What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[doubtingmerle]

If the designer and I were peers, yes, it would be evidence against design. But we're not.

I'll ask him when I get the chance.

How about asking him now? Are you and the designer on speaking terms? Can you ask him why he used different DNA to make the same cytochrome C in different creature? Let me know what he tells you, please.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If I were somehow transported back six thousand years, even if everyone around me thought I was nuts I'd still believe radio waves exist, though it might be difficult to prove.

..because radio wave have measurable affects.

Does your creator have affects that can be measured?

 

[Almost there]

How about asking him now? Are you and the designer on speaking terms? Can you ask him why he used different DNA to make the same cytochrome C in different creature? Let me know what he tells you, please.

Your whole premise comes from the false paradigm that you or I are peers to the creator.

More than a few times in science we have thought certain attributes of biology were unnecessary only to learn that there were valid reasons for what we saw after all.

i.e. your comments come from a position of ignorance. We don't have complete knowledge. I shouldn't even have to say it.

 

[rjs330]

The vast majority of your fellow creationists not only think that students should be required to pray in school but that it must be Evangelical Protestant prayer. During Santa Fe School District v. Loving a compromise was offered to have clergy of the different denominations represented in the student body lead the prayer in turn, but that suggestion was rejected out of hand by the school district. It was also brought out in that case that public school teachers of the district were sending little Catholic and Mormon kids home in tears by telling them that their parents belonged to "godless cults." That's who creationists really are, that's how they want the entire country to be run. I know, I've lived amongst them.

Yes, the Protestant Bible and none other, as interpreted by Protestants and none other. Back then, Catholic kids could be beaten by their teachers for not going along with it, not just harassed and bullied like in the Bible Belt today. Truly it was a Golden Age. Good on them. We're better off with religious neutrality in the schools than we would be if we let the Fundies back in.


In my opinion the way he twists US history borders on treason. It makes me sick to my stomach. In fact, I'm sick of the lot of you. Another creationist on this board has been trying to pursuade us that the purpose of Isaiah 28:10 is to describe God laying down geologic strata after the Flood. So much for "literal inerrancy." It's just plain silly.

I suppose in the end we will have to fight again. You people seem to have forgotten how many lives it cost and that you lost last time.

I completely disagree. No surprise there. Do you have evidence that the majority of Creationists want to force people to pray in school? Pay close attention to the word FORCE. We don't want to FORCE anyone to pray in school. We do want to allow people including the teachers to be able to pray in school if they want to. Pay attention to the word ALLOW. There is a large difference between force and allow.

Yes the protestant Bible. It is just fine. And no we shouldn't send kids home telling them they belong to a godless cult. Good grief. Have you forgotten what the Catholics did to the Protestants? No one is guiltless. It's time to stop with the blame games. There is plenty to go around and all it does is serve to divide. Your church is not greater than my church and mine is not greater than yours. We may disagree on some doctrinal issues but you're still.my brother.

Barton is a good man and an excellent historian. What passes today as history is most often twisted into treason and Barton is excellent at presenting the actual facts.

And you apparently forgot it was Protestants who fought other Protestants in the Civil War. The nice thing about America is we see our sins and try and fix them. That sin was recognized by Protestants and they bled and died for it. I'm kind of getting tired of your attacks on us.

And the dude who is trying to use Isaiah as a flood scripture is doing what far too many people do and it's take a verse out of context and use it to support a point. We need to tailor our beliefs to what the scripture says rather than the other way around. So no he is not taking the verse literally. He is doing what we literalists actually fight against. He's applying an interpretation to scripture in trying to.make it say something it's not.

 

[rjs330]

A creator who created the earth in 4004 BC would show up in evidence.

A creator with a Facebook account where he expounded things only a God would know would have evidence.

A creator who healed amputees would have evidence.

A creator would be testable if only he were to clearly do observable things.

He has done observable things. It's called the creation. It's obvious all around you. The evidence is there. You are without excuse.

 

[Almost there]

..because radio wave have measurable affects.

Does your creator have affects that can be measured?

Two things:
1. I have measurable effects in my life, not only in general ways, but in three bona-fide miracles.
2. The point of my analogy was, as a burger flipper from today going back in time six thousand years, good luck proving it to your neighbors back then. Sure, you may have experienced awesome rock on your car radio in modern times and know for sure that it exists, but still...

 

[doubtingmerle]

Your whole premise comes from the false paradigm that you or I are peers to the creator.

More than a few times in science we have thought certain attributes of biology were unnecessary only to learn that there were valid reasons for what we saw after all.

i.e. your comments come from a position of ignorance. We don't have complete knowledge. I shouldn't even have to say it.

Ah, your God moves in mysterious ways.

Mysteriously, he seems to have moved in a way that looks to me like evolution.

 

[Almost there]

Ah, your God moves in mysterious ways.

Mysteriously, he seems to have moved in a way that looks to me like evolution.

Yep. Even though no evolution has ever been proven. All that has been proven in mutation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

He has done observable things. It's called the creation. It's obvious all around you. The evidence is there. You are without excuse.

And why does that creation look like it was formed over millions of years? Why do rocks happen to have percentages of minor elements that clearly indicate they were put there millions of years ago?

 

[rjs330]

A force which cannot be detected is indistinguishable from a force that's entirely fictitious.


Which makes said proposed designer indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.


I wouldn't call that a paradox. After all, if said proposed designer had measurable properties, there'd be no issue in testing it.


Lol, what? Evolution is testable, which is why it is a part of science. You just went through why intelligent design isn't allowed (and correctly assessed it), but then you act as if a person couldn't just say "I believe in god", despite admitting that said deity cannot be tested. I'm very confused about your logic.


-_- I'm literally running an evolution experiment right now. I even designed the experiment such that other people without any special equipment could replicate it.

A sad fact is that evolution is a slow process, and anything that would speed it up fast enough for you to observe a transition on the scale of a lizard population evolving into a bird population would defy perimeters in nature so much that people like you would say it doesn't count as evidence. For example, it is entirely possible to increase the rate of mutation within genomes, and forced mutation is part of how people find out the function of genes. However, despite the fact that these forced mutations can be equally random to natural ones, the fact that they occurred due to human intervention would make people cry out "intelligent design". Which is as annoying as a person demanding that the circumference of the planet has to be measured with a ruler.

In other words you have no evidence or ability to show common ancestry. Your experiment as you claim will not be able to show the evolution of something from common ancestry because it takes to long. The only thing your experiment will show is that whatever thing you are evolving will still be the same thing it was when you started but may have some forced evolving by and intelligent designer. You. If it's a beetle it will remain a beetle.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yep. Even though no evolution has ever been proven. All that has been proven in mutation.

The existence of electrons has never been absolutely proven either.

But there is strong evidence for both evolution and electrons.

 

[rjs330]

Give that cliché a rest already. Most christians have no problems with evolution.



Why would this god create all life forms and go out of his way to make it look as if they all evolved from a common ancestor?

It's not about just chimps. It's about all living things.



It's not about mere similarity. It's about the pattern of similarity.
The pattern of similarity in all living things (not just chimps and humans) is a nested hierarchy. This is a very specific pattern. It's a branching tree. Like a family tree.

The only pattern that could exist if evolution happened.
The last pattern one would expect if all things were individually created.



It is completely unrelated to my atheism.
For most christians, it is also completely unrelated to their theism. Just ask the Vatican peeps, for example.

Most christians are fine saying God created humans and that evolution is the method he used.

God didn't make it look like a common ancestry. That is YOUR interpretation. God said how he did it. You have chosen to disbelieve it and turned it into something else.

 

[rjs330]

And why does that creation look like it was formed over millions of years? Why do rocks happen to have percentages of minor elements that clearly indicate they were put there millions of years ago?

How do you know it was millions of years ago? Were you there? Its a guess.

And don't forget that God created things fully formed and mature. So age was built into creation. Fully formed stars and a fully formed sun. Folks like you like to call it deceptive. But it's not because God said he did it that way. You just aren't paying attention to what he said.

 

[pitabread]

God didn't make it look like a common ancestry.

And yet you still can't explain how independent creation is supposed to look different than common ancestry.

 

[pitabread]

How do you know it was millions of years ago? Were you there? Its a guess.

No, not a "guess". Science. Geochronology - Wikipedia

And don't forget that God created things fully formed and mature. So age was built into creation. Fully formed stars and a fully formed sun. Folks like you like to call it deceptive.

There's a difference between creating something fully formed and creating something with the appearance of past history. Earth has the appearance of past history. Ergo, if it was created whereby "age was built into creation", then it was created with the appearance of events that never happened. Other than deception, what other possible reason could there be for doing that?

 

[Almost there]

And why does that creation look like it was formed over millions of years? Why do rocks happen to have percentages of minor elements that clearly indicate they were put there millions of years ago?

You seem to be the one fixated on some sort of time period. Let the evidence show us, and let us interpret what it means, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Almost there]

The existence of electrons has never been absolutely proven either.

But there is strong evidence for both evolution and electrons.

And God...

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to be the one fixated on some sort of time period. Let the evidence show us, and let us interpret what it means, and let the chips fall where they may.

Let the evidence show us?

LOL

 

[Almost there]

Let the evidence show us?

LOL

The key in my statement was, "let us interpret what it means". There is where things get complicated.

 

[pitabread]

The key in my statement was, "let us interpret what it means". There is where things get complicated.

If only we had a group of professionals that spent their lives studying these sorts of things so that they could form interpretations and then communicate said interpretations to the rest of us in a simplified manner.

Maybe one day...