Posted on 07/13/2009 9:55:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Human-Chimp Similarities: Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies.[1] The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry.[2] This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man's evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Again, your definition said, "...someone that disagrees with the scientific model that the Earth moves around the Sun...". Since there are no scientific models that the Earth moves around the sun, only philosophical ones as Ellis points out, I am not a geocentrist under your definition.
You are doing the very thing metmom said you would when she said, "Evos are famous for twisting definitions and cramming people into boxes of evos own making in an effort to discredit them."
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
And as I predicted, you avoided the questions.
Do you consider yourself a geocentrist?
Do you think the Earth moves around the Sun?
As usual, we have allmendream lying about the specific position of others in an attempt to discredit not the person, but God’s word.
Geocentricity does not mean that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Geocentricity means that the the Earth is the center, and sole purpose of the creation of the cosmos.
AMD squirms and lies on his every post to avoid dealing with this fact, but he also claims to be a beliver. - Unbelievable!
It is not a ridiculous quibble and to claim it absolutely untrue is not honest. It is simply a fact that you wish to ignore. Please read George Ellis' quote again. There are no scientific models, only philosphical ones.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"You may feel that one model is preferred over the other for philosophical rather than scientific reasons; but that doesn't mean that the model itself is not a scientific model."
Please read George Ellis' quote again. Only observations are scientific. The models are all purely philosophical. That is the fact that you insist on ignoring. If you insist that a geokinetic model is scientific, then you must accept that a geocentric model is scientific as well. If you reject a geocentric model as unscientific, then you cannot insist that a geokinetic model is scientific. Ellis makes it clear that you can't have it both ways.
"And as I predicted, you avoided the questions. Do you consider yourself a geocentrist? Do you think the Earth moves around the Sun?"
As metmom predicted, "Evos are famous for twisting definitions and cramming people into boxes of evos own making in an effort to discredit them."
Yea, but what does George Ellis know.... (grumble grumble)
Yeah, or Einstein, Infeld, Hoyle or Born...
Liberals squeal about what might be if God is somehow in the science equation, while they completely ignore their fellow liberals like algore are dismantling science before their very eyes.
One down....
Two down....
One to go, sort of, maybe....
If we could figure out who it is.
Predictable as the sunrise, eh? ;)
Do you think the Earth moves around the Sun?
Do you consider yourself a geocentrist?
Do you think the Earth is in orbit around the Sun?
July 11, eh?
The day we came back from an over week long vacation and I had over four pages of pings to go through, not to mention the other bazillion things I had to do unpacking and stuff, posting on the run, and I missed one.
Actually, more than likely a lot more than one.
Imagine that.
No, I didn’t see it because in all likelihood, something came up and I just never got back to the thread.
Here’s a perfect place to see liberals say they don’t care what creationists do, eh?
Liberals are just flat out weird!
What do you think is the main philosophical difference between a geocentric creationist and a heliocentric creationist?
Is one more willing to change their scriptural interpretation in light of physical evidence than the other?
You deeply need to read Albert Einstein’s essay on this.
You are making a fool of yourself because you do not understand some basic physics. Einstein chose the Ptolemaic system to show that all coordinate systems produce the same universe. Why do you doubt him?
Putting words in people's mouths again?
You are an insufferable, ignorant ass!
Predictable as the sunrise.
metmom: do you still deny that there are heliocentric creationists posting on this site and that you have no knowledge of who they are? Are you willing to call them out for their errors? Or do you also buy into their “lunacy”.
Now you're dragging *heliocentric creationists* into it? What's the matter? Having too much trouble discrediting geocentric creationists?
I just love how evos have such a grasp of what it is that they think that creationists believe, or have to believe if they are to be *real* creationists. It gets more and more outlandish with each passing week.
As creationists shoot down the ridiculous caricatures evos try to put forth as representative of creationism, they are forced into a position of reaching further and further into the absurd to try to find something to use against us.
I'll tell you what. It's not creationists who are looking ridiculous here.
Einstein didn't chose the Ptolemaic system OTHER THAN to show that according to relativity the coordinate systems are equivalent; i.e. AS A COORDINATE SYSTEM one is not any “better” than the other.
But coordinate systems do not explain what is causing the motion.
The motion is caused by the gravitation of the Sun upon the Earth causing the Earth to move.
Basic physics. Forces are equal. Force = mass * acceleration. Thus the force has a disproportionate and observable effect upon the acceleration of the Earth causing it to orbit the Sun.
Do you consider yourself a Geocentrist?
Do you think the Earth goes around the Sun?
Why do you twist and squirm away from the questions when it is SO OBVIOUS (other than to the obligingly obtuse) that you are arguing geocentrism with every post?
Wanting to look just as foolish as AMD?
If Al Einstein buys it, why would anyone make such a stink to deny it?
You're a real piece of work yourself!
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.