I really got a kick out of this one.

mark kennedy · Sep 25, 2006

Check out the poll at the top of this thread.

Piltdown and the search for human ancestors

Notice that over 50 people choose the 'Multiple disciples the proved it conclusivly' option. It was a typo, I really meant to type disciplines and they all probably misread it. It just tickled me that only two people choose genetics/biology and no one choose fossils. But 52 people choose multiple disciples, maybe I am just easily amused, I think that is hilarious.

I remember a couple of years ago I was debating someone and he brought up Mendel and Darwin. He ranted and raved that they had nothing to do with it and even started calling me a hypocrite when I started discussing Mendel. In two of his subsequent debates he strongly emphasised the modern synthesis of Mendel and Darwin and I just got such a kick out of that.

These guys just kill me, I would love to move on to some other topic but I am just having too much fun with this one.

FallingWaters · Sep 26, 2006

I believe the Bible is true, therefore no matter what we don't know about how or when it all got here, I know that man is God's special creation and object of love, created separately from all of the animals.

Ave Maria · Oct 13, 2006

I take the Bible's account of creation literally.

laptoppop · Oct 13, 2006

Its always wise to trust what our Lord says!

Pats · Oct 14, 2006

laptoppop said:
Its always wise to trust what our Lord says!

Amen, brother.

mark kennedy · Oct 15, 2006

I have another one for you, this one really takes the cake. I happened across a Time article entitled 'What makes us Different?' The article is online if anyone is interested in actually reading it btw. It said that the Chimpanzee and human DNA is 98%-99% the same, which is not true, its more like 95%. That might not seem like a big difference but it represents over 100 millioin base pairs. This is how I try to explain it to people:

You get a call from your bank and they tell you that you are 350 dollars overdrawn. You make 500 a week so you are not too worried about it and that Friday you go into the bank with your check to pay off the overdraft. The bank manager informs you that you are actually 1,450 dollars overdrawn and you hit the roof. His explanation is that they did not include all the over drafts. Wouldn't you be angry and question either the competance or the honesty of the bank?

What they did was to just add up the single nucleotide substitutions which comes to 98%-99%. There are in fact 90 mega bases of indels that dwarf the single nucleotide substitutions and another 20 million chromsomal rearrangements. All tolled it comes to 145 million base pairs that seperate us from chimpanzees.

What is the problem for evolution from these new numbers? The observed mutation rate does no cover it anymore then the 500 dollar check in my illustration would cover a 1,450 dollar overdraft.

After looking around I found on the announcement of the Chimpanzee Genome in Nature magazine. What is odd about this is in that very issue that they clearly say that the Single substitutions (1.20%) are dwarfed by the indels (3%-4%). The question comes to mind, why the bogus percentage?

I posted a poll in the C&E forum asking if the 98% figure was true and accurate, 37 out of 39 voters said that it was. I was amazed that even when I showed them from the publication that it was wrong they were not even concerned that the percentage was absolutly wrong.

It speaks volumes for the integrity of the evolutionist in our day. If you are interested in the particulars just type Chimpanzee Genome in you google search engine and the Nature announcement is at the top. The article they are announcing directly contradicts what they are saying but I don't think evolutionists are flooding Nature with cards and letters. The ones who know about this don't want you to know, so it's ok if Nature puts bogus percentages in the announcement.

RichardT · Oct 17, 2006

Mark, you really should start up your own creation apologetics website... You are absolutely awesome..

RichardT · Oct 17, 2006

mark kennedy said:
I have another one for you, this one really takes the cake. I happened across a Time article entitled 'What makes us Different?' The article is online if anyone is interested in actually reading it btw. It said that the Chimpanzee and human DNA is 98%-99% the same, which is not true, its more like 95%. That might not seem like a big difference but it represents over 100 millioin base pairs. This is how I try to explain it to people:

You get a call from your bank and they tell you that you are 350 dollars overdrawn. You make 500 a week so you are not too worried about it and that Friday you go into the bank with your check to pay off the overdraft. The bank manager informs you that you are actually 1,450 dollars overdrawn and you hit the roof. His explanation is that they did not include all the over drafts. Wouldn't you be angry and question either the competance or the honesty of the bank?

What they did was to just add up the single nucleotide substitutions which comes to 98%-99%. There are in fact 90 mega bases of indels that dwarf the single nucleotide substitutions and another 20 million chromsomal rearrangements. All tolled it comes to 145 million base pairs that seperate us from chimpanzees.

What is the problem for evolution from these new numbers? The observed mutation rate does no cover it anymore then the 500 dollar check in my illustration would cover a 1,450 dollar overdraft.

After looking around I found on the announcement of the Chimpanzee Genome in Nature magazine. What is odd about this is in that very issue that they clearly say that the Single substitutions (1.20%) are dwarfed by the indels (3%-4%). The question comes to mind, why the bogus percentage?

I posted a poll in the C&E forum asking if the 98% figure was true and accurate, 37 out of 39 voters said that it was. I was amazed that even when I showed them from the publication that it was wrong they were not even concerned that the percentage was absolutly wrong.

It speaks volumes for the integrity of the evolutionist in our day. If you are interested in the particulars just type Chimpanzee Genome in you google search engine and the Nature announcement is at the top. The article they are announcing directly contradicts what they are saying but I don't think evolutionists are flooding Nature with cards and letters. The ones who know about this don't want you to know, so it's ok if Nature puts bogus percentages in the announcement.

Actually, Mark, they didn't think the 98-99% figure was accurate, they just that that the poll answer was the most accurate response.

They thought the other answers weren't good because they didn't believe the article was deliberatly lying or that it was a bad joke, so they voted for whatever they felt closest to...

I thought you understood that from their posts....

Pats · Oct 18, 2006

Those are some funny stories Mark.

mark kennedy · Oct 18, 2006

RichardT said:
Actually, Mark, they didn't think the 98-99% figure was accurate, they just that that the poll answer was the most accurate response.

They thought the other answers weren't good because they didn't believe the article was deliberatly lying or that it was a bad joke, so they voted for whatever they felt closest to...

I thought you understood that from their posts....

Oh I did, I just thought it was funny that no one called it a lie. I'm called a liar all the time just for expressing my opinion. The thing is, sure Time might not have read the paper and they were going by what they were told. Nature magazine cited the 98% figure in the general announcement of the Chimpanzee Genome. I know that the editors of Nature read and understood the paper and they gave the wrong figure, the exact same one Time did.

Everyone wanted to vote for true and accurate which didn't supprise me. The poll was just for fun, the actual article and the way the differences in DNA are presented to the public on the other hand is very serious. What I am begining to wonder is if they are so confident that science can explain evolution then why the bogus numbers?

I just got a big kick out of it, they all said in the poll that it was true and accurate but no one argued that it actually was, not effectivly at least. The thing is, if the 98-99% figure is not true and accurate then why did both Nature and Time give the bogus figure? It's pretty obvious, they didn't want to have to explain the actual differences because they can't.

Pats · Oct 18, 2006

mark kennedy said:
Check out the poll at the top of this thread.

Piltdown and the search for human ancestors

Notice that over 50 people choose the 'Multiple disciples the proved it conclusivly' option. It was a typo, I really meant to type disciplines and they all probably misread it. It just tickled me that only two people choose genetics/biology and no one choose fossils. But 52 people choose multiple disciples, maybe I am just easily amused, I think that is hilarious.

I remember a couple of years ago I was debating Aron-Ra and brought up Mendel and Darwin. He ranted and raved that they had nothing to do with it and even started calling me a hypocrite when I started discussing Mendel. In two of his subsequent debates he strongly emphasised the modern synthesis of Mendel and Darwin and I just got such a kick out of that.

These guys just kill me, I would love to move on to some other topic but I am just having too much fun with this one.

I appologize if my sharing this is out of bounds. Some times I am just not sure if I am more a Creationist or more a TE. I think it all depends on how you define the terminology. I wish this wasn't an "us" vs. "them" issue, though.

So, just to be fair, I didn't view it that he meant it quite the way you interprated it.

Here's the link to the thread in referance if there is any interest to anyone?

http://www.christianforums.com/t750574-the-origin-and-history-of-life.html

I appologize if this posting steps on any toes. I try to keep my style up here very non debate, I just wanted to make a helpful post. If it's unwelcome, then pls accept my appology in advance.

Floodnut · Oct 19, 2006

I would have preferred if the question had been worded differently, like which reason is the foremost. I would choose all of the above. And I have real philosopical differences with every chimpanzee and other apes that I have discussed this with. It is hard for me to accept that we could be related. At least pigs have the same number of chromosones.

mark kennedy · Oct 19, 2006

Pats said:
I appologize if my sharing this is out of bounds. Some times I am just not sure if I am more a Creationist or more a TE. I think it all depends on how you define the terminology. I wish this wasn't an "us" vs. "them" issue, though.

I have allways been a creationist and I have the same problem with TE that I have with liberal theology, nothing distinguishes it from worldly philosophy. At any rate, the main issue here is the historicity of Scripture. The New Testament does not present Adam as some vauge metaphore. That is what TEs have missed, they don't seem to realize the YEC does not start with Genesis, it starts in the Gospels.

So, just to be fair, I didn't view it that he meant it quite the way you interprated it.

Here's the link to the thread in referance if there is any interest to anyone?

http://www.christianforums.com/t750574-the-origin-and-history-of-life.html

I appologize if this posting steps on any toes. I try to keep my style up here very non debate, I just wanted to make a helpful post. If it's unwelcome, then pls accept my appology in advance.

I don't mind someone bringing up that debate, Aron-Ra did more to convince me of YEC then anyone on these boards. I brought up Darwinism early and often claiming it was nonesense and still contend that it is. Aron-Ra insisted the Darwin had been a Christian when he wrote On the Origin of Species, which isn't even remotely true.

Then I contrasted Darwin with Mendel and this was the reaction I got:

Aron-ra said:
You didn't. You thought some 150 year-old botany experiments were some kind of competition for modern molecular biology. When I cited the research of current genetic specialists, you changed the subject. You say your 19th Century monk is evidence, but you say the last century or so of improvement on his notions doesn't count as evidence at all. If you don't want to be called a hypocrite, don't be a hypocrite.

This was typical of the flames I got regularly, the research he is talking about is actually a link to a dead end. Aron-ra was brilliant at times and he has an extensive knowledge of paleontology. He completly dismisses Mendel and calls me a hypocrite for even bringing him up. This is what the authors of the Human Genome Project thought of Mendel:

"The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century [1-3] sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same."

"The last quarter of a century has been marked by a relentless drive to decipher first genes and then entire genomes, spawning the field of genomics. The fruits of this work already include the genome sequences of 599 viruses and viroids, 205 naturally occurring plasmids, 185 organelles, 31 eubacteria, seven archaea, one fungus, two animals and one plant."

http://bioinformatics.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=386

What I found so funny was that in two later debates he strongly emphasised the modern synthesis, which blends Mendelian genetics and Darwinian natural selection. The first time I saw him do it I was supprised but the second time he was so emphatic I couldn't stop laughing. That's what I found so funny about it, I guess you had to be there.

mark kennedy · Oct 19, 2006

RichardT said:
Mark, you really should start up your own creation apologetics website... You are absolutely awesome..

Funny you should mention that, I'm working on a blog now. I may decide to go ahead and get a website but it depends on where I go with it and what kind of interest it generates.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Pats · Oct 19, 2006

mark kennedy said:
I have allways been a creationist and I have the same problem with TE that I have with liberal theology, nothing distinguishes it from worldly philosophy.

And that is really the issue at heart, isn't it????

I mean, even the TEs admit that their Origins Theology does not make or break their other theologies. Some of them are Baptists and Calvanists.

It has taken the Lord 32 years of my life to finally show me who he is, but now that I see him for what and who He and His Son are, I can no longer deny any part of His Word(s).

Pats · Oct 19, 2006

mark kennedy said:
I don't mind someone bringing up that debate, Aron-Ra did more to convince me of YEC then anyone on these boards. I brought up Darwinism early and often claiming it was nonesense and still contend that it is. Aron-Ra insisted the Darwin had been a Christian when he wrote On the Origin of Species, which isn't even remotely true.

I would have said the opposite about you when I first came to CF, Mark. I would have said that you convinced me against YEC. However, you utter devotion to God and His Word have finally brought me "back home".

RichardT · Oct 19, 2006

So Mark, what kind of threads are you posting in now? I would like to watch...

Pats · Oct 19, 2006

RichardT said:
So Mark, what kind of threads are you posting in now? I would like to watch...

Hi Richard,

I am most familiar with Mark's posts down in Creation/Evolution in the Disscussion and Debate forums.

It's a fun forum. Just be mindful that you don't get "sucked" in to any negativity down there. It's a big and fast paced forum.

If you read too much into message boards, I wouldn't even recommend it at your age.... but that's just me. You'll have to forgive me, I'm an old/motherly type.

mark kennedy · Oct 20, 2006

Pats said:
And that is really the issue at heart, isn't it????

At the source of YEC there is the Gospel, it is directly tied to the Genesis account. The issue for me has mostly been about human evolution and the emphasis of redemptive history in Scripture.

I mean, even the TEs admit that their Origins Theology does not make or break their other theologies. Some of them are Baptists and Calvanists.

I think Christians know when they are in the company of other believers. TE does not make or break a persons theology but at some point you have to decide what you can take literally and what you can't. Ultimatly it's the intensity with which evolution is argued that keeps my attention. It sounds like more is going on with TOE then a logical seperation of science and religion.

It has taken the Lord 32 years of my life to finally show me who he is, but now that I see him for what and who He and His Son are, I can no longer deny any part of His Word(s).

Invariably you will find that it's not the religion that makes the difference but the relationship. Any believer that hasn't struggled with their faith should question whether or not they actually have it. God bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you as you continue on your journey.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Oct 20, 2006

RichardT said:
So Mark, what kind of threads are you posting in now? I would like to watch...

Actually I just started it last night, nothing much just yet. I'm a little concerned about copyrighted material but I know the Human Genome Project will let me use their material as long as I cite it properly. I also want to put together a guide for Creationists who want to just sit down and read up on it. Books like Darwin's on the Origin of Species, and William Paley's Natural Theology are good primers. First I am going to have to get this debate bug out of my system for a while.

I'll have something together, probably in a few days. My biggest concern is that Creationists need to focus more on basic biology. Learning some of the language of science would help a lot and some expositions of the Scriptures will be a big part of it. I have a ton of resources I want to link to so I have my work cut out for me.

I'll keep you posted and we'll see how it goes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I really got a kick out of this one.

Why don't you believe that men and apes have a common ancestor?

The Bible as redemptive history.

It is counter to the scientific laws of inheritance.

The philosophy of Darwinism is atheistic/agnostic.

I have other reasons (elaborate at will)

Natura non facit saltum

Woman of God

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Servant of the living God

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Natura non facit saltum

Contributor

Contributor

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Natura non facit saltum

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Contributor

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency