Question for a Creationist

nuttypiglet · Apr 15, 2013

And doesn't evolution say we all came from a fish around 360 million years ago? If you can believe that you might as well believe in pink unicorns. Serious professional geneticists know that the complexity of life and the code shows DESIGN. A simple red blood cell requires over 570 left handed amino acids (of 20 types) all in the right sequence. This is about as simple as you can get with cells, and the odds of this by chance are ridiculous according to mathematics. You can't get left handed amino acids without the proteins to make them, and you can't make those proteins without the left handed amino acids.

JamesKurtovich · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
And doesn't evolution say we all came from a fish around 360 million years ago? If you can believe that you might as well believe in pink unicorns. Serious professional geneticists know that the complexity of life and the code shows DESIGN. A simple red blood cell requires over 570 left handed amino acids (of 20 types) all in the right sequence. This is about as simple as you can get with cells, and the odds of this by chance are ridiculous according to mathematics. You can't get left handed amino acids without the proteins to make them, and you can't make those proteins without the left handed amino acids.

1. There is evidence of the fish ancestor.
2. There is no evidence of a pink unicorn.

Big difference.

Frenchfrye · Apr 30, 2013

JamesKurtovich said:
1. There is evidence of the fish ancestor.
2. There is no evidence of a pink unicorn.

Big difference.

but the odds are so unrealistic that in any other case no scientist would go on it

nuttypiglet · Apr 30, 2013

Prof Richard Dawkins agrees with it. He enjoys travelling the world promoting atheism and saying how it will give great relief to the people with faith.

FrenchyBearpaw · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Prof Richard Dawkins agrees with it. He enjoys travelling the world promoting atheism and saying how it will give great relief to the people with faith.

What did you think of Shubin's "Your Inner Fish."

nuttypiglet · Apr 30, 2013

Nonsense. Look, genetically they say we are cousins with chimpanzees, and yet there is nothing similar about us at all. If you study the anatomy of chimps, nothing is the same. Even the middle ear and eyes are different. We are that close that we cannot transplant organs from Chimps into Humans, but pigs we could. Genetically we are meant to be far more different to pigs. It's the classic case of science ego, where a tiny amount is known so false facts are produced. We hardly know anything about Genes, heck we don't even understand how DNA divides chemically for reproduction. It we take everything that is knowable in the Universe as 100 on a scale, then where does our knowledge sit? maybe .0005% if we are lucky? yet we get these 'fools' as the bible calls them, telling us how things happened. What scares me the most is how many gullible people there are.
Have you ever looked at how many scientists have been discredited because they have found evidence against evolution theories? sad, discredit brilliant scientists so you can keep the status you have in science, that's how it works. Richard Dawkins and Co want to keep their status and will pull the wool over anyones eyes to keep it. This is NOT how science should work.

FrenchyBearpaw · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Nonsense. Look, genetically they say we are cousins with chimpanzees, and yet there is nothing similar about us at all. If you study the anatomy of chimps, nothing is the same. Even the middle ear and eyes are different. We are that close that we cannot transplant organs from Chimps into Humans, but pigs we could. Genetically we are meant to be far more different to pigs. It's the classic case of science ego, where a tiny amount is known so false facts are produced. We hardly know anything about Genes, heck we don't even understand how DNA divides chemically for reproduction. It we take everything that is knowable in the Universe as 100 on a scale, then where does our knowledge sit? maybe .0005% if we are lucky? yet we get these 'fools' as the bible calls them, telling us how things happened. What scares me the most is how many gullible people there are.
Have you ever looked at how many scientists have been discredited because they have found evidence against evolution theories? sad, discredit brilliant scientists so you can keep the status you have in science, that's how it works. Richard Dawkins and Co want to keep their status and will pull the wool over anyones eyes to keep it. This is NOT how science should work.

Anything you've ever learned has been as a result of the scientific method.

nuttypiglet · Apr 30, 2013

not at all, that's your interpretation. For example, with the science of medicine. Do you think people always receive the treatments which are the most effective? or the ones which make the most profit? They are hardly going to give you a cure if it can be made for free. So, what science discovers is not always the information passed on.

FrenchyBearpaw · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
not at all, that's your interpretation. For example, with the science of medicine. Do you think people always receive the treatments which are the most effective? or the ones which make the most profit? They are hardly going to give you a cure if it can be made for free. So, what science discovers is not always the information passed on.

Yes, people always receive the most effective treatment. It's known as evidence based medicine. As for free cures, ice packs are one of the most effective forms of treatment for tension headaches. One of the hallmarks of science is that the truth (knowledge) is objective, and can be discovered by anyone.

FpJazyeVaz · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Nonsense. Look, genetically they say we are cousins with chimpanzees, and yet there is nothing similar about us at all. If you study the anatomy of chimps, nothing is the same. Even the middle ear and eyes are different. We are that close that we cannot transplant organs from Chimps into Humans, but pigs we could. Genetically we are meant to be far more different to pigs. It's the classic case of science ego, where a tiny amount is known so false facts are produced. We hardly know anything about Genes, heck we don't even understand how DNA divides chemically for reproduction. It we take everything that is knowable in the Universe as 100 on a scale, then where does our knowledge sit? maybe .0005% if we are lucky? yet we get these 'fools' as the bible calls them, telling us how things happened. What scares me the most is how many gullible people there are.
Have you ever looked at how many scientists have been discredited because they have found evidence against evolution theories? sad, discredit brilliant scientists so you can keep the status you have in science, that's how it works. Richard Dawkins and Co want to keep their status and will pull the wool over anyones eyes to keep it. This is NOT how science should work.

While it is true that chimp and human have some physical differences, there are relatively less differences than if we compare human with other organisms.

Immune barrier exists even within human, because the genomic part mutate rapidly and uniquely for each person. The mechanism is well known. But immune barrier is not the reason why chimp is not used for xenotransplantation. In fact, primates have better chance of success than pig due to the fact that they have more similar antigens. But the reason to not use chimp is because they are difficult to breed (chimp is an endangered species) they risk of cross species infection, and their organ sizes are sometimes not adequate for human. Finally, there are "ethical concerns" as well since chimps are "most similar to us" in terms of sociability, emotion, intelligence (again, relative to other species). Therefore, we seek for the best non-primate donor, which is pig, due to their organ size and easiness in breeding. And nobody cares if get their organ for research since we have already done that for food.

nuttypiglet · Apr 30, 2013

I will be put onto a heart transplant list soon, and I asked a London Professor in Imperial College (researching into growing organs from stem cells) if it would be possible for me to have a heart from a primate, such as a chimp. He said that I would not live long because the compatibility is far too extreme in the negative. He said that I would survive longer with the heart from a pig because anatomically, it is much closer. In fact, he uses the frame work of a pig to grow human hearts in the lab, not primate ones. Even the heart from a dead primate could be used, it's only the frame needed, but they are just not closely matching. If you see two beings which are very similar in appearance then would you not logically assume them to be genetically similar? I would not expect the genes from a frog to closely match a giraffe for example, but I would expect a goat to a sheep to be closer because there are more similarities than frog to giraffe. This has nothing to do with evolution.
It is like a child being given a huge box of modelling bricks of different sizes and colours. You ask him to use his imagination and produce as many animals as he can. When finished, a scientist walks in and says "this animal and this one have similar blocks. Therefore this one and this one have a common ancestor". The truth is, the child made them using a common form of construction.

FpJazyeVaz · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
I will be put onto a heart transplant list soon, and I asked a London Professor in Imperial College (researching into growing organs from stem cells) if it would be possible for me to have a heart from a primate, such as a chimp. He said that I would not live long because the compatibility is far too extreme in the negative. He said that I would survive longer with the heart from a pig because anatomically, it is much closer. In fact, he uses the frame work of a pig to grow human hearts in the lab, not primate ones. Even the heart from a dead primate could be used, it's only the frame needed, but they are just not closely matching.

The organ size of pig is promising. Good luck to you.

If you see two beings which are very similar in appearance then would you not logically assume them to be genetically similar? I would not expect the genes from a frog to closely match a giraffe for example, but I would expect a goat to a sheep to be closer because there are more similarities than frog to giraffe. This has nothing to do with evolution.
It is like a child being given a huge box of modelling bricks of different sizes and colours. You ask him to use his imagination and produce as many animals as he can. When finished, a scientist walks in and says "this animal and this one have similar blocks. Therefore this one and this one have a common ancestor". The truth is, the child made them using a common form of construction.

This is what I used to hypothesize, but when I personally look at their genomes, there are genomic signatures that can only be formed through common ancestry, and not common form of construction.

Loudmouth · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
I will be put onto a heart transplant list soon, and I asked a London Professor in Imperial College (researching into growing organs from stem cells) if it would be possible for me to have a heart from a primate, such as a chimp. He said that I would not live long because the compatibility is far too extreme in the negative. He said that I would survive longer with the heart from a pig because anatomically, it is much closer.

If you received a heart from a random person on the street you probably wouldn't last long because of incompatibilities. Does this mean that you are not related to other humans?

Loudmouth · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Nonsense. Look, genetically they say we are cousins with chimpanzees, and yet there is nothing similar about us at all. If you study the anatomy of chimps, nothing is the same.

So you are saying that if chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor that we should be identical in every single way?

FrenchyBearpaw · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
I will be put onto a heart transplant list soon, and I asked a London Professor in Imperial College (researching into growing organs from stem cells) if it would be possible for me to have a heart from a primate, such as a chimp. He said that I would not live long because the compatibility is far too extreme in the negative. He said that I would survive longer with the heart from a pig because anatomically, it is much closer. In fact, he uses the frame work of a pig to grow human hearts in the lab, not primate ones. Even the heart from a dead primate could be used, it's only the frame needed, but they are just not closely matching. If you see two beings which are very similar in appearance then would you not logically assume them to be genetically similar? I would not expect the genes from a frog to closely match a giraffe for example, but I would expect a goat to a sheep to be closer because there are more similarities than frog to giraffe. This has nothing to do with evolution.
It is like a child being given a huge box of modelling bricks of different sizes and colours. You ask him to use his imagination and produce as many animals as he can. When finished, a scientist walks in and says "this animal and this one have similar blocks. Therefore this one and this one have a common ancestor". The truth is, the child made them using a common form of construction.

And this changed your mind about science, evidence, reason, logic, ToE and caused you to become a bible believing creationist?

nuttypiglet · Apr 30, 2013

I will attempt to answer each of the questions in this single reply. Firstly, the common genes which can only be adopted through ancestry. Well do you have a good example? The gulo gene isn't one in my estimation, but I would be interested to see some other examples.

Receiving an organ off a person in the street as you put it, is totally different. I am not talking about tissue match to help with immune system issues (rejection). I am talking about arterial mapping, pressures, muscle thickness etc. Are you trying to say that a chimp heart would work properly in a human and anatomically be easy to install?

Am I saying that if Chimps and Humans came from a common ancestor, that I believe they would be identical in every way? Well of course not, but I would expect far more commonalities. Look at the ancestors of Wolves, Dogs. Now they have the same eyes, inner ears, skin, the fur is the same, the bone density is the same, their organs are the same. This is what I would expect and exactly what I observe. So, with Chimps and humans coming from a common ancestor AND being VERY closely genetically matched, I would expect to see at least ONE commonality. Don't include things like social behaviour, this is learned, not inherited.

Changed my mind and became a believer in the bible? Nope. I have believed in God all my life and will continue to do so. With the tiny amount of knowledge that man has, I ignore it when people say God is not required. My Universe and Earth will die, like an Atheists, but I will go on. There is no point whatsoever to life without God because there will be nothing left, not even a living thing to read our accomplishments.

FrenchyBearpaw · Apr 30, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
I will attempt to answer each of the questions in this single reply. Firstly, the common genes which can only be adopted through ancestry. Well do you have a good example? The gulo gene isn't one in my estimation, but I would be interested to see some other examples.

Receiving an organ off a person in the street as you put it, is totally different. I am not talking about tissue match to help with immune system issues (rejection). I am talking about arterial mapping, pressures, muscle thickness etc. Are you trying to say that a chimp heart would work properly in a human and anatomically be easy to install?

Am I saying that if Chimps and Humans came from a common ancestor, that I believe they would be identical in every way? Well of course not, but I would expect far more commonalities. Look at the ancestors of Wolves, Dogs. Now they have the same eyes, inner ears, skin, the fur is the same, the bone density is the same, their organs are the same. This is what I would expect and exactly what I observe. So, with Chimps and humans coming from a common ancestor AND being VERY closely genetically matched, I would expect to see at least ONE commonality. Don't include things like social behaviour, this is learned, not inherited.

Changed my mind and became a believer in the bible? Nope. I have believed in God all my life and will continue to do so. With the tiny amount of knowledge that man has, I ignore it when people say God is not required. My Universe and Earth will die, like an Atheists, but I will go on. There is no point whatsoever to life without God because there will be nothing left, not even a living thing to read our accomplishments.

Chimps are our closest living cousin.

nuttypiglet · May 1, 2013

Again, that depends on interpretation. Even a difference of 100 genes can seem closely related but may not be. You do know that a single gene can affect how thousands of others work? Evolution scientists knew the fossil record was being falsified all the time. The lineage of the horse was also proved wrong, so they went to genetics to try and reinforce their case. Now geneticists are arguing with evolution scientists saying their interpretations are wrong, they just don't understand the mechanics properly. We have seen how they then turned to vestiges, all of which are proving to be false. Richard Dawkins then turned to an idea which he calls 'bad design'. He claimed that the Human eye is designed badly, it's back to front with the retina, blood vessels and nerves. Eye EXPERTS have called him a nut, because the eye in Humans is perfect and SHOULD be back to front. We have seen teeth (claimed to be our ancestors) found to be from modern pigs. We have seen Orangutan jawbone segments claimed to be ancient man. The sooner evolution scientists become honest and humble, the better.

JamesKurtovich · May 1, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
We have seen teeth (claimed to be our ancestors) found to be from modern pigs. We have seen Orangutan jawbone segments claimed to be ancient man. The sooner evolution scientists become honest and humble, the better.

The tooth was never really accepted by the scientific community.

As for Piltdown Man - peer-review is a great thing. It helps keep the nonsense out.

Loudmouth · May 1, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Again, that depends on interpretation.

Postmodernism: The Last Refuge of Creationism.

Even a difference of 100 genes can seem closely related but may not be. You do know that a single gene can affect how thousands of others work? Evolution scientists knew the fossil record was being falsified all the time. The lineage of the horse was also proved wrong, so they went to genetics to try and reinforce their case. Now geneticists are arguing with evolution scientists saying their interpretations are wrong, they just don't understand the mechanics properly. We have seen how they then turned to vestiges, all of which are proving to be false. Richard Dawkins then turned to an idea which he calls 'bad design'. He claimed that the Human eye is designed badly, it's back to front with the retina, blood vessels and nerves. Eye EXPERTS have called him a nut, because the eye in Humans is perfect and SHOULD be back to front. We have seen teeth (claimed to be our ancestors) found to be from modern pigs. We have seen Orangutan jawbone segments claimed to be ancient man. The sooner evolution scientists become honest and humble, the better.

Do you just spin the PRATT wheel and write down whatever it lands on? Ever heard of the Gish Gallop?

Question for a Creationist

Newbie

Euphoric Neckbeard

spreading the bible

Newbie

Take time for granite.

Newbie

Take time for granite.

Newbie

Take time for granite.

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Take time for granite.

Newbie

Take time for granite.

Newbie

Euphoric Neckbeard

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency