Where do the flood strata start and end?

[pshun2404]

I think that in the light of Project ENCODE's discovery of millions of gene-control switches, many located in places of our genome that have been called junk, the entire "humans are X% similar to chimps" idea needs to be reevaluated.

Apparently, our genes are only a small part of what makes us human. It's the switches, far outnumbering the genes, that are just as important.

Until we actually map the 80% of our genome that is active, and compare it to chimps, I think any statement saying "humans are X% similar to chimps" is unfounded.

That's true, it is only a small part, but it is what is distinctly human biologically speaking.

Thanks Chet

Paul

 

[46AND2]

Do you believe in God?

Not anymore. Was raised baptist, and remained a YEC until I was 18 or so. Was OEC until 24, then theistic evolution, agnostic theist, and finally now agnostic atheist for the last few years.

What is God by your definition (if you believe there is a God)?

I have a pretty broad definition of what I would consider god. Basically, anything that has supernatural attributes, but it must be sentient. I don't consider the non-sentient pantheistic view to be representative of a god.

Did God create the Universe (or was Jesus a liar)?

Don't know. But I think your question is also a false dichotomy. If God did not create the universe, it doesn't mean that Jesus was lying. Indeed, he may have never said any words the Bible claims he did.

If not, how did it come about (or is it eternal)?

Don't know.

Thanks, I'd love to hear 46and2's response as well...

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Thanks for being honest 46and2...my journey was apparently the opposite...

Paul

 

[Papias]

The simple point is because the many agree on something does not mean it is correct,

True. But it is also true that right ideas often take time to be accepted. For the idea of the earth going around the sun, it took over 200 years. For evolution, we are mostly there after 150.

Like the neo-Darwinian interpretation of what the alleged junk DNA means

Maybe start a thread on it. Do you know of the term "Gish Gallop"? That's when a creationist is repeatedly shown to be wrong, and each time they are, they just switch the subject instead of admitting it. We saw in the strata discussion above that 46and2 graciously explained a lot to you, yet I didn't see agreement from you, and now you've proposed new topics repeatedly since that.


I'll answer these, but they seem off-topic, especially when we have faith Icons appearing by our name on every post.

Do you believe in God?

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

What is God by your definition (if you believe there is a God)?

God is the trinitarian god described in the Nicene creed and the 73 books of holy scripture that most Christians the world over accept.

Did God create the Universe (or was Jesus a liar)?

Of course God created the Universe. God is the creator of all things (seen and unseen).

That's like asking "Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds, or was Jesus a liar?"

It has been reported elsewhere that humans have three dozen unique protein coding genes no apes contain, and now we find that of the 244 newly discovered (last year) microRNA genes, 10% are unique to humans (not found in any other organism). Chimps also have their own unique microRNA genes not found in any humans

If you think this (or other evidence you posted, such as the Science article) is in any way evidence against common descent, then you simply don't understand common descent nor the papers posted.

And calling an article on an archive supported by huge numbers of top scientist "really weak", when you don't even have a basic understanding in any related field sounds awfully arrogant, especially when that last fact is abundantly clear in those same posts.

Papias

 

[verysincere]

Until we actually map the 80% of our genome that is active, and compare it to chimps, I think any statement saying "humans are X% similar to chimps" is unfounded.

But comparisons of percentages in and of themselves are not nearly as important as the NESTED HIERARCHIES within the genomes. That is the slam-dunk of the evidence for evolution.

And in all of these years I have NEVER been able to get a young earth creationist evolution-denier to explain how nested hierarchies make sense under COMMON DESIGN. (They make complete sense and are even predicted within COMMON DESCENT.)

 

[ChetSinger]

But comparisons of percentages in and of themselves are not nearly as important as the NESTED HIERARCHIES within the genomes. That is the slam-dunk of the evidence for evolution.

And in all of these years I have NEVER been able to get a young earth creationist evolution-denier to explain how nested hierarchies make sense under COMMON DESIGN. (They make complete sense and are even predicted within COMMON DESCENT.)

What I'm saying is that Project ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome, which was thought of as junk, appears to be doing something. We don't yet even know what it may or may not be doing. Until we do, and perform the equivalent of Project ENCODE on chimps, and compare the two results, any claim that "humans are X% the same as chimps" is without substance.

 

[pshun2404]

True. But it is also true that right ideas often take time to be accepted. For the idea of the earth going around the sun, it took over 200 years. For evolution, we are mostly there after 150.

Maybe start a thread on it. Do you know of the term "Gish Gallop"? That's when a creationist is repeatedly shown to be wrong, and each time they are, they just switch the subject instead of admitting it. We saw in the strata discussion above that 46and2 graciously explained a lot to you, yet I didn't see agreement from you, and now you've proposed new topics repeatedly since that.

Well aside from you resorting to calling me names, I enjoyed his posts but I do not buy it all...and questions are a good thing.

___________________________________________

I'll answer these, but they seem off-topic, especially when we have faith Icons appearing by our name on every post.

I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

God is the trinitarian god described in the Nicene creed and the 73 books of holy scripture that most Christians the world over accept.

Of course God created the Universe. God is the creator of all things (seen and unseen).

That's like asking "Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds, or was Jesus a liar?"

No it is not like that at all...if one does not believe God created then they would have to believe Jesus is either delusional, ignorant, or a liar, but thanks for sharing your view it was good to hear it from you and I can see you do not believe any of these...46and2 must however believe one of them (but as he said he does not even know whether or not Jesus said any of these words)

___________________________

If you think this (or other evidence you posted, such as the Science article) is in any way evidence against common descent, then you simply don't understand common descent nor the papers posted.

Well here you are just incorrect...

And calling an article on an archive supported by huge numbers of top scientist "really weak", when you don't even have a basic understanding in any related field sounds awfully arrogant, especially when that last fact is abundantly clear in those same posts.

I do believe the initial article before the links was purely opinion and I most certainly do have an understanding of the theory (and that is all it is)...

But thanks for the honesty...

Paul

 

[46AND2]

What I'm saying is that Project ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome, which was thought of as junk, appears to be doing something. We don't yet even know what it may or may not be doing. Until we do, and perform the equivalent of Project ENCODE on chimps, and compare the two results, any claim that "humans are X% the same as chimps" is without substance.

ENCODE's definition of "functional gene" in that report was ludicrously simplistic, and most of the scientific field are irritated that they even called it functional.

Of course, I could explain why till I'm blue in the face, and you'll never accept it. And that's part of the reason people are so ticked about the loose definition of functional. It's the newest PRATT that creationists will be using for the next 50 years.

 

[46AND2]

...46and2 must however believe one of them (but as he said he does not even know whether or not Jesus said any of these words)

No I don't. That's why I said it was a false dichotomy. I can think of several examples where 1) God did not create the earth AND 2) Jesus is not a liar.

I don't have to pick one or the other (God made the earth, or Jesus is a liar) because there are multiple hypothetical scenarios in which neither one of them is true. For example:

1. God did not create the earth, but the authors of the Bible lied about what Jesus claimed

2. God did not create the earth, but the authors misunderstood what Jesus said.

3. God did not create the earth, but Jesus believed that he did, and was therefore not lying.

4. God did not create the earth, but scribes in the early church interpolated Jesus' claim that he did.

5. God did not create the earth, Jesus did not claim that he did, and the authors wrote oral legends down as scripture.

 

[Papias]

Paul wrote:

...if one does not believe God created then they would have to believe Jesus is either delusional, ignorant, or a liar, .....46and2 must however believe one of them (but as he said he does not even know whether or not Jesus said any of these words)

As 46and2 pointed out, it's a false dichotomy. Not only that, but from a purely Christian view it is bad apologetics, because the same line of thought "proves" all other religions true as well.

For instance. Gandhi saw Brahmin as a member of the Hindu Trinity. Since Gandhi wasn't delusional, ignorant, or a liar, Hinduism is true.

Einstein rejected Christianity. repeat. Etc.

There are plenty of good arguments for Christianity. This word game is not one of them.

I do believe the initial article before the links was purely opinion

The first page is just a summary of the 29+ sets of data. That's not "pure opinion".

and I most certainly do have an understanding of the theory (and that is all it is)...

If you think that "theory" is exclusive of "fact" then you not only don't understand universal common descent by evolution, you don't even understand the term "theory".



Papias

 

[pshun2404]

No I don't. That's why I said it was a false dichotomy. I can think of several examples where 1) God did not create the earth AND 2) Jesus is not a liar.

I don't have to pick one or the other (God made the earth, or Jesus is a liar) because there are multiple hypothetical scenarios in which neither one of them is true. For example:

1. God did not create the earth, but the authors of the Bible lied about what Jesus claimed

2. God did not create the earth, but the authors misunderstood what Jesus said.

3. God did not create the earth, but Jesus believed that he did, and was therefore not lying.

4. God did not create the earth, but scribes in the early church interpolated Jesus' claim that he did.

5. God did not create the earth, Jesus did not claim that he did, and the authors wrote oral legends down as scripture.

Fair enough...I think you did prove your point here and I apologize for my assumption regarding what you may believe. Thanks

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

As 46and2 pointed out, it's a false dichotomy. Not only that, but from a purely Christian view it is bad apologetics, because the same line of thought "proves" all other religions true as well.

Except I was not trying to nor using this to "prove" Christianity is true so your point here is without merit. Jesus was a Creationist and it is fine that 46 believes as he does IMO...and no I do not believe a theory is exclusive of fact and I do know what the definition of a theory is...

But thanks

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

A Theory

an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another: abstract thought :speculation

the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art

a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

analysis, general, abstract, speculative, proposed, belief, hypothetical, plausible, unproven...and so on...sounds like the Darwinian hypothesis to me.

Paul

 

[Papias]

Paul wrote:

Jesus was a Creationist

What basis do you use for that, especially when, being the all-knowing creator of the universe, Jesus would be talking to people in ways they could understand at the time he was talking?

I do know what the definition of a theory is

You listed a bunch of different definitons. Which do you think is meant when a scientific theory is being discussed, such as Germ Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Gravitational Theory, etc., and how do you think that relates to facts?

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

For instance. Gandhi saw Brahmin as a member of the Hindu Trinity. Since Gandhi wasn't delusional, ignorant, or a liar, Hinduism is true. Einstein rejected Christianity. repeat. Etc.

There is one huge difference. Jesus did not claim to "know" the truth as Einstein or Gandhi may have. Jesus claimed to be the Truth.

Many can be mistaken. Jesus said He was God.
It's a one of a kind claim that only deranged humans will make.
So Jesus was who he claimed, or he was a banana.

 

[46AND2]

There is one huge difference. Jesus did not claim to "know" the truth as Einstein or Gandhi may have. Jesus claimed to be the Truth.

Many can be mistaken. Jesus said He was God.
It's a one of a kind claim that only deranged humans will make.
So Jesus was who he claimed, or he was a banana.

You must have missed the false dichotomy discussion we just had...

 

[pshun2404]

Paul wrote:

You listed a bunch of different definitons. Which do you think is meant when a scientific theory is being discussed, such as Germ Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Gravitational Theory, etc., and how do you think that relates to facts?

Papias

That came out of the dictionary as the first three levels of meaning...You did say I did not understand the term "theory"....now there are other usages less meaningful or created, developed, or applied specifically, for a suited purpose, but this is the basis of the term and the foundation of its meaning.

Even as applied in science where evidence appears to be or is made to appear to be supportive of a particular hypothesis this does not mean it is true just only that it could be likely. Theories are modified by new evidence and different ways of viewing the data over time. Some are more confirmed than others because tested results indicate the greater probability. Abiogenesis for example is an interesting theory and some evidence can be made to appear it COULD BE, based largely on the preconceived conclusion, but there has not been any actual evidence after 100 years. Gravitational theory is a great example...some solidly applicable laws have been discovered but who really understands what gravity actually is.

 

[Papias]

Paul, you didn't answer my question. I simply asked:


Which do you think is meant when a scientific theory is being discussed, such as Germ Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Gravitational Theory, etc., and how do you think that relates to facts?

Which definition? Does being a "theory" mean the idea is cannot also be a "fact"?

Thanks-

Papias

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

What I'm saying is that Project ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome, which was thought of as junk, appears to be doing something. We don't yet even know what it may or may not be doing. Until we do, and perform the equivalent of Project ENCODE on chimps, and compare the two results, any claim that "humans are X% the same as chimps" is without substance.

"Junk DNA" is one of the most misunderstood terms in this entire debate. I've watched fascinating debates on the Amazon forums while actual scientists who work in the relevant fields explained to the wanna-be apologetists and evolution deniers how they were abusing the terms. (Dr. Wells to distract the choir with the "junk DNA" noise because he knows it is irrelevant but it gives the followers hope that there is some sort "magic bullet" to kill the theory of evolution. There isn't. God created it. God said it by means of the evidence within his creation. I believe it. And that settles it.)

But in any case, "junk DNA" has NO IMPACT on the irrefutable mountains of evidence for COMMON DESCENT. Indeed, that DNA is yet another CONFIRMATION of it.

 

[ChetSinger]

"Junk DNA" is one of the most misunderstood terms in this entire debate. I've watched fascinating debates on the Amazon forums while actual scientists who work in the relevant fields explained to the wanna-be apologetists and evolution deniers how they were abusing the terms. (Dr. Wells to distract the choir with the "junk DNA" noise because he knows it is irrelevant but it gives the followers hope that there is some sort "magic bullet" to kill the theory of evolution. There isn't. God created it. God said it by means of the evidence within his creation. I believe it. And that settles it.)

But in any case, "junk DNA" has NO IMPACT on the irrefutable mountains of evidence for COMMON DESCENT. Indeed, that DNA is yet another CONFIRMATION of it.

I didn't mention junk DNA. Just that the amount of human/chimp genome we need to compare to make a substantiated "humans and chimps are X% similar" statement has increased, thanks to Project ENCODE, to perhaps as much as 80% of our genome.