What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[sfs]

That is the latest theory.

It's been known for more than 200 years that the earth is much older than 6000 years.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Biological change is by design. If random, then most changes would be mistakes.

Only about 5% of mutations are benign, with most being neutral and over 30% being negative to some extent. It better be random, because any designer that would be actively involved in that would have to be malicious or ignorant in what it was doing.

 

[sfs]

Only about 5% of mutations are benign, with most being neutral and over 30% being negative to some extent.

In what species and in what environment?

 

[PsychoSarah]

In what species and in what environment?

The subject was fruit flies in a lab setting. Fair enough, the exact percentage of mutations which are benign has some variation between different organisms, but in all studies on the matter I have been able to find, the percentage that covers the benign mutations is always by far the lowest one.

 

[sfs]

but in all studies on the matter I have been able to find, the percentage that covers the benign mutations is always by far the lowest one.

That's certainly true. 30% deleterious seemed much too high for humans, and for organisms that are well-adapted to their environment, the number of beneficial mutations can be very small.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oops! duplicate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's certainly true. 30% deleterious seemed much too high for humans, and for organisms that are well-adapted to their environment, the number of beneficial mutations can be very small.

If it follows a roughly normal curve, the majority of 'deleterious' mutations will be almost-neutral (and contribute to genetic drift). The extremely deleterious mutations are likely not to come to term.

 

[rjs330]

The SBC is officially YEC. They are also the largest Protestant denomination in the country and the second largest Christian denomination after the Catholics. You can figure it out.

No, it wasn't; I was referring to my experiences below The Line, where Bible Christians enjoy the kind of authority they would like the government to help them exercise over the rest of the country.

It was mostly black women that turned the tide, as I understand it, not many creationists.

It wasn't comical-funny, it was ironical-funny.

Actually you are incorrect. The drive to abolition was started and fueled by Protestants and evangelicals. Creationists. In fact it was the belief in creation that was central in recognizing the equality of man. Washington wanted to free his slaves but could not because of the Virginia laws. But he could free them upon his death and did. The country was formed and the founders realized unfortunately that if we we're to establish a country slavery had to be allowed for a time otherwise no country could or would be founded. It was ugly politics. Yet they provided a way for later political moves to be able to do away with it. And the push to do away with slavery came from the Protestants and evangelicals. These groups based their understanding on the Bible and the creation of man.

The abolition of the slave trade: Christian conscience and political action by John Coffey - Jubilee Centre

You obviously have had a hard time with the southern Baptists. But don't lump the rest if us into that. The rest of us are bigger that the SBC. We outnumber them. So the majority of Creationists are not SBC.

 

[rjs330]

We both agree there are stars.

And we agree that we can see the light from the stars, yes?

And do we agree that light travels at the speed of light?

And do we agree that many stars are so far away that it takes millions of years for the light to get here?

But we see the light that left those stars, yes?

Therefore the stars are old, yes?

Yes they were created old. God knew how long it would take for the stars light to reach us. So he created it that way so that the stars light would reach the earth. Is not that fantastic? What a powerful God to be able to create all there is from nothing. And then he tells us he did it. He also tells us how long it took for him to do it.

 

[Speedwell]

You obviously have had a hard time with the southern Baptists. But don't lump the rest if us into that. The rest of us are bigger that the SBC. We outnumber them. So the majority of Creationists are not SBC.

There are YECs, I believe, in all Chrtistian denominations. There are even a few in the Episcopal Church, if you can imagine such a thing, where they are undisturberd in their eccentricity. The difference between them and the "creationists" we are talking about is that they lack a political agenda. They understand that in a secular republic with a religiously diverse population there can be no hegemony of one religious sect or denomination over the others. They understand that strict religious neutrality in the public sphere, including the schools, is an absolute necessity.

 

[Almost there]

Why would that crack you up? She was correct.

Because the population evolved, not the individual moths.

It's like saying the evolution of the Mustang is proof of evolution. Or the shifts in the dominant race in north America in the last 600 years is proof of evolution.

 

[Almost there]

Actually that has been known for a long time-- the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

How old do you think it is?

I couldn't hazard a guess. So far, all information points to 4.5 billion years. So I'll go with that until other valid information to the contrary presents itself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God didn't make it look like a common ancestry. That is YOUR interpretation.

It's not an interpretation. It's the way it is.

As said, an evolutionary process, where all life is related, can result in only one pattern: the nested hierarchy.

And when we compare the collective genomes of all species and map the matches out on a graph, then a nested hierarchy is what we get. And that same tree pattern also matches the pattern that emerges when we use different and independent lines of evidence, like comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species etc....

It's just how it is.
This pattern needs an explanation. Evolution provides that explanation.
Multiple individual and independent creation events of fully formed species, can not account for this pattern, unless by saying that the creator went out of his way to make sure this pattern was the result.

God said how he did it.

You mean, that that is your literalist interpretation of the bible.
That's all fine and dandy, but as said... it does not match the evidence of reality.

You have chosen to disbelieve it and turned it into something else.

No. I don't chose my beliefs.
I just stick to the data of reality.

You have a claim about how species came about and the predictions of your claim do not match reality.

On the other hand, we have a scientific model that offers an explanation of how species came about and this one also makes a bunch of predictions... and those predictions DO match reality.

It's just how it is.

You can continue ignoring reality and sticking to your beliefs. That's fine. But be honest about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you know it was millions of years ago?

Evidence.

Were you there? Its a guess.

It's not. And the "were you there" comment is extremely juvenile and short-sighted.

"Were you there" when the declaration of independence was signed?
"Were you there" when Julius Ceasar conquered Gaul?

And last but not least:
"Were you there" for ANY biblical claim?

And don't forget that God created things fully formed and mature.

Or so you believe.

So age was built into creation.

Based on such logic, you can also claim that the universe and everything it contains was created "with age" just 5 seconds ago.

But anyhow... Even if we were to look behind the "with age" nonsense...
Ok, but what about the "with HISTORY"? Because that's another issue.

Suppose I create a fully grown human from scratch.
It would have the body and fysiology of a 25-year old.

But why would it have a scar that looked like that human severely hurt himself at the age of 8?

Because that's how the earth looks like (as well as our DNA, for that matter).
It's not just that the earth has the "age" of 4.6 billion years. It's also that it has a HISTORY of 4.6 billion years. Canyons, oil fields, multiple salt layers beneath seas (indicating they dried and filled up again multiple times throughout history), hundreds of thousands of winter-summer cylces in the form of snow-ice layers at the arctic, ancient ash layers from ancient volcano's or meteor impact, big big craters of meteor impacts that are millions of years old (according to the data at the location), etc.

It's one thing to create things "mature", but it's an entirely different thing to also give it a "history" that never happened.

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.

When you create something 6000 years ago and then give it a "history" that looks like it's really 4.6 billion years old, then that can't be called anything but deceptive.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Only because you believe the assumptions.

The only one with a priori assumptions here, is the one who has decided to put all his faith in an ancient book in dogmatic fashion and who won't budge from that stance.

As you demonstrate in this very thread and others. I can't count the amount of times I have had to point out to you now that the whole pattern thingy is NOT about "mere similarity and commonality" but about the distribution of those similarities in a nested hierarchy.

There is no real evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. You take commonalities and similarity and assume evolution

Nested hierachy.

You still can't show it actually happened.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That means it was created a certain age. If you looked at the sum at the time of creation you would assume it is millions of years old.

Please explain why it would look millions of years old, if it isn't.
Be precise and specific.

What is about the sun, exactly, that makes it look 4.6 billion years old?

God said he did it that way

Here's your a priori assumption I refered to earlier...
You have already made up your mind, before asking the questions.

You have your faith based beliefs and believe them dogmatically.
If the evidence of reality doesn't match your beliefs, you won't question your beliefs... instead, you'll just question reality.

It's not a deception.

We'll see. Why does the sun look like it is 4.6 billion years old?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am glad slavery ended.

Why?

God said it was perfectly fine to keep slaves and he even tells you who you can enslave, who you can buy them from, how to enslave them for life, etc.

God said it, so it must be ok, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes they were created old. God knew how long it would take for the stars light to reach us. So he created it that way so that the stars light would reach the earth.

So he created photons "on the way to earth", so that it would look as if those photons started at their point of origin millions of lightyears from the earth, but in reality, the photons we see today from those stars, didn't really originate in those stars?

Another point that seems noteworthy is why go through that trouble in the first place?
What's the point of creating some 250 billion galaxies, each containing some 200 billion stars, just to have this small group of humans in this remote corner of the universe, orbitting an ordinary star....

Lemme guess: "god is mysterious"?

Is not that fantastic?

Or deceptive.

What a powerful God to be able to create all there is from nothing.

...while making it look as if he had nothing do with it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because the population evolved, not the individual moths.

It's like saying the evolution of the Mustang is proof of evolution. Or the shifts in the dominant race in north America in the last 600 years is proof of evolution.

/facepalm

That populations evolve, and not individuals, is like evolution 101.

 

[Almost there]

So he created photons "on the way to earth", so that it would look as if those photons started at their point of origin millions of lightyears from the earth, but in reality, the photons we see today from those stars, didn't really originate in those stars?

Another point that seems noteworthy is why go through that trouble in the first place?
What's the point of creating some 250 billion galaxies, each containing some 200 billion stars, just to have this small group of humans in this remote corner of the universe, orbitting an ordinary star....

Lemme guess: "god is mysterious"?



Or deceptive.



...while making it look as if he had nothing do with it.

This "young earth" thing is where I depart from many of my Christian brethren. I confess that I believe that they could be right, since God really could do "it", to make it look old, but I've not seen a reason for Him to. Fact is, the bible is silent on a LOT of things. It gives enough information to prove His authority and power, but hanging on every "interpreted into english" word in text written thousands of years ago by a man who did not witness events is not really the right way to go about it.

I believe that just as Revelation uses a lot of euphemisms and symbolisms, so does Genesis regarding the period before recorded history.

However, all of that being said, I would not be surprised if the YEC's are correct, if only because God has all sorts of reasons for doing things that none of us are privy to.