You can't argue with DNA

[Hespera]

It's not metaphorical, the focus in Genesis is on lineage, not figurative but literal history.

Ok so you say. Your opinion.

I've studied the Bible my entire adult live, I do the differences between factual and figurative language.

How do you know? There are a lot of differences of opinion, what makes yours right?

I have no idea where you were going with that and I don't think you did either.



Spare me the mind reading. The bible shows that Pi is 3.0, so either the bible is wrong, or Pi really is 3.0.

It is obvious that the numbers given in the bible are approximate. Approximately right. I have heard the most amazing variety of excuses for why the bible really is right, all different, all "true". Its kind of funny.
But if you or anyone else is going to take the bible literally they will have to deal with that lack of precise and literal truth.

For me this Darwinian myth of stone age tool making apes contradicts reality.

How things seem to you and how they really are are not necessarily the same. I am a tool making ape myself, there is nothing "Darwinian" about that.. Before me, there were stone age people. What is the problem with that?

Some times it's a light in the sky, some times it can refer to demonic or angelic hosts. A text without a context is a pretext.

"A text without context is pretext". Spare me. The bible talks about stars falling.

The general rule of thumb is that if it's figurative there with be a 'like' or 'as' in the immediate context. In order for it to be figurative it must be clear what the imagary is comparing itself to. One prime example of how some of my thinking actually runs against even mainstream Christian thought. There is a book in the wisdom literature of Solomon, it's called the Song of Solomon. People historically and virtually unanimously consider this song to be entirely figurative. I think it's a love story about two young people, one of them his son perhaps, who are taking care of their resonsibilities so they can live together as husband and wife.

I am aware of the use of "like" or "as". I know English at least as well as or better than you do.


I tried to get there for years but the only way I could have done it was to work on fishing boats or moving furniture. I was in Washington state thinking about making the leap when one of the fishing boats there went down with all hands and for me that was that. In a couple of weeks I'm going to move to Colorado Springs Colorado, I'm going to be stationed at the Army base there. Being in the Army I can jump what they call a MAC flight to Alaska and just might decide to do it one of these days. Right now I'm more interested in exploring the Rockies.

as well or

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh, I guess I will respond anyway.

Thought you might.

"Creationists" are not a special caste of person who is discriminated against. Any time anyone wants to come forward with data, they can get published. To say otherwise is just to make excuses for not having any data. You dont have any; nobody has data to back "creationism".

There are two basic assumptions, one is an a priori assumption of universal common descent. The other is that if you do not make the first one you are assumed incredulous which is a politically correct way of calling someone, 'utterly false, distorted, or plain weird'. The only thing I have really said was that the OP is clearly wrong and supported the statement. Then I mentioned that the ERV homology argument was absurd, which most homology arguments are.

Creationists don't get published because they can't to the work or the research but because their credibility is tied to a false assumption they refuse to make.

Why are you still worrying about a long ago hoax by an unknown perp, that was uncovered by the self-correcting scientific method. Calling Leay a hoaxer is false. Speaking of HOAXES, the creation industry cranks those out all the time, shamelessly.

I don't consider L. Leaky to be a hoaxer, I consider him a mythographer and have read a lot about him. The Piltdown hoax was not even a cleaver hoax but it sufficed to artifically support TOE as natural history for nearly half a century. Why am I still reminding people of it?

The implication of Piltdown for science is not an important triumph over a forgery; it took science four decades to look through a microscope to see that the teeth had been filed and painted. Rather, it is a reminder to us all of the responsibility we, as scientists, have to the confront evidence that supports our ideas with the same level of scrutiny we would apply to evidence contradicting our beliefs. The Piltdown Hoax​

There was no "myth of stone age apemen in Kenya".

Yes there is, it's called Homo habilis.

There are skeietons of bipedal primates with humaoid characteristics.
They are not stone age; the are not apemen; they are not a myth.

It's called the stone age because the first mythical tools were made of stone. Louis Leaky read a children's books at an early age called, 'Days before History', about Tigi who meets a spear maker, learns how to make fire and hunts Mammoths. According to his sister Julia, "he lived that book, it became his Bible really". He began collecting things his Kikuyu friends called, 'spirit razors' thinking them to be the product of Stone Age artisans. Stone tool artifacts would come to be an integral part his search for and theory of earliest man, now known as Homo habilis (handy man). Encouraged by Authur Loveridge, curator of the newly founded Nairobi National Museum he vowed, 'I firmly made up my mind that I would go until I knew all about the Stone Age".

I dont get how you can sey that you are not accusing anyone of anything and then accuse that "they" fabricate statistics..cant be trusted...not objective..false naturalistic assumptions. You are exactly accusing science / scientists of doing fraudulent work.

That's why I try to focus on the peer reviewed publications because if you don't have that accountability they can say whatever they want. As long as it's proevolution no one ever calls them on it. Case in point, early September in 05 came the announcement of the completion of the initial sequence of the Chimpanzee genome. They found 35 million single nucleotide changes (single nucleotide differences actually) and 5 million indels (insertions/deletions which are actually gaps) They said and this is an exact quote:

the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Nature 2005)​

That's better then 4% and does not include the 20 million base pairs involved in the 8 major chromosomal rearrangements. Now that said this is how Nature presents the subject on their web site:

Google 'Chimpanzee Genome' and at the top you will find this statement from Nature Magazine announcing the Genome paper:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome

Time did the same thing, even though they discuss the paper in the article they make the same bogus statement:

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. What Makes us Different?

There are only two possible explanations, they don't know or they lied.

Ad hom of the world scientific community. Or if not then who are "they"? No credibility in that whatever. You know perfectly well that in any field there will be some bad apples; the church, for one, Govt fo another. When someone in science is involved in fraud they get a lot of publicity and their careers are ruined. You want to say they all or most of them do it, that is your myth. To say it is charact4eristic of science is a laie.

I made no such statement about science, I just don't consider Darwinism to be scientific. Mendelian genetics on the other hand is another story and I am convinced that genetics is the genuine article and Darwinian logic is a mythology.

"Some day the world may be as indebted as it is to Isaac Newton for physics. They may be as indebted to the City of Braunau for its contributions to inheritance." (CF Nap, President of the Pomological and Enological Society of Braunau, 1820)​

"

CF Nap would recruit Gregor Mendel, a bright young man who showed promise as a researcher and educator. The crucible of modern genetics was the gardens of the St. Thomas Monastery where Gregor Johann Mendel preformed a series of hybrid experiments. The monastery had a university that focused heavily on scientific research and teaching and it was there that Mendel would make history. Mendel started a serious of experiments and noted the, ‘ striking regularity with which the same hybrid forms always reappeared whenever fertilization took place between the same species induced further experiments to be undertaken”. Mendel using thirty-four different kinds of peas of the genus Pisum , produced 70 hybrid crosses with each of the seven traits he studied, from 10,000 meticulous experiments, crossing and cataloging some 24,034 plants, over a six year period (1857-1863).

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ One of Darwin’s contemporaries, Gregor Johann Mendel, was doing a series of experiments with pea plants that yielded the laws of inheritance that would become the cornerstone of modern genetics.

Darwin’s book popularized the idea of common decent while Mendel’s only surviving paper would not be rediscovered for nearly half a century later. Mendelian laws of inheritance became inextricably linked to waves of discovery starting with chromosome theory and culminating in the molecular basis of heredity: The DNA double helix. Darwinism contributed nothing to the waves of discovery but was philosophically commingled with genetics in what has become known as the modern synthesis.

"Darwinian" evoltuion is not based on assumptions, is is based on observation. And there is nothing atheistic about it. You can take it whichever way you like, it doesnt deal with creation and more than algebra does.

Then explain this statement to me:

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg MIT)

It's not based on observation and come before observation because it's an a priori, self evident assumed fact and comes before the empirical data.

There is nothing absurd about taking it in an atheistic way anyhow. i do, for one. You can toss out the word "absurd" but that doesnt make it so. just your opinion. For me the sky god didit is the apex of absurdity.

Right, so saying god didn't do it makes so much more sense.

Flame artists... let see... "hoax" "fabricate statistics" "they refuse to accept" "false assumptions" "absurd" "cant be trusted" "not objective". So who is the flame artist?

The difference between what I'm saying about them and what you are saying about me is I can support my statements with facts.

I've read the same moldy arguments a thousand times elsewhere anyway, and all the same ad homs. The only purpose they serve is to try to subsitute for the one thing that creationism does not have. Facts.

When human evolution could not be accounted for by TOE I simply lost interest in pursueing the subject any further. I do enjoy watching the Darwinian zealots throw their condescending rhetoric around while they talk in circles. You have no support for what you are saying and if you've seen my arguments so many times why are you so weak at defending against them?

Anyway sum it up: you have some invalid criticism, and you have nothing to advance as actual data that would serve in any way to falsify any aspect of the ToE.

If you have something in the way of DATA, dont pretend you would be discriminated against for being a (gasp shudder) creationist. Anyone with data is welcome at the table.

Whatever.... The OP did get one thing straight, you can't argue with the DNA.

 

[Hespera]

 

[Hespera]

[

 

[Hespera]

Thought you might.



There are two basic assumptions, one is an a priori assumption of universal common descent. The other is that if you do not make the first one you are assumed incredulous which is a politically correct way of calling someone, 'utterly false, distorted, or plain weird'. The only thing I have really said was that the OP is clearly wrong and supported the statement. Then I mentioned that the ERV homology argument was absurd, which most homology arguments are.

Creationists don't get published because they can't to the work or the research but because their credibility is tied to a false assumption they refuse to make.



I don't consider L. Leaky to be a hoaxer, I consider him a mythographer and have read a lot about him. The Piltdown hoax was not even a cleaver hoax but it sufficed to artifically support TOE as natural history for nearly half a century. Why am I still reminding people of it?

The implication of Piltdown for science is not an important triumph over a forgery; it took science four decades to look through a microscope to see that the teeth had been filed and painted. Rather, it is a reminder to us all of the responsibility we, as scientists, have to the confront evidence that supports our ideas with the same level of scrutiny we would apply to evidence contradicting our beliefs. The Piltdown Hoax​

Yes there is, it's called Homo habilis.



It's called the stone age because the first mythical tools were made of stone. Louis Leaky read a children's books at an early age called, 'Days before History', about Tigi who meets a spear maker, learns how to make fire and hunts Mammoths. According to his sister Julia, "he lived that book, it became his Bible really". He began collecting things his Kikuyu friends called, 'spirit razors' thinking them to be the product of Stone Age artisans. Stone tool artifacts would come to be an integral part his search for and theory of earliest man, now known as Homo habilis (handy man). Encouraged by Authur Loveridge, curator of the newly founded Nairobi National Museum he vowed, 'I firmly made up my mind that I would go until I knew all about the Stone Age".



That's why I try to focus on the peer reviewed publications because if you don't have that accountability they can say whatever they want. As long as it's proevolution no one ever calls them on it. Case in point, early September in 05 came the announcement of the completion of the initial sequence of the Chimpanzee genome. They found 35 million single nucleotide changes (single nucleotide differences actually) and 5 million indels (insertions/deletions which are actually gaps) They said and this is an exact quote:

the indel differences between the genomes thus total 90 Mb. This difference corresponds to 3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions (Nature 2005)​

That's better then 4% and does not include the 20 million base pairs involved in the 8 major chromosomal rearrangements. Now that said this is how Nature presents the subject on their web site:

Google 'Chimpanzee Genome' and at the top you will find this statement from Nature Magazine announcing the Genome paper:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome

Time did the same thing, even though they discuss the paper in the article they make the same bogus statement:

Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. What Makes us Different?

There are only two possible explanations, they don't know or they lied.




I made no such statement about science, I just don't consider Darwinism to be scientific. Mendelian genetics on the other hand is another story and I am convinced that genetics is the genuine article and Darwinian logic is a mythology.

"Some day the world may be as indebted as it is to Isaac Newton for physics. They may be as indebted to the City of Braunau for its contributions to inheritance." (CF Nap, President of the Pomological and Enological Society of Braunau, 1820)​

"

CF Nap would recruit Gregor Mendel, a bright young man who showed promise as a researcher and educator. The crucible of modern genetics was the gardens of the St. Thomas Monastery where Gregor Johann Mendel preformed a series of hybrid experiments. The monastery had a university that focused heavily on scientific research and teaching and it was there that Mendel would make history. Mendel started a serious of experiments and noted the, ‘ striking regularity with which the same hybrid forms always reappeared whenever fertilization took place between the same species induced further experiments to be undertaken”. Mendel using thirty-four different kinds of peas of the genus Pisum , produced 70 hybrid crosses with each of the seven traits he studied, from 10,000 meticulous experiments, crossing and cataloging some 24,034 plants, over a six year period (1857-1863).

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues, ‘being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.’ One of Darwin’s contemporaries, Gregor Johann Mendel, was doing a series of experiments with pea plants that yielded the laws of inheritance that would become the cornerstone of modern genetics.

Darwin’s book popularized the idea of common decent while Mendel’s only surviving paper would not be rediscovered for nearly half a century later. Mendelian laws of inheritance became inextricably linked to waves of discovery starting with chromosome theory and culminating in the molecular basis of heredity: The DNA double helix. Darwinism contributed nothing to the waves of discovery but was philosophically commingled with genetics in what has become known as the modern synthesis.








Then explain this statement to me:

It’s clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. (Prof. Robert A. Weinberg MIT)

It's not based on observation and come before observation because it's an a priori, self evident assumed fact and comes before the empirical data.




Right, so saying god didn't do it makes so much more sense.



The difference between what I'm saying about them and what you are saying about me is I can support my statements with facts.



When human evolution could not be accounted for by TOE I simply lost interest in pursueing the subject any further. I do enjoy watching the Darwinian zealots throw their condescending rhetoric around while they talk in circles. You have no support for what you are saying and if you've seen my arguments so many times why are you so weak at defending against them?



Whatever.... The OP did get one thing straight, you can't argue with the DNA.

Ok essentially your argument is that Creationsts COULD do good work but are not allowed to by them mean scientists.

Then you make the not too original observation that sometimes people make mistakes in science.

After that you have a lot of zippo work about zealots, condescending rhetoric. talk in circles, false assumption, mythiical, etc etc. Those dont substitute for facts.

As soon as anyone has actual data to bring to the table, they will do fine.
Keep in mind that a lot of scientists out there dont know and dont care what (myths) Christians believe in. They just want data.

 

[atomweaver]

Google 'Chimpanzee Genome'

OK...

and at the top you will find this statement from Nature Magazine announcing the Genome paper:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome

Incorrect. A Google search on the string "chimpanzee genome' yields this as the first hit;

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

...which does not perpetuate the "98%" statistic upon which you are so fixated. As near as I can tell, the "percent likeness" statistic from the mid 2000 era media reports were based on the draft chimp genome sequencing, which was later revised.

Google searches on scientific lit take into account the number of times a paper is clicked, just like its supposed to. So high profile, milestone papers get clicked more... *shrug* So what? To pretend like that is an indication of what current science holds to be most accurate is a type of argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. The top links of a Google search gives you either what is most popular, or what is most paid for... neither of these are necessarily the most current science, often it is quite the opposite.

There are only two possible explanations, they don't know or they lied.

Or, it was an estimate from a first look at the draft version of the chimp genome. The authors reported that they were only able to make conclusive determinations of alleles being ancestral or derived about 80% of the time.

You're fixated with old data; Piltdown, draft versions of the chimp genome, "Darwinism" instead of the modern synthesis, Mendel etc., keeping to old data allows you to (poorly) paint earlier results as inaccurate or questionable, but only because later science improved on the accuracy of prior measurements.
"98% similarity", based on a first look at 80% of the draft genome of one male chimp, is a reasonable estimate. 96% similarity, based on the more detailed genome sequence from multiple genome donors, and more detailed analysis is more accurate, but no less reasonable. Better data yields more accurate conclusions. Big surprise. *yawn*

 

[Tomk80]

Note also that the 98% estimate was based on substitutions only. For substitutions only, this figure still holds. The extra percent is based on the analysis of indels, which are harder to analyze, given that you cannot just do a base-by-base comparison. Geneticists were already aware of this. That the popular press didn't report this accurately can hardly be blamed on the scientists.

Also, 2 - 3 % extra, big deal. The conclusion of common descent aren't hinged on the percentage of similarity anyway, it's based on the pattern of the similarities. If a single insertion mutation would have doubled the length of the genome, the result would be a 50% similarity of the genome including indels. That wouldn't suddenly mean that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestry, only that in the human lineage a strange mutation occurred.

 

[Hespera]

Note also that the 98% estimate was based on substitutions only. For substitutions only, this figure still holds. The extra percent is based on the analysis of indels, which are harder to analyze, given that you cannot just do a base-by-base comparison. Geneticists were already aware of this. That the popular press didn't report this accurately can hardly be blamed on the scientists.

Also, 2 - 3 % extra, big deal. The conclusion of common descent aren't hinged on the percentage of similarity anyway, it's based on the pattern of the similarities. If a single insertion mutation would have doubled the length of the genome, the result would be a 50% similarity of the genome including indels. That wouldn't suddenly mean that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestry, only that in the human lineage a strange mutation occurred.

I think maybe the mindset is that any error if found in the Bible, then it might invalidate the whole thing; so there Quest if for an error in science.

So therefore, if one can (claim to) find one, it could invallidate vast swaths of science.

Well, there are discoveries, which if made, would invalidate geological dating and "darwinism" as we know it. The Precambrian Pig, say.But nobody seems able to make these discoveries.


The best anyone can do so far against ToE is to look for minor errors or misstatements, or imagine they found them.

They never have brought their own data to the table. Some say its because the scientists wont let them. Some say that is a lame excuse.

 

[Tomk80]

I think maybe the mindset is that any error if found in the Bible, then it might invalidate the whole thing; so there Quest if for an error in science.

So therefore, if one can (claim to) find one, it could invallidate vast swaths of science.

Well, there are discoveries, which if made, would invalidate geological dating and "darwinism" as we know it. The Precambrian Pig, say.But nobody seems able to make these discoveries.


The best anyone can do so far against ToE is to look for minor errors or misstatements, or imagine they found them.

They never have brought their own data to the table. Some say its because the scientists wont let them. Some say that is a lame excuse.

Arguing that there must be single study proving or disproving something has indeed been a Markism, although I don't know whether he still clings to that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok essentially your argument is that Creationsts COULD do good work but are not allowed to by them mean scientists.

Then you make the not too original observation that sometimes people make mistakes in science.

After that you have a lot of zippo work about zealots, condescending rhetoric. talk in circles, false assumption, mythiical, etc etc. Those dont substitute for facts.

As soon as anyone has actual data to bring to the table, they will do fine.
Keep in mind that a lot of scientists out there dont know and dont care what (myths) Christians believe in. They just want data.

All of this is predicted on nothing factual, scientific mind you. Your a minion my dear and the actual evidence is making a far less convincing argument then you have been led to be.

Myths must be very elaborate, interwoven into the secular sciences and the haunt of the aristocrat and cleric as well. Evolution has served famously as the transendant pagan mythos of our day but without the moral to the story Grecko-Roman myths were famous for.

 

[mark kennedy]

Note also that the 98% estimate was based on substitutions only. For substitutions only, this figure still holds. The extra percent is based on the analysis of indels, which are harder to analyze, given that you cannot just do a base-by-base comparison. Geneticists were already aware of this. That the popular press didn't report this accurately can hardly be blamed on the scientists.

That's not just the popular press it's a common homology argument that never impressed me in the first place. Sure it's not a base to base comparison since it's a gap in one that exists in the other genome. The substitutions and indels are really just differences and I never said the scientists were wrong.

Also, 2 - 3 % extra, big deal. The conclusion of common descent aren't hinged on the percentage of similarity anyway, it's based on the pattern of the similarities. If a single insertion mutation would have doubled the length of the genome, the result would be a 50% similarity of the genome including indels. That wouldn't suddenly mean that chimps and humans do not share a common ancestry, only that in the human lineage a strange mutation occurred.

What it means is that the old saw of 98% is wrong. Now as to what implications this might have for human/chimp common ancestry I'm thinking, not much. TOE has demonstrated again and again that no matter what the actual evidence universal common descent cannot be questioned.

We are told that our dna is virtually identical and it's not. We are told the human brain and the chimpanzees is virtually identical even though the human brain is three times the size. We are told that this all happens over millions of years and yet it happens suddenly a couple of millions or years ago with no explanation for the molecular mechanisms responsible.

Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia it's immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. The myth of the stone age ape man continues.

 

[Hespera]

All of this is predicted on nothing factual, scientific mind you. Your a minion my dear and the actual evidence is making a far less convincing argument then you have been led to be.

Myths must be very elaborate, interwoven into the secular sciences and the haunt of the aristocrat and cleric as well. Evolution has served famously as the transendant pagan mythos of our day but without the moral to the story Grecko-Roman myths were famous for.

You could not address any of the things I said so you get into name calling and condescension. Dont get into that stuff. Its even more insulting to you than it is to me; after all, it says nothing about me but it says a lot about you.

You cant be convinced by any evidence that you dont want to believe, that is, anything that isnt in (your version of) the bible. Pi =3.0; must be so if the bible says its so?

You will have to use standard English with this part " far less convincing argument then you have been led to be. " I am not a mind reader! I am also not an argument, as this suggests. Nor have I been "led".

The elaborate myth of course, is what has been built up around the church. You have bought into the myth. Why so much projecting is necessary is for you to explain.

Making up stuff about transcendent pagan mythos is fine for gabble, but it still does not produce one actual fact, or data point.

Back to the beginning. Creos have no data; they cant produce any; all they have is a lot of adjectives and pronounements. You keep demonstrating that.

 

[Hespera]

T

Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia it's immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. The myth of the stone age ape man continues.

Now it looks like you are resorting to absolute blatant falsehoods.

I think there is something in your book about bearing false witness.

Or are you going to hide behind something about how that is metaphorical or sarcastic or something?

Either take that back, identify it as sarcasm not fact, or consider yourself labeled as a liar.

 

[atomweaver]

That's not just the popular press it's a common homology argument that never impressed me in the first place. Sure it's not a base to base comparison since it's a gap in one that exists in the other genome. The substitutions and indels are really just differences and I never said the scientists were wrong.



What it means is that the old saw of 98% is wrong.

Do you understand the difference between "wrong" and "less accurate"?

Now as to what implications this might have for human/chimp common ancestry I'm thinking, not much. TOE has demonstrated again and again that no matter what the actual evidence universal common descent cannot be questioned.

We are told that our dna is virtually identical and it's not. We are told the human brain and the chimpanzees is virtually identical even though the human brain is three times the size. We are told that this all happens over millions of years and yet it happens suddenly a couple of millions or years ago with no explanation for the molecular mechanisms responsible.

For someone who only treats with the scientific literature, you seem enamored of the conclusions printed by the popular press. Oddly, the solution to this lies in improving the scientific educations of the consumers of the popular press... if they know the science well enough to suss out what a journalist means when he writes "our DNA is 98% similar to chimps", then the problem is half-solved. I'd be tickled if more of our population understood what they mean when they say something like that... Do you think if everyone in the US understood the genetic data at least as well as you, that they would reach the same conclusions you do?

Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia it's immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. The myth of the stone age ape man continues.

Ancestors, maybe maybe not. Distant relation, sure... You know this is likewise perpetuated by creationists inability to decide amongst themselves which of those skulls are non-human ape, and which are humans, right? You'd think that would be an easy thing for them to handle, if common descent weren't true...

 

[atomweaver]

Now it looks like you are resorting to absolute blatant falsehoods.

I think there is something in your book about bearing false witness.

This reply isn't about Mark, specifically, but bearing false witness only pertains to "neighbors". In the most common modern interpretation I've seen here, "neighbor" means "those with faith like mine".

Appealing to the "false witness" thing, its a dead-end Hespera, lying to you or about you doesn't phase Creationists in the slightest. Quite simply; you don't count, because you aren't "of the faith".

 

[mark kennedy]

Now it looks like you are resorting to absolute blatant falsehoods.

No it's not, it's an uncommon conviction based on years of research into the actual evidence. The average Homo habilis skull hovers right around 500cc as does the chimpanzees, the famous taung child is the exact same size and form you would expect from a chimpanzee. In fact, for the vast majority of the time that the Piltdown hoax was being preached from the house tops most evolutionists considered it exactly that, a chimp.

Let me ask you this since your aire of superiority tells me you think you know what your talking about. There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils proported to be our ancestors in natural history museums around the world. How many chimpanzee ancestors from 3 mya to today exist for the chimpanzee ancestor?

I think there is something in your book about bearing false witness.

I have no trouble proving what I say, you just don't care about actual evidence.

Or are you going to hide behind something about how that is metaphorical or sarcastic or something?

Either take that back, identify it as sarcasm not fact, or consider yourself labeled as a liar.

I can prove it and I don't take back anything said in this thread. It's a silly myth not unlike the ones popularized by the ancients in Egypt, Mesopotamia. Invariably the pagan mythographers traced the creation to elementals, usually water, sun or something like that. Even the gods themselves were created by these elementals and Darwinism has generated our modern mythology so of course it's pagan heart hates to hear that creation proceded from the Living God rather then naturalistic elementals.

I got news for you dear one, I've been called a liar a fool and worse on here. Your not going to intimidate me by threatening to say mean and nasty things to me, I was expecting that immediately following my first post. What I can do for you is keep informing you of the issues and the many resources I have discovered and the interesting things I've learned. I doubt seriously your interested in a civil discussion though because, as I can see, the increasing ad hominem focus of your posts that your flame thrower is set on max.

Have a Nice Day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you understand the difference between "wrong" and "less accurate"?

Do you understand the difference between right and wrong?

For someone who only treats with the scientific literature, you seem enamored of the conclusions printed by the popular press. Oddly, the solution to this lies in improving the scientific educations of the consumers of the popular press... if they know the science well enough to suss out what a journalist means when he writes "our DNA is 98% similar to chimps", then the problem is half-solved. I'd be tickled if more of our population understood what they mean when they say something like that... Do you think if everyone in the US understood the genetic data at least as well as you, that they would reach the same conclusions you do?

Nature Magizine in their Web Focus announcement of the paper says 98% ok? The paper says 96% and over time I have found that more then a few genes have dramatic differences. I think people should learn the actual science before going on rants about what other people think. I have actually pursued the scientific literature and followed the evidence where scientists, died in the wool evolutionists, took me with it.

I think if people stopped to consider just how different Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are on a genetic level serious questions about evolution would naturally follow. I think if it was understood how conserved the genes involved in neural development and how dramatically deleterious mutations are in them, it would raise doubts. I think if people were allowed to have honest intellectual thoughts of their own that include a creator some would favor Creationism and others Darwinism but the science would remain unchanged either way.

Ancestors, maybe maybe not. Distant relation, sure... You know this is likewise perpetuated by creationists inability to decide amongst themselves which of those skulls are non-human ape, and which are humans, right? You'd think that would be an easy thing for them to handle, if common descent weren't true...

Creationists didn't create the confusion, they just buckled under it like everyone else. Paleontology is a child of Geology and I really don't know if either should be properly regarded as actual sciences. Most of the reason is that Paleontologists are notorious for bitter controversies and dramatic differences. Genetics on the other hand had went through a hundred years of growth and development propelling scientific advancement ahead with nearly exponential increases in a working knowledge of living systems.

You could teach genetics without natural history and you would be better off without Darwinism leaching off of it. This isn't about creationism vs science, I've never heard a creationist say a negative thing about Mendelian Genetics. The problem is that Darwinism has been unnaturally blended with Genetics and this kind of intellectual comingling could only have one purpose, poison the well for Christians. There is a simple reason for wanting to do this, it's because Christian scholars dominated European academics and sciences for a thousand years. The modern secular clerics attack theistic reasoning because they are threatened by it.

 

[mark kennedy]

This reply isn't about Mark, specifically, but bearing false witness only pertains to "neighbors". In the most common modern interpretation I've seen here, "neighbor" means "those with faith like mine".

Appealing to the "false witness" thing, its a dead-end Hespera, lying to you or about you doesn't phase Creationists in the slightest. Quite simply; you don't count, because you aren't "of the faith".

I have nothing to lie to you about, everytime a chimpanzee fossil is unearthed in Africa or Asia it is automatically declared one of our ancestors. Show me just one exception and I can tell you where the only exception actually is. It's in the same issue of Nature where the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was published.

You ever heard the expression turn the other check, it doesn't mean what you think. When Jesus was on trial before the High Priest he told him plainly that he was the Son of God. When you lied in court (bear false witness) you could be slapped by another wittness but they then had to prove your lieing. When Jesus said this one of the slave smacked him, Jesus just says now present your evidence.

The idea behind turning the other check is to keep telling the truth even when they keep calling you a liar and can't prove it. Now if you want to prove me a liar then show me a single exception or you and your cohort can continue to stroke one anothers egos with your false accusations.

I've played this game before, this ones a slam dunk.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Hespera]

No it's not, it's an uncommon conviction based on years of research into the actual evidence. The average Homo habilis skull hovers right around 500cc as does the chimpanzees, the famous taung child is the exact same size and form you would expect from a chimpanzee. In fact, for the vast majority of the time that the Piltdown hoax was being preached from the house tops most evolutionists considered it exactly that, a chimp.

Let me ask you this since your aire of superiority tells me you think you know what your talking about. There are literally hundreds of hominid fossils proported to be our ancestors in natural history museums around the world. How many chimpanzee ancestors from 3 mya to today exist for the chimpanzee ancestor?



I have no trouble proving what I say, you just don't care about actual evidence.



I can prove it and I don't take back anything said in this thread. It's a silly myth not unlike the ones popularized by the ancients in Egypt, Mesopotamia. Invariably the pagan mythographers traced the creation to elementals, usually water, sun or something like that. Even the gods themselves were created by these elementals and Darwinism has generated our modern mythology so of course it's pagan heart hates to hear that creation proceded from the Living God rather then naturalistic elementals.

I got news for you dear one, I've been called a liar a fool and worse on here. Your not going to intimidate me by threatening to say mean and nasty things to me, I was expecting that immediately following my first post. What I can do for you is keep informing you of the issues and the many resources I have discovered and the interesting things I've learned. I doubt seriously your interested in a civil discussion though because, as I can see, the increasing ad hominem focus of your posts that your flame thrower is set on max.

Have a Nice Day
Mark

I see you cant get over being condescending.

You said: :"Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia it's immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. The myth of the stone age ape man continues." False.

You know it; I know it. Everyone knows it. You change the subject talking about H habilis. That isnt a chimp.

"everytime" (sic) is false

"immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors" is false

None of that is true. If / since you insist on saying things that are not true, its is not surprising if you have been called a liar. Its hardly an ad hom to point out that what you said is not true. its quite accurate to say that you are speaking falsely.

Civil discourse? I kinda thought we were going along ok then you started the condescending and name calling. AND a blatant falsehood. I invited you to retract it; you want to stand by it that "everytime (sic) a chimp skull is dug up in Africa.....". So stand by all the blatant flasehoods you like
It does wonders for your credibility.

Ok! so more oondescending ("dear one") stick by your flasehoods, accuse me of things and top it off with a totally insincere "have a nice day".

"Threatening you" Puh....leeze.


Well, the bottom line if you want to cut the nasties, you still cant and never will come up with one (1) real data point, one fact that would confirm creationism or falsify evolution.

Out west here we say, "All hat and no cattle".

 

[Hespera]

I have nothing to lie to you about, everytime a chimpanzee fossil is unearthed in Africa or Asia it is automatically declared one of our ancestors. Show me just one exception and I can tell you where the only exception actually is. It's in the same issue of Nature where the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome was published.

You ever heard the expression turn the other check, it doesn't mean what you think. When Jesus was on trial before the High Priest he told him plainly that he was the Son of God. When you lied in court (bear false witness) you could be slapped by another wittness but they then had to prove your lieing. When Jesus said this one of the slave smacked him, Jesus just says now present your evidence.

The idea behind turning the other check is to keep telling the truth even when they keep calling you a liar and can't prove it. Now if you want to prove me a liar then show me a single exception or you and your cohort can continue to stroke one anothers egos with your false accusations.

I've played this game before, this ones a slam dunk.

Have a nice day
Mark

Your statement about every chimp skull is false. Period.

Your bit about "find an exception"? Right. You made the false statement and someone else is supposed to prove it. What, check in Africa next time some digs up a chimp skull?

Bring in a bunch of religion next. You were still not telling the truth.

We do believe, tho, that you "have played this game before".