Origin of Creationism

originally posted by: stooge247
a reply to: randyvs

"If I create something I'm not
satisfied with. Guess what pal ? I have the right to destroy it, let it decay,
or let it be destroyed."

So you're saying if you had a child you weren't happy with, you'd neglect it until it died or just outright murder it?

Right here, we have THE BOOK, as Ken Ham would say...

Deuteronomy (21:18-21)
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

That is quite instructional and to the point...

a reply to: stooge247

o you're saying if you had a child you weren't happy with, you'd neglect it until it died or just outright murder it?

Pull anything you like from anything I say. Even if it's so
ignorant, it could only reflect on you. There are no scientific
open minds here. Just adolescent self indulgence.

a reply to: adnanmuf

Howdy,

DNA was collected from a dinosaur? And it was then proven to be chicken DNA? Are you absolutely sure of that? Can you provide me with a citation for this? See, I've read some papers on bone structure, osteocytes, proteins, and perhaps some permineralized soft tissues that have been "de-calcified." These things are not DNA, might have been from contamination (although I'm aboard the probably real ship at the moment...), and were assuredly not chicken. Dinosaurs have not recently (before these "discoveries") been classified as lizards, nor are they currently classified as birds.

In fact, did you know there were two major classes of dinosaur? There are the Saurischians (a name suggesting that the hip structure is that like a modern lizard) and the Ornithischians (suggesting a hip structure like a modern bird). I should say that these names were not assigned based on any preconceived notion of relatedness, but rather reflected morphological similarity. Tracing the lineages of birds backwards towards theropods, one would be shocked to find that birds evolved from Saurischians and only later developed their new hip structure in what is known as convergent evolution. Here's a nice link, unfortunately the paper isn't free... (free sources are hard to come by, which is probably the reason for the vast scientific illiteracy of our day...) The abstract and pictures should suffice.

www.nature.com...
And wikipedia to clear anything else up.
en.wikipedia.org...

This is fine in the eyes of evolution, but if you want to call all feathered dinosaurs birds... Well, you might have a tough time explaining the change in hip anatomy.

Regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: adnanmuf

Can you provide me with a citation for this?

You must be new to this forum

Back what up?? That a person get 50% of DNA from one parent? Or the bogus claim that Neanderthal died 20k years ago? Or their claim that current humans have 2% of Neanderthal DNA?
There was no Neanderthal!!!
The bones they discovered were of current humans who died

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Back what up?? That a person get 50% of DNA from one parent? Or the bogus claim that Neanderthal died 20k years ago? Or their claim that current humans have 2% of Neanderthal DNA?
There was no Neanderthal!!!
The bones they discovered were of current humans who died

For your claim, show what paper proves that fossils of Neanderthal and Denisovan are not what we all know they are.

Stop spamming and trolling, focus on providing proofs for what you are trying to prove here.

We love to play with thing call evidence. Please provide some valid evidence.

I just provided you with evidence that their claim current humans can't possibly have Neanderthal DNA because of ancient intermarriage. The 2% humans have from those ancient bones are human DNA leftover throughout ages in the bones. The bones belonged to humans. There was no Neanderthals. Those were the ANCIENT Europeans!! Red hair and red skin and high arches above eyes. That's the Europeans who lived 20000 years ago!!!

a reply to: adnanmuf

Where are you getting this gibberish from?

Provide links and sources, or you are just spouting unsubstantiated drivel.

It's like you've read a few unrelated articles, have a preconceived notion of how you think it all works, and developed a construct to explain your meanderings, but without your sources, it is almost impossible to have constructive discussion, because there are so many generalisations and errors in your ideas.

On one hand you dismiss large sections of scientific inquiry, and on the other hand use the bits that support your fantasies.

Just stop... or actually produce sources for your fantastical concepts.

OK. I will round it for you. I will ask questions and you will have to answer them:

How can current humans still have 2% of Neanderthal DNA??? After 1000 generations of their demise??

How come they had blue eyes even the rare mutation happened in humans 5000 years ago. And the mutation is submissive and cannot overtake the whole Neanderthal race???

a reply to: adnanmuf

[citation needed]

originally posted by: adnanmuf
Back what up?? That a person get 50% of DNA from one parent? Or the bogus claim that Neanderthal died 20k years ago? Or their claim that current humans have 2% of Neanderthal DNA?
There was no Neanderthal!!!
The bones they discovered were of current humans who died

(Facepalm)

Ah, so now there were no Neanderthals! Um, so what about the fossil evidence? Oh wait, you think that's all some kind of lie...
This is getting ridiculous, even for a creationist person-who-lives-under-a-bridge.

I thought you were going to start answering my 2 questions.you can answer with refs.

a reply to: adnanmuf

You seem to mistake "question" with "baseless assertion". Provide sources for YOUR claims.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
I thought you were going to start answering my 2 questions.you can answer with refs.

What's the point? You either ignore cites or you wilfully misinterpret them so that only you are ever correct. Have fun under that bridge.

OK just one question I wanna ask and hope one of the enlightened magi turned evolutionist:
"How is it possible all Europeans still have 3% of NEANDERTHAL's DNA??.and 2% of all Chinese people DNA is also Neanderthal DNA. And 1% of Africans' dnais Neanderthal DNA??
Even after 1000 generations since the die out of the last Neanderthal?? Considering a person inherits half his DNA from one of the parents??? In 1000 generations hardly nothing from an ancient ancestor will be left. And how come all humans have Neanderthal DNA??

originally posted by: adnanmuf
OK. I will round it for you. I will ask questions and you will have to answer them:

How can current humans still have 2% of Neanderthal DNA??? After 1000 generations of their demise??

How come they had blue eyes even the rare mutation happened in humans 5000 years ago. And the mutation is submissive and cannot overtake the whole Neanderthal race???

I think you missunderstand the word submissive. Certian genetic traces can be recesive/submissive for generations upon generations and suddenly pop up out of no where.

I for one was born Blonde haired and blue eyed, yet from both sides of my family tree not one person was born with Blonde hair or blue eyes. This can go at least a couple of hundred years from my English side (possible Anglo Saxon origin which may have had the genes) But my Maltese Side would go far further back in history and most likely several thousand years, as from that side we originated from Cyrpus and before that Iraq. Maybe even a chance that not one had Blue eyes and blonde hair.

DNA doesnt just dissapear, it continues. This is why we have recessive genes, they recede. They are submissive because certian genes are prodominatly better/stronger more than the submissive ones. They arent just wiped clean every new generation. As part of evolution the stronger genes are kept and the weaker ones recede (not dissapear altogether) and may pop up again once the need arises. Such as myself, I now as an adult have Hazel coloured eyes and dark hair this only started happening after age 5-6 and I feel its simple logic. I am in a mediteranean climate, Blonde hair and blue eyes does not go well at all. But I was still born with the submissive gene.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
OK just one question I wanna ask and hope one of the enlightened magi turned evolutionist:
"How is it possible all Europeans still have 3% of NEANDERTHAL's DNA??.and 2% of all Chinese people DNA is also Neanderthal DNA. And 1% of Africans' dnais Neanderthal DNA??
Even after 1000 generations since the die out of the last Neanderthal?? Considering a person inherits half his DNA from one of the parents??? In 1000 generations hardly nothing from an ancient ancestor will be left. And how come all humans have Neanderthal DNA??

Why don't you go away and learn something about this? Shine a little education into the shadows under your bridge. You might just learn something. I doubt that you'll try however - your beliefs are too ingrained into your mind to allow you the possibility of doubt via actual facts.

originally posted by: adnanmuf
I just provided you with evidence that their claim current humans can't possibly have Neanderthal DNA because of ancient intermarriage. The 2% humans have from those ancient bones are human DNA leftover throughout ages in the bones. The bones belonged to humans. There was no Neanderthals. Those were the ANCIENT Europeans!! Red hair and red skin and high arches above eyes. That's the Europeans who lived 20000 years ago!!!

WHAT? Where did you provide evidence of... ANYTHING? I have yet to see ONE link or source provided from you. I HAVE seen quite a few bold claims that you keep saying are true, but with nothing to back it up it means nothing.

Did you possibly read like a brief pamphlet on DNA or something? I truly am wondering where you acquired your knowledge of DNA. It is SO flawed that I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing when I say DNA and you say DNA.

One more time. Start linking sources!

a reply to: adnanmuf

What are you arguing for in this thread? That mutations don't happen or that they do? If DNA were entirely replaced after a few generations, leaving nothing of the ancestry, would that not be mutation of some neutral sideways variety? We're talking the entire genome of individuals being different from their more distant ancestors.

Do not be offended when I tell you this, but your logic is indeed flawed. Others may be frustrated by your constant refusal to read any of the sources they provide you, but I will soldier on for you here, having already partially answered your question...

Now, let me first correct you, it is not necessarily 50%:50% mother:father when it comes to DNA... Why is this? Well, you've been educated on this one already, too, so let me say that you might consider a mutation a result of gene changes. Here's a nice little link, and I will ask you to also check out the blue words "duplication," "translocation," and "deletion."
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, to understand the strangeness of sexual reproduction, we really must look at the process that creates gamete(reproductive) cells... This link is useful. But if you can't be bothered to read, the most important thing is that 4 genetically unique cells are formed from one dividing cell...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, I don't want to give you "the talk" and explain sexual reproduction in too much detail here, as I really don't know how old you are or if you've been given "the talk" already, so I'll leave that part up to you. Let us just note that the cell that ultimately fertilizes the egg is a result of... chance? Probability? Randomness, as you would call it. So, theoretically, a human could pass on the same genetic information from a neanderthal 100% of the time if the genes that belonged to neanderthal were the ones that entered the gamete.

Now, I've also made the claim that I've partially answered your question before. How dare I do so, as I have not provided evidence... Wait, here it is. It's that whole concept of geographic isolation and reproduction. If there is not a lot of genetic diversity in a population, they will interbreed passing the same traits throughout the population. Incidentally, this is again how speciation would occur, and it is partially responsible for the appearance of mutations such as blue eyes in small populations.

Now I do apologize for this long post, I'm long winded and I could have slimmed it down, but you can't expect the best teacher for free, right?

Regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

I applaud your patience but I fear that your efforts will be for nothing. He will wilfully refuse to understand anything that contradicts his position.