Creationists are selfish and un-American

Pete Harcoff said:

Wait... Weren't you insinuating to me not so long ago that most of the US wasn't "Christian" because of all the problems it has (particularly in the Bible Belt).

Hmmm...

Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm still thankful I was born here. It's not a "Christian" country but the gospel is preached here and for that I am grateful! Besides...I'm in this world but not part of it. I'm part of another Kingdom.

Get too far with this and you'll have a few martyr complexes on your hand. No matter, "I died the king's good servant, but God's first." Un-patriotic, hahaha..

Inan3 said:

Yes, but I'm still thankful I was born here. It's not a "Christian" country but the gospel is preached here and for that I am grateful! Besides...I'm in this world but not part of it. I'm part of another Kingdom.

Click to expand...

If you are in this world you are a part of it, whether you like it or not.

Allegory said:

What does the bible say about putting your head in the sand?

Click to expand...

I couldn't find that exact quote but I found some similar to that.

Isa 29:15 Woe to those who go deep to hide their purpose from Jehovah! And their works are in the dark, and they say, Who sees us? And who knows us?

Jer 23:24 Can anyone hide himself in secret places so that I shall not see him? says Jehovah. Do I not fill the heavens and earth? says Jehovah.

Rev 6:16 And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;

Mat 7:26 And everyone who hears these sayings of Mine and does not do them shall be compared to a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
Mat 7:27 And the rain came down, and the floods came, and the wind blew and beat on that house. And it fell, and great was its fall.

meebs said:

If you are in this world you are a part of it, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

I'm in the earth but not a part of the system of the world

Inan3 said:

I'm in the earth but not a part of the system of the world

Click to expand...

Yes, you are.

Danyc said:

Yes, you are.

Click to expand...

If it makes it happy, let it pretend otherwise.

Unless it lives in the middle of nowhere and hunts/grows it's own food it's apart of this society and this world.

Allegory said:

So this country you claim to love, you'd like to see it destroyed because can't swallow your pride for the greater good? Creationists are a minority, there's no doubt about it. There's no reason creationism should be taught with evolution. What you do by attempting to introduce creationism completely undermines the science education in the United States, which means that countries who do not subscribe to the creationist ideology will gain an advantage in not only biotech, but probably most other fields relating to sciences as well.

It's already happening, yes, the United States isn't exactly THE BEST when it comes to math or science, I'm sure a few asian countries are beating North America in that regard, but if you are a patriotic American you will understand why America needs science.

If you believe creationism should be taught in classrooms you are patently un-American. There's no question about it. If you think creationism should be in biology classes you are putting your minority beliefs ahead of the good of the United States of America, and that in itself is unpatriotic.

Click to expand...

My feeling is you need to have both taught. because both show good points of view. Both sides have valid arguments, and both have lots of evidences to help prove itself.
People need to be able to see different views. I mean how can you compare, if you had nothing to compare to ? So regardless of what side your on, you should appreciate that there is another side to the story. I too am glad i live in america, land of the free. Our founding fathers came here to be free in the first place. Free to speech, free to thought, free to religion, and not let people Dictate what they had to think.

DamonWV said:

My feeling is you need to have both taught. because both show good points of view. Both sides have valid arguments, and both have lots of evidences to help prove itself.

Click to expand...

Entirely false. One side has evidence. The other side has lies and propaganda. For example, why don't you try explaining endogenous retroviruses without humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor?
http://christianforums.com/t1154974...roviral-insertions-and-hominid-evolution.html

This is a tremendous piece of evidence for common ancestry, as they are signatures of past events in our genomes, some of which we share with other species, in a pattern predicted by evolution.

Inan3 said:

I'm in the earth but not a part of the system of the world

Click to expand...

Ok im curious, when you say this what does it mean to you?

I fail to see how you are not of this world. Could you explain how?

meebs said:

Ok im curious, when you say this what does it mean to you?

I fail to see how you are not of this world. Could you explain how?

Click to expand...

It's called 'having delusions of grandeur', in other words, her brain tells her she is better than she is,
it's common to all religions, they transfer something they think is of consequence to themselves,
which in their minds will make them of consequence, instead of the inconsequential things we really are,
unfortunately a lot of people can not face up to that little fact, hence the need for religion,
religions give people a feeling of self worth, but unfortunately for them, it's only a feeling.

Suicide bombers all think they are making a difference by killing themselves and those around them,
(do you know how many people are killed in car accidents every day? Thousands, unless it's one of ours, do we care?)
when are the bombers going to learn? if it doesn't happen to them or theirs, the average person in the street is just not bothered,
we are not happy about it, but we are not bothered by it either.

Chalnoth said:

Entirely false. One side has evidence. The other side has lies and propaganda. For example, why don't you try explaining endogenous retroviruses without humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor?
http://christianforums.com/t1154974...roviral-insertions-and-hominid-evolution.html

This is a tremendous piece of evidence for common ancestry, as they are signatures of past events in our genomes, some of which we share with other species, in a pattern predicted by evolution.

Click to expand...

I read that link, but im still left clueless, of how retro virus have anything to do with us having a common ancestor ?
Lay mens terms please.
I think its absurd that man went from apes to man. I can use observational science for this. If the case were true, then i would think we would see half ape half human species continually evolving into humans. There should be tons of fossils of half ape half human transitional fossils out there to be found.
What you get is some tooth fragment, or maybe a chin bone and some wild imagination of an artist who can draw up an entire scale of the little piece of fossil found of some half ape half man delusion.
That is if its a legit fossil and not something glued together smuggled out of china.
Also it never seems that people cant take into consideration that if an entire fossil is found, and it is different from the majority of fossils its always deemed transitional, but could it not be a deformity of some kind ? What if the living thing had some type of major defect that greatly mutated its body. We see this today in humans being born of all kinds of weird diseases that make all kinds of deforrmities.
Amazes me also that we just stop at human form in the process of evolution. I guess evolution is done right ? I dont see man evolving into some other species. Even if you can make an argument that has something to do with our organs, or our cells, truth is were still Human beings, not changing into anything else.

You say that there are no transitional fossils between apes and humans, you are either lying or ignorant of the information. Because there are many. By listing them the species are:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Do some research before making such a grand statement.

DamonWV said:

I read that link, but im still left clueless, of how retro virus have anything to do with us having a common ancestor ?
Lay mens terms please.

Click to expand...

Here's the short version. A retrovirus in our DNA is an indication of a failed infection that occurred in one of our ancestors. These are rare occurrences, because for them to be passed on, the failed infection has to be in a cell that leads to a sperm or egg that is later fertilized. They are also highly randomized, because retroviruses insert themselves more or less at random into any one of at least thousands of different sites when they try to reproduce.

So, when we see two organisms with the same retrovirus in the same location in the DNA, then we can infer that the two organisms share a common ancestor that passed on this failed infection.

When we look at pieces of the DNA in various primates, including humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and various monkeys, we see a particular pattern emerge. For simplicity, I will only consider here ERV's that are found in human DNA. When we look only at those ERV's found in us, the following pattern emerges:

1. Some ERV's are unique to humans. That is, we see a chunk of DNA like so in humans:

GCAACTACCGCTGCT
(where the letters GCAT represent a chunk of DNA, with the x's representing a retrovirus)

and like so in all other primates:
GCAACGCT
(note that this is just an example illustration: in reality the sequences will be much, much longer, and a few of the base pairs will be different, about 1/50, when we look at chimpanzees, more when we look at other species)

It's the same piece of DNA, but without the retrovirus sequence. We infer, therefore, that these retroviruses occurred in a common ancestor that humans share.

Then, we look at more ERV's. We find some ERV's that are in our DNA, in chimpanzee DNA (same location, same basic sequence), but are absent in all other primates. These ERV's had to occur in an ancestor that humans and chimpanzees share.

Others we find in humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, but absent in all other primates. These ERV's had to occur in an ancestor that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas share.

Others we find in humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, but absent in all other primates. These ERV's had to occur in an ancestor that all apes share.

Others we find in humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and old world monkeys, but absent in new world monkeys. These ERV's had to occur in an ancestor that apes and old world monkeys share.

And so on and so forth. Presumably you get the point.

DamonWV said:

I think its absurd that man went from apes to man. I can use observational science for this. If the case were true, then i would think we would see half ape half human species continually evolving into humans.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. Evolution doesn't repeat itself. Observing this sort of thing would actually disprove evolution.

First of all, consider the time scales involved: our recent ancestor with chimpanzees existed approximately 4-6 million years ago. It took 4-6 million years, then, to evolve from a sort of chimpanzee-like ancestor to us. Why should we expect to see anything like that happen again in less than 1/10,000th the time, a few hundred years? Obviously we shouldn't.

Then there's the problem that the world is different now. The same selective pressures that affected our ancestors just don't exist any longer. So we shouldn't expect to see apes evolving into even human-like organisms.

DamonWV said:

There should be tons of fossils of half ape half human transitional fossils out there to be found.

Click to expand...

Oh, there are. Tons of them. But for a short illustration, take a gander at this picture:

The skull on the top left is a chimpanzee skull. The skull on the bottom right is the skull of a modern human. The skulls in between are listed from oldest to youngest. Can you tell where the "ape" skulls end and the human skulls begin?

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

DamonWV said:

Amazes me also that we just stop at human form in the process of evolution. I guess evolution is done right ? I dont see man evolving into some other species. Even if you can make an argument that has something to do with our organs, or our cells, fact is were still homo sapien sapiens.

Click to expand...

What makes you think we've stopped evolving? The evidence appears to be that because of our massive population growth, human evolution is accelerating. What you seem to fail to understand, though, is that evolution takes many generations, typically, for changes to be noticeable. Why on Earth should you expect to visibly see changes in the couple of generations you are alive? That's like heading out to watch an oak tree for a day, and subsequently conclude it isn't growing because you don't see any change in a day.

By the way, for an interesting novelty in human evolution, take a look at the ostrich tribe in Africa:
http://www.ourstrangeworld.net/?p=7985

They have feet that are missing the three middle toes. They are still human, of course, but they are humans with somewhat different physical characteristics. If this tribe remains separated from the rest of the human race for long enough, more changes will appear (both in us and in them). How long until we become two different species of humans? It might be as few as fifty to a hundred generations.

Vene said:

You say that there are no transitional fossils between apes and humans, you are either lying or ignorant of the information. Because there are many. By listing them the species are:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis

Do some research before making such a grand statement.

Click to expand...

I have done plenty of reading, and I will contimue the grand statement. Lets take for example "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis.
It was understood that she was a Bipedal, walked upright, but research done has found out something different.
Regardless of the status of Lucy’s knee joint, new evidence has come forth that Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker,which is a distinctly quadrupedal specialization characteristic of some living apes and is quite different than walking upright. Richmond and Strait identify four skeletal features of the distal radius of the living knuckle-walking apes, chimpanzees and gorillas. They also identify similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy ( Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385. )

In an interview, Richmond stated that after they analyzed the wrist characteristics of living knuckle-walkers, he and Strait walked across the hall to check plaster casts at the National Museum of Natural History: ‘I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and—shazam!—she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers .’ ( Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000 )

I could go through each fossil and go on and on all day , but i need to get to sleep, been working all night.
Before i go though, My example above shows that people jump to wild conclussions when they find a piece of a fossil, or pieces of fossils. Of course there have been lots of fraud in the past and even present with fossils.

Id like to close with again what I stated above, Scientist, use a lot of wild imaginiation when reconstructing a fossil to get into their presumption ideas to every , once again lucy

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

I hope i made my point, just not about lucy, but more about people with presumptions and how it affects their imagination.
I havent even gotten into the frauds yet.. but i need to get to bed.. eyes going shut zzzzzzzz Night or day

DamonWV said:

I have done plenty of reading, and I will contimue the grand statement. Lets take for example "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis.
It was understood that she was a Bipedal, walked upright, but research done has found out something different.
Regardless of the status of Lucy’s knee joint, new evidence has come forth that Lucy has the morphology of a knuckle-walker,which is a distinctly quadrupedal specialization characteristic of some living apes and is quite different than walking upright. Richmond and Strait identify four skeletal features of the distal radius of the living knuckle-walking apes, chimpanzees and gorillas. They also identify similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy ( Richmond and Strait, Ref. 3, pp. 382–385. )

In an interview, Richmond stated that after they analyzed the wrist characteristics of living knuckle-walkers, he and Strait walked across the hall to check plaster casts at the National Museum of Natural History: ‘I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, and—shazam!—she had the morphology that was classic for knuckle walkers .’ ( Stokstad, E., Hominid ancestors may have knuckle walked, Science 287(5461):2131, 2000 )

Click to expand...

Assuming this information is even correct, it is easily explained by Lucy having fairly recently descended from knuckle-walkers. Her knee and feet are strongly bipedal, much moreso than chimpanzees, indicating that Lucy's species walked most of the time.

Chalnoth said:

Assuming this information is even correct, it is easily explained by Lucy having fairly recently descended from knuckle-walkers. Her knee and feet are strongly bipedal, much moreso than chimpanzees, indicating that Lucy's species walked most of the time.

Click to expand...

So "Lucy" was an animal that likely serviced humans. Her seeming abilities might only indicate that monkeys, apes, etc., were once more capable than they are presently and have be degenerating since the FALL.