things including God. I worked in a hospital for many years as a nurse and believe me you can find lots of things that happen in a hospital that can increase faith and also doubt God. But you just keep on trucking one foot at a time..
You mam are an idiot. Good night.
No, Hes not correct, and your validation is as about as worlthless as his.
And the scientific community? Your personal "definition" supercedes the one that scientists themselves actually use. How "special" of you. I'm sure you consider your definition of a scientific term to be somehow "better" than that used by scientists, but hey, you're entitled to think whatever you like, no matter how ludicrous it might be.
F= M whatever is a freakin formula, not a theory..
"F= M whatever"? ROFL! Can't even remember one of the most elementary and foundational equations of physics, eh? No wonder you're out of your depth on these science discussions.
And why are you misrepresenting what freedumb2003 actually wrote? Besides the obvious motive, I mean... What he actually said was, "And, to some degree F=ma is a theory (using the lay definition)". He was clearly *NOT* claiming that it was a theory in the scientific sense. Why are you now attempting to claim that he did? Please explain your actions.
TTOE is a theory, not science.
Now you're just being goofy (or very confused). Theories are very much a part of science. Indeed, it would be impossible to have science without them. Theories are the very heart of science. Why do you keep posting nonsense like this? Do you think it's advancing your cause any, or helping to bolster your credibility on this subject? If so, you're very mistaken. Quite the contrary, in fact.
TTOE is indeed a theory, and it is indeed science. Deal with it, and stop wasting everyone's time trying to clumsily split semantic hairs.
And, I am also right in the degree of DNA simularity between humans and other animals being greater than of apes.
No, you are not, and repeating the false claim only digs you deeper.
It speaks volumes that you YET AGAIN FAIL TO MAKE EVEN A TOKEN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM when challenged, even when you could make an easy $1000 if you could.
You clearly can't, and what's worse, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T. Yet you persist in blustering and repeating the claim. Why do you do this? Do you really think this is acceptable behavior for one who is trying to present himself as on the side of righteousness?
Been through that argument before as well.
Yes, and you failed before as well. You've been playing these games here for years.
Posting biased crap will not help you there either.
If you can point out where I have actually posted any "biased crap", I'll be more than glad to retract it and apologize. Unlike yourself.
Now let's cut to the chase again. You very falsely claimed that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." This is very, very wrong. You've been challenged to support this false claim, or to retract it and apologize. You could even earn $1000 for demonstrating that it's true, not to mention demonstrating a fact that, if true, really *would* be a big blow against current theories evolutionary origins. And yet you run away from the challenge, you don't even make a token attempt to support it. This is, unfortunately, typical anti-evolutionist behavior. Do you think this is helping your case, or helping your credilibity? I'd really like an answer to this question.
Not only do you fail to support your false claim when (repeatedly) asked to do so, you actually brashly *repeat* and *broaden* the false claim. This, too, is unfortunately typical anti-evolutionist behavior -- trying to "win" an argument by bluffing so doggedly that their opponents just give up due to the futility of trying to get the anti-evo to debate honorably. Do you really think this is helping your case, or your credibility?
One more time, Nathan: Support or retract your false claim that "You have more DNA in common with a snake than you do a monkey." Your credibility is on the line. Show us that an anti-evo can actually be honorable for a change, instead of gameplaying and evading. It would be refreshing.
The order of creation doesn’t allow for much time to pass between the ‘days’ however much time you want to give them. The plants and trees were created on the third day and the sun and stars on the fourth.
Actually Gen 5:4 does say they had daughters. It's likely that these were the wives of at least some of their sons. (They had other sons too).
They wouldn't have had relatives of the other types you mention.
If on the other hand you're really so honestly confused as to think that "science doesn't deal in Truth" means that scientists don't think (or shouldn't think) that a claim can even be verified as true or false, then nicely ask me to explain the distinction and I'll be glad to help you out. If you're not that confused, on the other hand, well, enjoy your gameplaying, I'll go back to ignoring your antics.
You are concerned about capitalization and what language Jesus spoke while defending evolution. LOL Get real or get lost w/your trivia and a@@hole comments.
Are you saying God created incest?
The chromosomes hadn't broken down yet...even just a couple hundred years ago it wasn't unusual for, say, cousins to marry but it's anathema now.
I've read some of your comments on this thread. You really should try to tone down the cynicism when people come up with possible explanations based on the Bible. You claim that these people are saying they know everything about God and you judge them for self-righteousness. They are just coming up with possible explanations, many of which are based on scripture. I don't see anyone claiming to know everything.
This is false. The 96% pertains to the entire genome, including both protein-coding regions and non-coding regions.,
The percentage of synonymous similarity for just the protein-coding regions is even higher, upwards of 99.7%. P> The percentage of similarity for non-coding regions is slightly lower than the overall 96%, but not by very much, since it comprises most of the genome. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but it'd be roughly 95% similar based on the above figures.
It seems logical that if a protein performs a certain function in one organism, then that same protein should perform the same function in a variety of organisms. This is evidence for a common designer as much as for a common ancestor.
If you're working ONLY from a single overall percentage of similarity, yes, you're right. But it's the specific *nature* of the many kinds of similarities and differences that clearly indicate evolutionary origins and not "common design". Common design produces very characteristic patterns of similarities and differences, and so does evolutionary common descent. Every conceivable method of examining the patterns of differences and similarities in the DNA between species matches the patterns that would be produced by evolutionary common descent, not the kind that would be produced by common design.
But most of the DNA sequence performs an unknown function and has been largely dismissed as junk DNA. However, increasing evidence supports the view that junk DNA performs an important role. For example, a recent report unexpectedly found specific sequence patterns in junk DNA which scientists have termed pyknons.1 It has been suggested that these pyknons may be important in determining when and where proteins are made. Within this junk DNA there may be large differences between man and chimp. The areas of greatest difference appear to involve regions which are structurally different (commonly called rearrangements) and areas of heterochromatin (tightly packed DNA).
While it has been long known that some kinds of non-coding DNA serve some kind of function in the genome, and new kinds are being discovered from time to time, the above paragraph vastly overstates the case. There are many kinds of independent lines of evidence which indicate that the majority of non-coding DNA is indeed non-functional, and not merely "all functional for which the function is not yet known".
Four of the more powerful lines of evidence are 1) the non-conservation of most non-coding DNA between lineages, 2) the existence of species (such as the fugu fish) in which almost all of these regions have been naturally eliminated with no detriment to the species, 3) experiments in which gigantic swatches of non-coding DNA have been snipped out from mice with no detriment to the test animals, and 4) a good understanding of how many of these sequences arise via "stutters" during cell replication and other kinds of errors during DNA copying and/or viral infections, etc. -- they clearly weren't "designed in" from the start. Large sections of our DNA is identifiable as the harmless remnants of such genetic malfunctions. For example, 42% of the human genome consists of retrotransposon copies.
Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
*The amount of chimp DNA is 12% larger than what it is in humans.
This is "often not reported" because it is not true.
The fully sequenced human genome contains 3,107,677,273 basepairs. The fully sequenced chimpanzee genome contains 3,350,447,512 basepairs. This is 7.8% larger.
This is hardly surprising, however, nor significant, nor any kind of problem for evolution, nor does it invalidate the kinds of simimlarities and differences which are compared in order to trace evolutionary relationships.
It's not surprising because as I mentioned above, glitches in DNA replication (as well as transposons and other mechanisms) can easily add "stuttered" repetitions to the genome, increasing its size by "padding" it with numerous repetitions. Also as mentioned above, it's easy for large sections of DNA to get accidentally dropped, and when these are non-essential, non-functional sequences, the deletion gets passed on to future generations without incident. The amount of difference in overall genome size between humans and chimps is of the amount one would expect given six million years of evolutionary divergence.
*Several hundred million bases (individual components of the DNA) of the chimp genome are still unanalyzed.
You're being pretty vague here. What do you mean by "unanalyzed"? The chimp genome has been fully sequenced, if that's what you mean.
*In many areas of the DNA sequence, major rearrangements seem apparent. These account for perhaps 410% dissimilarity between chimps and humans.
Yes, but again this is no problem for evolutionary biology, and is indeed to be expected. I'm not sure what your point might be.
For what it's worth, there seems to be little if any indication that major rearrangements (wherein a section of DNA is successfully relocated to another chromosome or another location on the same chromosome) make any significant difference to how the DNA operates, any more than the location of subroutines in a program makes any difference.
*Chimps have 23 chromosomes and humans have only 22 (excluding sex chromosomes for both species)
True, and actually, this is a great example of how the specific details of similarities and differences between the genomes of various species indicates evolutionary origins, not "common design".
See this post of mine on the subject: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/914961/posts?page=242#242
Short form: One chromosome in the human genome shows clear and unmistakable signs of having been formed by the end-to-end fusion of two smaller chromosomes in a common ancestor which had 24 chromosomes, and not via some original human(s) having been designed with 23 chromosomes from the start. For details, see the link.
Thus, the physical and mental differences between humans and chimps are most likely due to the differences in purpose and function of the so-called junk DNA.
Huh? Your "conclusion" does not follow from your earlier observations. You have yet to actually make a case for this assertion.
This understanding should leave us more mindful of the awesome complexity of the Creator and His creation of DNA.
Maybe so, but the DNA of countless species clearly indicates, in many different, independent and cross-confirming ways, that life on Earth has reached its present form via evolutionary common descent.
Scoffing at such a pompous not so clear indications. I do realize that you are devoted to amassing what you are calling indicators but for what and to what end? You really think you can disprove what the Heavenly Father absolutely had His children pen and preserve all these generations?
I think this thing called evolution has hit rock bottom and we have now entered the ascension phase, at least for the time appointed.
According to latest polls, 40% believe in evolution and 25% do not believe in evolution.
From foodnetwork.com (quoted. The 'You' is not direct at youP).
You may be a little confused at this point about how long to cook pork. In the past, we were warned to cook it to well done (that is, 170 F) in order to take care of any trichinae parasites, which are killed at 137 F. These days, however, modern advances in pork production have all but eliminated trichinosis in this country. In fact, the few cases reported here in recent years have been traced to either wild game (bears, especially) or privately raised pigs. You no longer need to overcook pork in order to feel good about eating it.
Your cute but show me in my replies where I called anyone an idiot like I was. Without the name calling, spell check is your friend would not have been mentioned...ta ta and all that jazz. :O)
Food network was not around in the days of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy, etc etc etc..So I don’t see how your comments about a TV show is relevent...But thank you for the modern information...I cook my pork very well. Being born in the late 1930’s I was taught well...We had an Ice Box and there was no such thing as a supermarket. My brother work at the pountry shop. You went in and looked in the eye of the chicken or rabbit you wanted for supper, came back in an hour and it was dead and dressed and ready for dinner. My brother job as a teenager was killing and dressing Live animals.Life was not what people are use to today...The ice man had a horse drawn wagon piled with 25 or 50 pounds of ice. You put a sign in your window how much you wanted.. I didn’t live in a rural area, I was brought up in Detroit, Michigan. At that time the population was over 2,000,000,