Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Aurally - relating to the ear or sense of hearing - as of with sound, aural....... :dunce:

Who do you think you're kidding? The grown-ups?

Michael

 

[alwight]

None of your evolution stuff is true either. You may well believe it but that doesn't make it true. See how that sounds? Coming right out of your lips or mine??

Michael

"evolution stuff" rather sums up your ability to wave away/ignore all he vast amount of physical evidence that is very well explained by Darwinian evolution Michael. Nobody can falsify what you think you hear in your head because it is not supported by evidence, even snow falling in March in NYC.
Maybe the physical evidence does not after all support evolution, then perhaps you should at least try to understand what you so dismissively wave away because apparently you simply don't want it to be true rather than to have a rational cogent argument against it.

 

[6days]

As you know, the 95-96% figure is from your article that you posted that you took a quote from, attempting to use it to say that humans and chimps are very unrelated.

Besides that statement being dishonest Greg, you avoided the question I asked. Were you wrong with your 98% number? Then we can proceed examining the 96% number in the article.

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

Come on, you meant 'aurally' to mean 'orally.' It's kind of hard to hide. You may well believe it but that doesn't make it true. Who goes around saying 'aurally' anything?? Also, the Lord and angels did speak with me telepathically. What's it to you? It's how it is when you leave this land of lips. What is with you guys and these 'bald' 'assertions', 'claims,' etc. Bald this, bald that. What gives?

Michael Michael, it's kind of difficult putting up with your poor grasp of English..... I said aurally because aural means by sound that can be received by ear, aurally, through sound, gedit? Where as telepathically would make no sound but be received silently by mind. The term orally can be used as verbal {as opposed to writing} but also be used to mean as "taken" by mouth, as in medication. Aural was the correct use of terms in this case. Aural as heard by ear rather than telepathically received silently by mind, see?

None of your evolution stuff is true either. You may well believe it but that doesn't make it true. See how that sounds? Coming right out of your lips or mine?? The exact same words coming from you in your last sentence in your post above.

It might be worth listening to you if you had the slightest clue about the theory of Evolution... or English for that matter. Evolution is not about what I or anyone else believes. It is not a belief system but is a scientific theory backed up by masses of scientific evidence from various disciplines in science. As well as getting your English mixed up you seem be confusing the science of Evolution with the religious, mythical, evidence free belief in creationism. Go back to school dude!

 

[Hedshaker]

Who do you think you're kidding? The grown-ups?

Michael

No Michael, the grown ups understand only too well. It's you I'm trying to educate.

 

[Jose Fly]

Answers in Genesis does address this, specifically, by a PhD microbiologist.

Who cares? In order to work for AiG, Fabich had to sign their statement of faith, which mandates...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

As 6days and I agreed, that is a decidedly anti-scientific approach. So if one is looking for a genuine scientific take on ERV's and how they relate to human/primate shared ancestry, Fabich (and anyone else at AiG) is the last person you should go to.

You might as well link to a Jew's opinions on my pork ribs recipe.

 

[Jose Fly]

BUT..... Even if they are right, wouldn't a designer use similar blueprints to create similar structures. Wouldn't a manufacturer use the same or similar information system, to perform same function in different models?

Ah, another heads I win, tails you lose scenario 6days has set up. If significant genetic differences are found between taxa it's evidence against evolution and in favor of separate creation. But if significant genetic similarities are found it's evidence that God just used the same parts.

How convenient....and dishonest.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes, but again, links were given from that forum, and it was only just one of about 15 I looked up from that google search (page 2 lists a lot of 99% of genome between men and mice). I'm a little sad I have to be this pedantic

List one of the sites that has the information here, and I can look at it specifically and we can see if it is a solid source or no.

Not a ton of them there seem to be.


I don't think you understand the significance of source validity, but it's very important when it comes to scientific information

 

[Greg Jennings]

Besides that statement being dishonest Greg, you avoided the question I asked. Were you wrong with your 98% number? Then we can proceed examining the 96% number in the article.

Did I? Then what is this from the very post that you quoted and replied to?

I thought you understood from my reply that I was conceding that the more accurate number is 95-96% rather than my original of 98%.
The number however doesn't change the pattern. Humans are more related to chimps than mice. Again, what do you think you're disproving?

So once again you are wrong, not that I expect you to admit as much. And additionally a hypocrite, for you dodged a certain question that I asked you twice yesterday and tens of times over several months, but never gotten an answer to.

It's all good. Here it is again. I'll give you one more chance to answer. If you dodge immediately after falsely accusing another of dodging, then what does that say about you?

Attempt #2: Have you ever taken a college level natural science course in your life?

Thanks

 

[MichaelCadry]

"evolution stuff" rather sums up your ability to wave away/ignore all he vast amount of physical evidence that is very well explained by Darwinian evolution Michael. Nobody can falsify what you think you hear in your head because it is not supported by evidence, even snow falling in March in NYC.

When it happens to you, alwight, then tell me what you know. I don't think Darwin has much physical evidence at all. Just what you can glean by your errant beliefs. I don't believe him as far as I can throw him, tbh. And my snow in March is better than anything Darwin has shown us. You just don't believe me, is all, or you would see the difference between man and God.

Maybe the physical evidence does not after all support evolution, then perhaps you should at least try to understand what you so dismissively wave away because apparently you simply don't want it to be true rather than to have a rational cogent argument against it.

Time is short on Earth, and I don't want to waste any of my time on Darwin, thanks anyway.

 

[Lon]

Who cares? In order to work for AiG, Fabich had to sign their statement of faith, which mandates...

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

As 6days and I agreed, that is a decidedly anti-scientific approach. So if one is looking for a genuine scientific take on ERV's and how they relate to human/primate shared ancestry, Fabich (and anyone else at AiG) is the last person you should go to.

You might as well link to a Jew's opinions on my pork ribs recipe.

Christian truth comes at us from 3 ways: 1) The Bible, 2) Correctly interpreting it, even making sure the English has not changed from 1611 to mean something different 3) Traditional view and assumptions. They are only saying the first part cannot argue.

To a scientist? Einstein said science without religion is lame, basically because if you have intelligence in the universe, it means there necessarily is/was intelligence or it cannot exist (simple-rough summary of Spinoza). If the brightest mathematician and scientist we've ever known tells us something, we should probably pay attention. Should AIG be last? Only if you are smarter than Einstein, else I'll think he probably knew what he was talking about.

 

[Lon]

List one of the sites that has the information here, and I can look at it specifically and we can see if it is a solid source or no.

Not a ton of them there seem to be.


I don't think you understand the significance of source validity, but it's very important when it comes to scientific information

I do understand source validity. I even said there are many .edu and .gov sites listed.

Let me start here: One source says that we are 99% the same as chimps. Another suggest men are only 98.4% the same as women :noway: (I guess that makes sense when my wife calls me an caveman).

National Geographic gave the percentage we actually share with apes as between 95-99%.

Some of them, like the human genome project, are unconscionable to me, using abortion fetus' for research. How did we get to a place where Mary Shelley monsters and madmen are no longer fiction?

I won't even discuss their findings. Scientists are killing the unborn, and then maliciously and monstrously dissecting them. We passed Nazis for the worst atrocities ever predated upon man, but maybe cannibalism (actually it is cannibalism). I'm horrified.

 

[Jose Fly]

Christian truth comes at us from 3 ways: 1) The Bible, 2) Correctly interpreting it, even making sure the English has not changed from 1611 to mean something different 3) Traditional view and assumptions. They are only saying the first part cannot argue.

To a scientist? Einstein said science without religion is lame, basically because if you have intelligence in the universe, it means there necessarily is/was intelligence or it cannot exist (simple-rough summary of Spinoza). If the brightest mathematician and scientist we've ever known tells us something, we should probably pay attention. Should AIG be last? Only if you are smarter than Einstein, else I'll think he probably knew what he was talking about.

All irrelevant to the point at hand. AiG is a decidedly and deliberately anti-science organization that has their employees sign a statement that in part says they agree to interpret data in an extremely anti-scientific manner. Thus, their opinions on ERV's and evolution are as about as meaningful as a Hindu's views on steak recipes.

 

[Caino]

Genesis wasn't written by scientist or historians or philosophers, it was written by Hebrew holy men who created a made for Hollywood like screen play of their origin and destiny. They wrote in preacher speak, making no claim of divine inspiration. The audience was the common scattered Israelite.

 

[alwight]

When it happens to you, alwight, then tell me what you know. I don't think Darwin has much physical evidence at all. Just what you can glean by your errant beliefs. I don't believe him as far as I can throw him, tbh. And my snow in March is better than anything Darwin has shown us. You just don't believe me, is all, or you would see the difference between man and God.

Open your eyes to physical reality Michael, you only seem to be interested in fantasy. You don't need to believe in Darwin you only have to understand what his theory says and compare it to the evidence and reality.

Time is short on Earth, and I don't want to waste any of my time on Darwin, thanks anyway.

I'm an atheist Michael, this is the only life I expect to have, while you seem to expect an eternal afterlife, so I really don't understand your urgency.:think:

 

[Lon]

All irrelevant to the point at hand. AiG is a decidedly and deliberately anti-science organization that has their employees sign a statement that in part says they agree to interpret data in an extremely anti-scientific manner. Thus, their opinions on ERV's and evolution are as about as meaningful as a Hindu's views on steak recipes.

Pick a side, both are seeing a wrong from their perspective, but one is a LOT less than the other if indeed there were a problem with taking the Bible as is. Most complaints are petty. I care if Noah's ark existed or not, but have no way (nor the scientist) of actually exploring that. Because the Bible isn't the only observation of a flood with a boat, it seems the worst it could be for a skeptic, is look like an historical exaggeration of an actual event, Regardless, it is passing along a story about morality and resisting immorality. Other than 'believing it literally,' I don't think science or atheists have a skeptical leg to stand on. There is nothing at stake other than that some believe it a literal myth and other's don't. It DOES make a difference in cases like this, however - I agree:

On one-side, companies are "buying" unborn child parts and doing Frankenstein monstrous experiments. On the other, is very much about signing statements against cannibalism of the unborn where their bodies are bought and sold and declaring emphatically that humans are divine and all lives cannot be cannibalized without us becoming cannibals, and as Darwin philosophy would leave us, just animals with our appetites and the devouring of an unborn's life so we can live a week longer. If it comes to being a Biblical literalist of someone's idea of extreme, or the devouring of humans for whatever whim carries scientific inquiry or pharmaceutical dollars, you might as well dissect me while you are at it. I don't have to know ANY science answer this bad. There is NOTHING such offers, at that steep price, that I want. However close I am to a chimp, I do not have the same problem with using them as lab experiments, as I do human beings, and that, in a nutshell, is why there is a debate, and a needed one, to continue.

 

[Jose Fly]

Pick a side, both are seeing a wrong from their perspective, but one is a LOT less than the other if indeed there were a problem with taking the Bible as is. Most complaints are petty. I care if Noah's ark existed or not, but have no way (nor the scientist) of actually exploring that. Because the Bible isn't the only observation of a flood with a boat, it seems the worst it could be for a skeptic, is look like an historical exaggeration of an actual event, Regardless, it is passing along a story about morality and resisting immorality. Other than 'believing it literally,' I don't think science or atheists have a skeptical leg to stand on. There is nothing at stake other than that some believe it a literal myth and other's don't. It DOES make a difference in cases like this, however - I agree:

On one-side, companies are "buying" unborn child parts and doing Frankenstein monstrous experiments. On the other, is very much about signing statements against cannibalism of the unborn where their bodies are bought and sold and declaring emphatically that humans are divine and all lives cannot be cannibalized without us becoming cannibals, and as Darwin philosophy would leave us, just animals with our appetites and the devouring of an unborn's life so we can live a week longer. If it comes to being a Biblical literalist of someone's idea of extreme, or the devouring of humans for whatever whim carries scientific inquiry or pharmaceutical dollars, you might as well dissect me while you are at it. I don't have to know ANY science answer this bad. There is NOTHING such offers, at that steep price, that I want. However close I am to a chimp, I do not have the same problem with using them as lab experiments, as I do human beings, and that, in a nutshell, is why there is a debate, and a needed one, to continue.

Again, all irrelevant to the point at hand. The issue was whether patterns in ERV sequences in primate genomes are indicative of their evolutionary relatedness and past. That's a scientific question, thus what an anti-scientific organization such as AiG has to say about it isn't at all helpful.

However, by your response above it would seem you share AiG's overall approach, at least in some ways. Rather than examining the ERV data objectively and allowing the data to speak for itself, you (and AiG) base your approach on what you want the answer to be, and for philosophical and religious reasons, you don't want the answer to be that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates.

That approach, where you can pick and choose which conclusions you want to be true and go from there, may work in the arena of religion, but it most certainly doesn't work in science. In fact, it is the exact opposite of how science works.

So if you want to explore the differences in these two ways of approaching data, then let's do so, but let's not pretend that organizations like AiG are of any value to science.

 

[Lon]

Again, all irrelevant....what.... AiG has to say about it isn't at all helpful... it would seem you share AiG's overall approach, at least in some ways. Rather than examining the ERV data objectively and allowing the data to speak for itself, you (and AiG) base your approach on what you want the answer to be, and for philosophical and religious reasons, you don't want the answer to be that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates.

Er, no. In this case
few can carry the conversation without quite a bit of background reading. As far as a quick look goes, it 'looks' to me as if all published findings are a bit too soon to actually bank on a particular percentage or whether I'm related to a cow (one of the links).

That approach, where you can pick and choose which conclusions you want to be true and go from there, may work in the arena of religion, but it most certainly doesn't work in science. In fact, it is the exact opposite of how science works.

When it comes to reliable and trusted sources, we all follow our discipline where it leads. My background is theology and I know there is a God. After that, I'll entertain origins to some extent, not because it matters to me (I'm fine) but because it matters to some scientists, some skeptics, and some atheists. This thread isn't for over-looking those hurdles or trying to put them all in perspective, but I think it worth taking a moment...

So if you want to explore the differences in these two ways of approaching data, then let's do so, but let's not pretend that organizations like AiG are of any value to science.

I've seen enough Darwinism bias. You and I talked that Evolution could be used for something designed and guided by intelligence so I'm not too caught up after that point. A Christian is one who knows Christ did something for him/her and responds to that love, loving Him for it and loving those He has made. I'm not sure why you took your kids out of AWANA at that point. To the best of my knowledge, kids don't face those issues in AWANA. It is more like a Sunday School class, work on a memory verse, and then going to the gym for a few games. Kids generally like it because 1) they have fun 2) get to see friends outside of school 3) learn about the love of God and how to love others, and 4) get a bit of exercise as well as 5) give parents a little time to go out for dinner or a cup of coffee, or even a bit of time to do the activity with their kids if they want to. Bit off topic, but I'd hate to see people chucking faith simply because of this particular debate (not 'this' one, but the topic in society).

We can pick up the debate between creation and evolution, I'm just trying to place it in perspective. The AiG site may bother you, but that's one of several places a Christian will go, especially when it is second on the list after a Google search of "shared DNA" or "shared ERV's. It only made sense to look at what was there and at the top of the list. I'm not sure how you look up areas not in your field of study or how you'd use Google but even if against, perhaps say "just don't Google, do this instead...." :idunno:

 

[Greg Jennings]

I do understand source validity. I even said there are many .edu and .gov sites listed.

Let me start here: One source says that we are 99% the same as chimps. Another suggest men are only 98.4% the same as women :noway: (I guess that makes sense when my wife calls me an caveman).

National Geographic gave the percentage we actually share with apes as between 95-99%.

Excellent! So we can conclude from the above information that humans and chimp similarity is somewhere in the range of 95-99%, which is higher than the percentage shared by humans and mice. Would you agree to that?

Some of them, like the human genome project, are unconscionable to me, using abortion fetus' for research. How did we get to a place where Mary Shelley monsters and madmen are no longer fiction?

I won't even discuss their findings. Scientists are killing the unborn, and then maliciously and monstrously dissecting them. We passed Nazis for the worst atrocities ever predated upon man, but maybe cannibalism (actually it is cannibalism). I'm horrified.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but why do you have a problem with already dead human fetuses being used in order to develop medical techniques that can end up saving millions?

They can't do any good in the ground. But if we can learn valuable info from them in a lab and apply that to help other people, why not?

 

[6days]

I thought you understood from my reply that I was conceding that the more accurate number is 95-96% rather than my original of 98%.

Ok... thanks. I missed you admitting that you were wrong. Apologies. I'm sorry.

Greg..... you would not have to swallow humble pills so often if you could seperate / understand the huge difference between your belief system and science. Reminder that when you first used the incorrect figure, I asked you to do research. It would have been simple to find out your numbers were outdated and wrong. Instead you just insisted you were correct with a "nope" and asked me to find the info for you.

The number however doesn't change the pattern. Humans are more related to chimps than mice. Again, what do you think you're disproving?

Nope! The science shows we are genetically more similar to chimps than mice. It does not show we are related... that is simply your belief. It is not surprising to anyone that chimps have a greater genetic similarity to us than frogs, finches, flowers and fruit.

Reminder... you agreed with my conclusion, that 'probably a designer would use similar blueprints to create similar structures. And, that a manufacturer would use the same or similar information system, to perform same function in different models'

Have you ever taken a college level natural science course in your life?

Greg... I answered your question several times previously. Meanwhile, it does not matter how little, or how much education you have. (Unless you use your education to promote yourself as an authority to help sell your beliefs). I can continue to help you and correct you when neccesary. But, also....please do some research before posting 15 year old info found on atheist web sites, and in outdated Dawkins books. Science has moved forward. (And..... I promise not to be so condescending in my next reply to you.)