Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
you said "it was more" meaning that part of it was in effect a by product by evolution, and you didn't deny it. So this proves my point nicely, thankyou.
Things are not right or wrong on the basis of who says them, it is on the basis of supporting premises being valid.
well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted. I tried it probably 12 or more times during the period of one week, all reversed by others who liked the scope of the article, even though it was technically inaccurate. Others have posted similar findings on the cite pages, but those are rarely ever seen.
but see my last post, it's getting ridiculous. Bias, misinformation, it's dangerous to an intellectual society.
So you are claiming it is valid to point to Mormonism and Islam when arguing against Christianity and claiming "You mad my point"?
Perhaps I should ask you what you do not understand about evolution, since you clearly do not understand the subject that you are posting against.
So when you are posting quotes, the sites you're mining them from are irrelevant so long as you believe they are correct, even if they are insipid conspiracy theorist sites with countdowns to hell on the front page or from posts on a European History & Trivia forum? But when someone posts from Wikipedia, you deride them for it with petty comments like "says the person quoting from Wikipedia!" and scoff at the validity of the source, even though in the majority of circumstances it actually is better cited, more balanced, and has more creditability than your own sites.
- it was not a controversial thing, it was obviously wrong as I said. It's just that sometimes fallacy sounds better than fact, and wikipedia is up for the highest bidder in the public realm. Anyone can edit.Has it ever occurred to you that the reason your edits to Wikipedia were repeatedly rejected is because your information was actually incorrect?
Maybe it had nothing to do with others liking the scope of the article better, but of wanting to preserve correct information on the page. They might have also questioned the legitimacy of any sources you provided.
But yes, you are absolutely correct that misinformation is dangerous to an intellectual society.
As for Hitler......if I felt like you weren't going to just disregard everything that I wrote I'd share more about his religious beliefs and how he used Christianity as a tool for manipulation in his rise to power
your paper probably has nothing to do with evolution, but hitler for sure does:. I wrote a paper on it in 2012. Though, that really would belong in a different thread than this one since Hitler has nothing to do with the truth of evolution.
I watched about 30 seconds of both
I have heard this argument many times before. Genetic similarities between apes and humans is the basic argument (95%).
secondly: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs
(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)
thirdly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor.
androids are nice, but my you tube app, is broke.
Besides it takes more bars to watch streaming video than it does to post posts. So nice try.
secondly I wasn't motivated to watch it
Fail, you don't need a youtube app to go to a web address. More disingenuous creationist double speak again.
It probably takes more time to learn something than skimming 5 pages or watching for 30 seconds, so sure the loss is all yours.
THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU ASKING FOR EVIDENCE? Again, more disingenuous creationist actions.
I think you forgot , I watched it and rebutted it in my last few posts. besides I have k-9 browser on my android, blocks youtube by default.
greydyll, this is the post where you failed to rebut the video.I watched about 30 seconds of both, and I have heard this argument many times before. Genetic similarities between apes and humans is the basic argument (95%).
first of all there are some problems with the said studies found here:
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views
secondly: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
from the above paper the specific figure is figure 1 found here:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome
Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals
here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs:
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? Ask an Expert (ABC Science)
(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)
so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.
thirdly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor. Why are we not looking for human - cat transitions, or human - dog transitions? The evidence is all there right?
Thank you for the Commment
you said "it was more" meaning that part of it was in effect a by product by evolution, and you didn't deny it. So this proves my point nicely, thankyou.
I think you forgot , I watched it and rebutted it in my last few posts. besides I have k-9 browser on my android, blocks youtube by default.
I rebutted it simply by showing inconsistencies in evolutionary thought, hypocrisy and more. We have more similarities to cats genetically speaking, thus we should be looking for cat-human transitions, not ape-human.
and this is not happening, see my other post.
well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted.
Where? When? For what?
You watched 30 seconds of it, or so you say, after waffling endlessly for reasons why you couldn't/wouldn't watch it. That is not being genuine at all.
Not having the right browser is not my problem, download a new browser or maybe a new phone that works with popular video sites.
I fealt bad for you, not giving it a chance. I gave it 30 seconds, probably more than it deserved, seeing I rebutted it in one post.
The other post with the link that has quotes that we share more genetic similarity with cats, even though the links you provided don't have those quotes in any of them anywhere. Very funny stuff.
On one hand evos seem to villify creation sites and claim they are worthless, and on the other you seem to expect people to go to sites you recommend and slowly savor them. Have you conditioner that we might be flushing, which takes little time!?You watched 30 seconds of it, or so you say, ....
You should talk?Again, you did not. Your sources were not valid. We went over that already.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?