Creationists

[daws101]

Can you come up with something of substance ?

Your endless copying and pasting from christian creationist websites is designed to have a premanufactured conclusion. Nothing you post is objective. It's been manufactured to reach a predefined conclusion.

That's as dishonest and silly a tactic as I can imagine.

I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.

truth is subjective....and subjective to change.

 

[UltimateReality]

Whatever reasonable discussion has previously existed in this thread has clearly gone the way of the dinosaur.....

But it is quite entertaining, no?

 

[Hollie]

Hmm found this article.





CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens—wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Read the rest of the article.

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

Are you surprised that those who shill for fundie creation websites where there are requirements that works cannot conflict with Christian dogma will find "evidence" that supports Christian creationist claims?

Sort of. Please tell me more.

OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?

Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?

 

[daws101]

While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...

wow that's adult!
you must be a real ladies man...the inflatable kind that is .
thanks for proving that ex cops have trouble with women.

Ad hominem.

and this: post# 4858 this thread, isn't
it may be ad hominem but that does not make it any less fact

 

[UltimateReality]

Your endless copying and pasting from christian creationist websites is designed to have a premanufactured conclusion. Nothing you post is objective. It's been manufactured to reach a predefined conclusion.

That's as dishonest and silly a tactic as I can imagine.

I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.

truth is subjective....and subjective to change.

Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.

Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Hmm found this article.





CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens—wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Read the rest of the article.

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

God definitely has a sense of humor. Use different genes to create the same types of structures. Do you ever get the feeling he is totally messing with these people?

Your article was from: Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

From the "About AP" section.

What We Believe

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:
1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.

The above is nearly a duplicate to be found on the various sites that are copied and pasted.

It's as though one must explicitly abandon any sense of personal integrity, personal honor or professional integrity to be associated with these fundie groups.

 

[UltimateReality]

Are you surprised that those who shill for fundie creation websites where there are requirements that works cannot conflict with Christian dogma will find "evidence" that supports Christian creationist claims?

Sort of. Please tell me more.

OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?

Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?

Interesting. Can you provide more examples?

 

[daws101]

ywc and his date ur vist:Virtual Tour | Creation Museum

 

[daws101]

I thought we put your whole cut and paste accusation thing to rest a few posts back. I guess like most fundamentalist Darwinist, you think if you ignore it long enough, the truth will go away.

truth is subjective....and subjective to change.

Moral relativist!!! Next thing you will tell me is that child molestation is okay in certain circumstances. And why not? I mean, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.

Here is definitive proof chimpanzees are our closest relative...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k]Bloodhound Gang - The Bad Touch - YouTube[/ame]

awwww you're so cute when you pitch a fit.

 

[daws101]

Sort of. Please tell me more.

OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?

Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?

Interesting. Can you provide more examples?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo]XTC-Dear God - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Sort of. Please tell me more.

OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?

Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?

Interesting. Can you provide more examples?

You've provided them.

The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.

 

[newpolitics]

While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...

Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.

How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.

 

[UltimateReality]

OK. Take a moment and read through the site where your article came from.

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that these sites have no credibility? Do you understand that one must abandon any sense of professional integrity to quote-mine data from web sites managed by fundie creationists who have no interest in being objective or critical?

Do you understand that the ridicule directed at these sites is reflected on you as a promoter of falsehoods and lies?

Interesting. Can you provide more examples?

You've provided them.

The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.

Please expand on this line of reasoning.

 

[UltimateReality]

While that cartoon is a nice characterature, this is more what comes to my mind when I think of Hollie...

Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.

How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.

I will, right after I get your response on the Meyer Darwin comments.

 

[UltimateReality]

"For Hume and the evolutionists there are two possibilities: Design and complexity arise on their own via natural law, or there is an infinite regress of “designers.”

Given these two absurdities the evolutionists, of course, choose law. But this is not the key move, for at this point the metaphysical fire fight is long over. The key move—and metaphysical heavy lifting—came at the earlier stage where the alternatives were defined. Remember, he who defines the debate wins the debate.

Science doesn’t tell us that there are two possibilities. It doesn’t tell us that design and complexity either arose on their own or else there is an infinite regress of designers. That is a metaphysical assertion—one of many that underwrite the evolution research program.

Amazingly evolutionists claim they are just “doing science” as they fire off these metaphysical salvos. Religion drives science, and it matters."

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/heres-what-alex-philo-filippenko-really.html

 

[Hollie]

Interesting. Can you provide more examples?

You've provided them.

The falsehoods and errors these buffoons have inflicted will, fortunately, not continue long after they have skulked away in disgrace.

Please expand on this line of reasoning.

The fundie line of reasoning begins and dead ends at "The gods did it".

Yes, they're dishonest for requiring a prior committment to Christian apologetis and then requires that all evidence (belief in a 6,000 year old planet and, well, you know the rest of that nonsense).

The Flat Earth Academy / Harun Yahya / fundie creationists are largely fossilized remnants of 17th century fear and superstition.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh boy I know it's not right to laugh but too late.

How unbelievably immature. Are you both in second grade? Grow up.

I will, right after I get your response on the Meyer Darwin comments.

I don't know what you're talking about, and It definitely wouldn't make a difference. You have no case. Evolution is a fact. It is demonstrable. NOTHING ABOUT RELIGION is demonstrable. Not one single thing. There is zero evidence for God, yet you act like you actually have a case. It is ******* laughable. Go away.

 

[Hollie]

"For Hume and the evolutionists there are two possibilities: Design and complexity arise on their own via natural law, or there is an infinite regress of “designers.”

Given these two absurdities the evolutionists, of course, choose law. But this is not the key move, for at this point the metaphysical fire fight is long over. The key move—and metaphysical heavy lifting—came at the earlier stage where the alternatives were defined. Remember, he who defines the debate wins the debate.

Science doesn’t tell us that there are two possibilities. It doesn’t tell us that design and complexity either arose on their own or else there is an infinite regress of designers. That is a metaphysical assertion—one of many that underwrite the evolution research program.

Amazingly evolutionists claim they are just “doing science” as they fire off these metaphysical salvos. Religion drives science, and it matters."

Darwin's God: Here’s What Alex “Philo” Filippenko Really Said Last Weekend at SETICon 2

"Cornelius" - Another knucklehead fundie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another declarative not based in fact statement.
why? if you take OUT WE can't prove (or the god did it factor) what are we left with.
two related species humans and chimps who's dna is 98% the same.
THAT IS NOT SOME SIMILARITIES THAT'S MOST.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying !% you saying 98 % so that means 2% difference now that makes it 60 million base pairs of DNA.

But since the genome project where they mapped the human genome they discovered that the so called junk DNA is no longer Junk DNA so that 2% difference is probably much higher.

But thanks the gaps just got wider by your ignorance of what I was talking about.

I know exactly what you're bullshiting about..2% by any statistical mesure is meaningless...

and your still wrong :In constructing an evolutionary tree of life, scientists have granted themselves and the rest of us humans a genus, Homo, all to ourselves. But there’s no getting around the fact that we’re in the same family with chimpanzees and other primates.

The genetic codes of chimps and humans are 99 percent identical. Measured by differences in DNA, the chimp, Pan troglodytes, is the closest living relative to our own species, Homo sapiens. The comparison to an ape might make a few people squirm, but researchers now are happily comparing chimps and humans more closely than ever before.


Katie Pollard
The goal is to find out more about ourselves. What is it about our genes that enables us to develop uniquely human capabilities? And what can we learn about familiar human vulnerabilities that we do not share with our primate cousins? The secrets are in the DNA, scientists believe.

In her own search for answers, Katie Pollard, PhD, has been buoyed by a decade’s worth of advances in computer power and in the tools used to map DNA at an ever faster clip. Pollard, an associate professor with the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the UCSF Institute for Human Genetics, as well as an associate investigator with the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, has created software programs – mathematical algorithms – to tease out vital information from DNA.

Thus equipped, Pollard is probing the places in the genetic code where base pairs – the coupled DNA alphabet building blocks that form the famous double-helix -- differ between the two species. No stretch of DNA escapes scrutiny – she’s looking at the entire genome.

15 Million Differences
“Only one in 100 base pairs is different, which doesn’t sound like much,” says Pollard. “But when you consider that the genome is 3 billion base pairs long, that means there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp. That’s more than anybody can look through manually.”



there are 15 million human-specific letters of code that are not shared by the chimp

What Makes Us Human? Studies of Chimp and Human DNA May Tell Us | www.ucsf.edu


this is the site where you got your misinformation:Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. - Answers in Genesis

with a tag line like this: believing it,defending it ,proclaiming it. just screams of desperation.

Who is right ?

Chimp genetic code opens human frontiers - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hmm found this article.





CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens—wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Read the rest of the article.

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

NOT VALID NOT SCIENCE .....
What We Believe

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

1.God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2.The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4.Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
5.All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
6.Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7.The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8.Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9.Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.


AND ABOVE ALL NOT OBJECTIVE....

I don't care how objective a person claims they are it's just simply not true we are all biased, it is human nature.