The Rosetta space mission and the alien deception

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Wierd video

"Our results suggest that the notion of organic compounds coming from outer space can't be ruled out because of the severity of the impact event,"

science.nasa.gov...

Wierd video

Yeah, I thought I was tripping midway through.

OP, pray continue. With each post you make, my belief in intelligent life shrinks.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting Evolutionary Theory by attempting to pigeon hole it in this context. Neither abiogenesis nor panspermia have anything to do with evolution. Biological evolution is a study of how organisms changed and evolved over time AFTER life originated on earth. The origins of life are in now way part of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Perhaps some more research and a better understanding of what you claim to be debunking is in order.

Well this is what the evolutionists do all the time, they haven't proven how life arose on earth so they try and divorce themselves from abiogenesis as if its separate from evolution. The link below, however, evaluates some of the more widely used biology textbooks that have been used since 1998 to the present. They are all graded based on how objective the science is presented, and whether or not they present the whole truth, or is the evidence presented in a misleading way.

Specific Evaluation Criterion

In general, an "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theory -- like all scientific theories -- might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts. An "F" indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.

link: www.arn.org...

Every single one of them got either a D or an F for referencing the Miller-Urey experiments as if the experiments proved abiogenesis, or in showing that life can arise from non-living matter.

D = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; but the accompanying text explicitly points out that this was probably not the case (merely listing other gasses, and leaving it to the student to spot the discrepancy, is not sufficient); may leave the student with the impression that the experiment (or some variant of it) demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

So you can spin it any way you wish, the fact of the matter is the science textbooks still teach abiogenesis as a scientific fact and still has everything to do with the general theory of evolution concerning our origins of common descent, from rocks as some evolutionists today still blatantly believe.

originally posted by: peter vlar

While its true that concepts such as common decent can be traced as far back as Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers like Anaximander and further postulated on by Aristotle who was the first to conceptualize species, it is completely untrue that there is nothing new or scientific about evolution. It may have been postulated earlier in history(though unlike your claim, not as far back as the beginning of written history) but Darwin was the first person to put it into scientific context and terms. It is scientific and despite the protestations of many, evolution is a fact.

Actually, the idea goes back much further than any philosopher in Greece, every facet of evolution taught today as "scientific fact" goes as far back to some of the oldest religions on the planet like Hinduism, which is pantheism at its finest. The only difference between the evolution that's taught today in school and the evolution in Hinduism is the latter is pantheistic in nature while the former uses Latin sounding terms to make it sound "scientific".

originally posted by: TheGreazel
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Wierd video

"Our results suggest that the notion of organic compounds coming from outer space can't be ruled out because of the severity of the impact event,"

science.nasa.gov...

Our results "suggests", meaning not a statement of a scientific fact. They have yet to prove by actual experiments in space itself like the example I pointed out in my video that organic compounds can actually survive atmospheric entry. And as I pointed out in the video, even if it can survive entry and amino acids somehow can survive in an oxygen rich environment as is widely believed was the case for earths early history, who gives a damn. It has never been proven that amino acids will magically transform into anything more than amino acids, and they haven't even produced the 20 amino acids necessary for life to even exist to begin with, but this is the rubbish they want you to believe despite the complete lack of evidence.

A short film made by NASA, first broadcast in May 1969, to convince gullible Westerners about the up, and coming lie to befell them. Quite frankly I can't see how astronauts can pick up Moon bugs in the Arizona desert. Navajo Indians have been roaming around this desert for years, and they have never contacted any Moon bugs.

MOON BUGS:

originally posted by: BlackManINC


Well this is what the evolutionists do all the time, they haven't proven how life arose on earth so they try and divorce themselves from abiogenesis as if its separate from evolution. The link below, however, evaluates some of the more widely used biology textbooks that have been used since 1998 to the present. They are all graded based on how objective the science is presented, and whether or not they present the whole truth, or is the evidence presented in a misleading way.

Based on the following criteria that you present, you're going to receive an F for your understanding of evolution. Its not up to Anthropologists, Paleontologists, Evolutionary Biologists or Geneticists to prove or develop a hypothesis related to life's origins. Evolution is a biological process, abiogenesis and panspermia are chemical processes. Different processes, separate fields of research. Its a typical YEC tactic to lump the, both together and lay the blame at the feet of "evolutionists". Additionally, the link and information you presented regarding Specific Evaluation Criteria is not a condemnation of the actual science, its a condemnation of the teachers methods and the students understanding if the material. Abiogenesis is taught as exactly what it is, a hypothesis. Its not taught as a theory and its not taught as a fact. If teachers are failing at their job, its not the fault of anyone else let alone Anthropologists or Paleontologists.

As important as the Miller-Urey experiment is, it doesn't prove anything other than that it is possible for amino acids and simple organic compounds to form under certain conditions. They admit that the simulated conditions were not necessarily the same as those that existed on the early earth and in fact later research indicates that the conditions present were definitely not the same as those used in Miller-Urey's paper. One thing to note though is that multiple parameters were used in varying experiments simulating varying types of atmospheric conditions. In nature, there are 20 different amino acids that are the basis for everything. In one of the Miller-Urey experiments, they created well in excess of the 20 found in nature. Again, none of this proves abiogenesis. It does however demonstrate that the process is possible in several different atmospheric conditions. This does indicate that life on other planets or moons is indeed possible. Is your issue with all of this that your personal religious proclivities demand that Earth is special in the universal grand scheme? I'm just curious and not attempting to pass judgement on you, just trying to get a handle on where your position stems from.

So you can spin it any way you wish, the fact of the matter is the science textbooks still teach abiogenesis as a scientific fact and still has everything to do with the general theory of evolution concerning our origins of common descent, from rocks as some evolutionists today still blatantly believe.

I can spin it?!?! What exactly would you call state,emits like the one quoted above? There's so much spin you have to be dizzy after writing it! Everything you write is an outright lie. Abiogenesis is taught as a hypothesis, not a fact, not even a theory. Please provide a citation of a biology textbook that states that it is a fact.

This is the first time I've ever heard anything resembling common descent from non organic material(rocks). I've studied evolution for over 25 years and my background is in Anthropology so I've heard a lot of insane things thrown out in that time and have never heard anyone make the claim of common descent from rocks. Even if you want to try to discount the fossil record for whatever reason you are a doubting Thomas, genetics clearly show that all organisms living today share a common ancestor. Saying its not true or its not science is a cop out and untrue.

originally posted by: peter vlar

While its true that concepts such as common decent can be traced as far back as Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers like Anaximander and further postulated on by Aristotle who was the first to conceptualize species, it is completely untrue that there is nothing new or scientific about evolution. It may have been postulated earlier in history(though unlike your claim, not as far back as the beginning of written history) but Darwin was the first person to put it into scientific context and terms. It is scientific and despite the protestations of many, evolution is a fact.

Actually, the idea goes back much further than any philosopher in Greece, every facet of evolution taught today as "scientific fact" goes as far back to some of the oldest religions on the planet like Hinduism, which is pantheism at its finest. The only difference between the evolution that's taught today in school and the evolution in Hinduism is the latter is pantheistic in nature while the former uses Latin sounding terms to make it sound "scientific".

Again, do you have a citation to support your statement regarding Hinduism teaching a version of evolution that is nearly identical to what is taught today in high schools and college class rooms? Because again, its absolutely untrue. The creation story in the Rig Veda is based on a cosmic embryo giving birth to the universe but doesn't describe evolution at all. The closest the Vedas come to describing evolution is in the concept of Dharma where it states that we as humans are all devolved from a higher, more pure spiritual state and that when reincarnated we can come back as animals. Nothing remotely similar to Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

I'm not sure where you're obtaining your Information from but none of it is accurate and certainly not what is taught as you seem to think it is. Your hostility towards anyone who doesn't believe what you do, calling "evolutionists" heathens in your monologue, its rather appalling and certainly not what Christ taught and is a decidedly unchristian attitude based on NT teachings and scripture. Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that you can believe in god and/or be a Christian and still understand and grasp evolutionary theory and understand that it is indeed a fact.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Based on the following criteria that you present, you're going to receive an F for your understanding of evolution. Its not up to Anthropologists, Paleontologists, Evolutionary Biologists or Geneticists to prove or develop a hypothesis related to life's origins. Evolution is a biological process, abiogenesis and panspermia are chemical processes. Different processes, separate fields of research. Its a typical YEC tactic to lump the, both together and lay the blame at the feet of "evolutionists". Additionally, the link and information you presented regarding Specific Evaluation Criteria is not a condemnation of the actual science, its a condemnation of the teachers methods and the students understanding if the material. Abiogenesis is taught as exactly what it is, a hypothesis. Its not taught as a theory and its not taught as a fact. If teachers are failing at their job, its not the fault of anyone else let alone Anthropologists or Paleontologists.

As important as the Miller-Urey experiment is, it doesn't prove anything other than that it is possible for amino acids and simple organic compounds to form under certain conditions. They admit that the simulated conditions were not necessarily the same as those that existed on the early earth and in fact later research indicates that the conditions present were definitely not the same as those used in Miller-Urey's paper. One thing to note though is that multiple parameters were used in varying experiments simulating varying types of atmospheric conditions. In nature, there are 20 different amino acids that are the basis for everything. In one of the Miller-Urey experiments, they created well in excess of the 20 found in nature. Again, none of this proves abiogenesis. It does however demonstrate that the process is possible in several different atmospheric conditions. This does indicate that life on other planets or moons is indeed possible.

Actually, if you understood the link I provided you, it is a condemnation of what the textbooks are claiming about the Miller-Urey experiments, not how its taught by teachers. And the science ends there regarding the experiments, and if there is anything else the experiments show, it is that even amino acids require an intelligence to even come into existence. This in no way proves that life could arise on earth or anywhere else by natural means, not even amino acids.

originally posted by: peter vlar Is your issue with all of this that your personal religious proclivities demand that Earth is special in the universal grand scheme? I'm just curious and not attempting to pass judgement on you, just trying to get a handle on where your position stems from.

If you haven't figured it out yet, my issue is with how the evidence is interpreted, the fairy tales they attach to the science, not the science itself.

originally posted by: peter vlar

I can spin it?!?! What exactly would you call state,emits like the one quoted above? There's so much spin you have to be dizzy after writing it! Everything you write is an outright lie. Abiogenesis is taught as a hypothesis, not a fact, not even a theory. Please provide a citation of a biology textbook that states that it is a fact.

This is the first time I've ever heard anything resembling common descent from non organic material(rocks). I've studied evolution for over 25 years and my background is in Anthropology so I've heard a lot of insane things thrown out in that time and have never heard anyone make the claim of common descent from rocks. Even if you want to try to discount the fossil record for whatever reason you are a doubting Thomas, genetics clearly show that all organisms living today share a common ancestor. Saying its not true or its not science is a cop out and untrue.

Again, that's how you are interpreting the evidence. It is your fairy tale for what you believe happened in the past. Genetic similarity between all organism is not evidence of common ancestry, it is evidence of a common designer. Genetically, I share more similarity to a cat than a Chimp. If you are going to claim common ancestry, then you're evidence is nothing more than circumstantial at best and a deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence at worst, since its a conclusion of inductive reasoning based on your biased belief, not deductive reasoning based solely on the evidence. If I show two different cars in a court of law from the same manufacturer with similar features and claim that one "evolved" from the other, as if this is evidence of "common ancestry", I would look like a fool, because its evidence of a common designer, not common ancestry.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Again, do you have a citation to support your statement regarding Hinduism teaching a version of evolution that is nearly identical to what is taught today in high schools and college class rooms? Because again, its absolutely untrue. The creation story in the Rig Veda is based on a cosmic embryo giving birth to the universe but doesn't describe evolution at all. The closest the Vedas come to describing evolution is in the concept of Dharma where it states that we as humans are all devolved from a higher, more pure spiritual state and that when reincarnated we can come back as animals. Nothing remotely similar to Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Sure the video below gives a true detailed history of the concept of evolution starting with the Hindus, to the Greeks to the present.

Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution:

originally posted by: BlackManINC

Actually, if you understood the link I provided you, it is a condemnation of what the textbooks are claiming about the Miller-Urey experiments, not how its taught by teachers. And the science ends there regarding the experiments, and if there is anything else the experiments show, it is that even amino acids require an intelligence to even come into existence. This in no way proves that life could arise on earth or anywhere else by natural means, not even amino acids.

Oh, I understood just fine. Provide a citation supporting your claim that abiogenesis is taught as a fact in textbooks. That simply is not the case. It is presented as a hypothesis. It is presented as a possibility and just one possibility at that. Please show me a textbook used in schools today that claims it is a fact. You have claimed in other postings that they have not even created the 20 amino acids required for life yet that is absolutely untrue. Miller's own records show that they were able to create in excess of 20.

If you haven't figured it out yet, my issue is with how the evidence is interpreted, the fairy tales they attach to the science, not the science itself.

So why then use slurs like "evolutionist" and "heathens" to describe those who disagree with you?

Again, that's how you are interpreting the evidence. It is your fairy tale for what you believe happened in the past. Genetic similarity between all organism is not evidence of common ancestry, it is evidence of a common designer.

It is not at all evidence of a common designer. This statement along with your earlier statements regarding life on other planets(i.e. it doesn't exist)proves that your real issue with evolution is that it disagrees with creation by the Christian god as opposed to your claim of how evidence is interpreted. Just admit that the way the evidence is interpreted disagrees with your own confirmation bias of biblical creation and that is the crux of your issue. I might not agree with you but I would at least respect you for being honest.

Genetically, I share more similarity to a cat than a Chimp.

Not true at all. Though there are some amazing similarities between the X and Y chromosomes of house cats and humans, the actual genetic similarities by percentage are not as close as a chimp or bonobo are to a human.

If you are going to claim common ancestry, then you're evidence is nothing more than circumstantial at best and a deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence at worst, since its a conclusion of inductive reasoning based on your biased belief, not deductive reasoning based solely on the evidence.

Now who's making assumptions based on personal bias? You have absolutely no idea at all what my educational background is, what areas I've researched and what evidence I am looking at let alone how it is being interpreted. For the record, I follow the data not the opinions of others. If the data disagrees with the consensus then I disagree with the consensus. Its that simple. When I was working on my Masters some of the hypothesis I was trying to prove were laughed at despite preliminary data I had to support it. Today several of my hypothesis from The late 90's are in fact the "mainstream" viewpoint regarding Neanderthals and accepted widely as absolute certainty and factual. I have n biased beliefs or confirmation bias in my tool box, if something is true there isn't any arguing about it. If someone has data and evidence to support something I currently think is false I always objectively look at the new information. That's how good science is done. Its just easier for you to believe I prefer fairy tales and biased solutions than it is to believe that people are actually researching things with an open mind and their eye on the actual evidence at hand. In sorry but the only bias I'm seeing is coming from your end.

If I show two different cars in a court of law from the same manufacturer with similar features and claim that one "evolved" from the other, as if this is evidence of "common ancestry", I would look like a fool, because its evidence of a common designer, not common ancestry.

No, you would look a fool for using such an inane analogy by comparing a clearly manufactured and designed non organic creation of man to a biological process and throwing your hands in the air with incredulousness.

Sure the video below gives a true detailed history of the concept of evolution starting with the Hindus, to the Greeks to the present.

Exposing the Pagan Roots of Evolution:

Do you see the irony of mocking what I may or may not know based on your own assumptions while claiming that my research methodology is flawed by confirmation bias and lack of deductive reasoning and then give me a source that isn't actually a citation and can't be verified? A YouTube video is not evidence and it's not a citation no matter how interesting or entertaining it may be. Ill still watch it for S#'s and giggles but it doesn't prove Anything. If you had cited a specific text or passage from the Vedas then we would have a conversation but you a citation that's not really a Citation. A bit perplexing that the standards you would hold me to somehow do not apply to yourself.

OH thats really smart. I hope they wear a high level biohazard suit when they open up that package they brang back from that meteor they landed on. No tellin what is on those samples. If they actually did. I like it when so called scientist spew out the origins of life. MR. know it all. REALLY. I guess some of these scientists have lived so long that they know exactly what happened and they must have traveled to the endlessness of space and beyond. A true captain KURK here. Beam me up scotty. Next time you fly a drone on something and take samples contain the samples. Who knows what you bring back here.
I don't see why people lie about things like this. OH, I KNOW. MONEY. FUNDS.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Actually, if you understood the link I provided you, it is a condemnation of what the textbooks are claiming about the Miller-Urey experiments, not how its taught by teachers. And the science ends there regarding the experiments, and if there is anything else the experiments show, it is that even amino acids require an intelligence to even come into existence. This in no way proves that life could arise on earth or anywhere else by natural means, not even amino acids.

Oh, I understood just fine. Provide a citation supporting your claim that abiogenesis is taught as a fact in textbooks. That simply is not the case. It is presented as a hypothesis. It is presented as a possibility and just one possibility at that. Please show me a textbook used in schools today that claims it is a fact. You have claimed in other postings that they have not even created the 20 amino acids required for life yet that is absolutely untrue. Miller's own records show that they were able to create in excess of 20.

It isn't presented as a hypothesis according to the link I provided, it is presented as a scientific fact. I'm not interested in tracking down the books cited so I can read for my self, I'm not going to disrespect myself by giving them my money.

originally posted by: peter vlar
So why then use slurs like "evolutionist" and "heathens" to describe those who disagree with you?

Well, you aren't a Christian, you believe in evolution, so that makes you a heathen and an evolutionist, real simple.

originally posted by: peter vlarIt is not at all evidence of a common designer. This statement along with your earlier statements regarding life on other planets(i.e. it doesn't exist)proves that your real issue with evolution is that it disagrees with creation by the Christian god as opposed to your claim of how evidence is interpreted. Just admit that the way the evidence is interpreted disagrees with your own confirmation bias of biblical creation and that is the crux of your issue. I might not agree with you but I would at least respect you for being honest.

Its disagreement with my Christian faith isn't even half the problem sir, its the theory being presented as a scientific fact that is my problem. It is your fallacious interpretations of the evidence that's presented as "fact" that I find insulting. Take the evolutionary bias out of the science and I wouldn't have anything to say about it.

originally posted by: peter vlarNot true at all. Though there are some amazing similarities between the X and Y chromosomes of house cats and humans, the actual genetic similarities by percentage are not as close as a chimp or bonobo are to a human.

Actually yes it is true sir, according to the first report below, we share at least a 90% genetic similarity to cats than we do with apes. Recent DNA sequencing techniques have dis-proven the long touted rubbish that close to 99%” of human DNA is similar to apes and that its actually no more than about 70%, and when talking about molecular biology, even a 1 or 2% difference is a colossal difference. Based on real observed, testable science, we are not interchangeable with apes or any other creature for that matter no matter how much the high priests of materialism in academia would like you to believe.

genome.cshlp.org...

99% DNA similarities between apes and man debunked

originally posted by: peter vlarNo, you would look a fool for using such an inane analogy by comparing a clearly manufactured and designed non organic creation of man to a biological process and throwing your hands in the air with incredulousness.

If we're talking about the legitimacy of the viewpoints 'common ancestry' and 'common designer', I can assure you that my analogy would be perfectly acceptable in a court of law, organic or not.

originally posted by: peter vlarDo you see the irony of mocking what I may or may not know based on your own assumptions while claiming that my research methodology is flawed by confirmation bias and lack of deductive reasoning and then give me a source that isn't actually a citation and can't be verified? A YouTube video is not evidence and it's not a citation no matter how interesting or entertaining it may be. Ill still watch it for S#'s and giggles but it doesn't prove Anything. If you had cited a specific text or passage from the Vedas then we would have a conversation but you a citation that's not really a Citation. A bit perplexing that the standards you would hold me to somehow do not apply to yourself.

I can waste my time quoting all the religious text from Hinduism, but than my post would be too long and it would shift too far away from the subject at hand, so I'll just give two examples. First of all, you have Vishnu, whose ten incarnations is similar to the fairy tale taught about biological evolution of common descent. He has many incarnations but his "evolution" has been boiled down to ten. The first incarnation is a fish, then a turtle, a boar, and the last incarnation is a god like being. In cosmic evolution, there is a theory called the oscillating big bang, this idea that the universe expands and collapses onto itself due to the gravitational forces of matter (dark matter they now believe). In Hinduism this is generally referred to as "kalpas". The Bhagavad Gita in particular, chapters 8 and 9, reincarnation is applied not only to all living things but to the universe itself, that the universe goes through a never ending cycle of death and rebirth. This is according to all the commentaries from those who are experts on the Hindu religion and that's exactly what those verses state. Today, this crap is proposed as a valid "scientific" theory, knowing that it was never scientific to begin with.

originally posted by: cloaked4u
OH thats really smart. I hope they wear a high level biohazard suit when they open up that package they brang back from that meteor they landed on. No tellin what is on those samples. If they actually did. I like it when so called scientist spew out the origins of life. MR. know it all. REALLY. I guess some of these scientists have lived so long that they know exactly what happened and they must have traveled to the endlessness of space and beyond. A true captain KURK here. Beam me up scotty. Next time you fly a drone on something and take samples contain the samples. Who knows what you bring back here.
I don't see why people lie about things like this. OH, I KNOW. MONEY. FUNDS.

Right, on one hand, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, except when its convenient for them of course.

I'm not sure what to think of Bill Cooper. His Mystery Babylon series did a number on me when I first heard it. I didn't always trust his honesty though. Particularly in the broadcasts "Interview with a Mason". Anyway, I came to view him as an extremely paranoid person. Not entirely for no reason but.. It's kind of hard to take everything the guy said seriously. I mean he truly believed the UFO at the LA Olympics closing ceremony was real and under its own power.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I'm not sure what to think of Bill Cooper. His Mystery Babylon series did a number on me when I first heard it. I didn't always trust his honesty though. Particularly in the broadcasts "Interview with a Mason". Anyway, I came to view him as an extremely paranoid person. Not entirely for no reason but.. It's kind of hard to take everything the guy said seriously. I mean he truly believed the UFO at the LA Olympics closing ceremony was real and under its own power.

I have the same view about all conspiracy theorists. Take everything they say with a grain of salt, accept the credible information, discard the rest and move on.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
It isn't presented as a hypothesis according to the link I provided, it is presented as a scientific fact. I'm not interested in tracking down the books cited so I can read for my self, I'm not going to disrespect myself by giving them my money.

that's a really nice way of admitting that you defer to your own confirmation bias and are unwilling to do any real research on your own. nobody said you have to spend money on the books. we have these wonderful resources called the Library and the Internet. Your link makes claims without proper citations which is hilarious as they make claims about science and research but don't adhere to basic research guidelines that most high school seniors learn when writing research papers. You say you won't disrespect yourself but in fact you are doing that already by refusing to provide basic citations supporting your claim by using a legitimate source.

Well, you aren't a Christian, you believe in evolution, so that makes you a heathen and an evolutionist, real simple.

and how exactly do you know what my personal faith is? I am many things but a heathen I am not. Also, I'm an Anthropologist not an evolutionist. You expect to be taken seriously yet run amok like a small child on a sugar rush using slurs in complete antithesis to the faith you seem so proud of. I didn't realize that in the 21st century arrogance and hypocrisy were the new hallmarks of Christianity.

Its disagreement with my Christian faith isn't even half the problem sir, its the theory being presented as a scientific fact that is my problem. It is your fallacious interpretations of the evidence that's presented as "fact" that I find insulting. Take the evolutionary bias out of the science and I wouldn't have anything to say about it.

There would have to actually be bias in the science to take it out. All there is, is evidence, data and facts that support it all. Highly ironic that you go on to quote a genetic study that was done to support evolution in an attempt to disprove evolution. you're really grasping at straws and have not actually provided any credible evidence and are far more guilty of everything you accuse myself and other people who work in various scientific disciplines of. Evolution happened. It is a fact.

Actually yes it is true sir, according to the first report below, we share at least a 90% genetic similarity to cats than we do with apes. Recent DNA sequencing techniques have dis-proven the long touted rubbish that close to 99%” of human DNA is similar to apes and that its actually no more than about 70%, and when talking about molecular biology, even a 1 or 2% difference is a colossal difference. Based on real observed, testable science, we are not interchangeable with apes or any other creature for that matter no matter how much the high priests of materialism in academia would like you to believe.

Well you finally got one right, kind of. We share 90% of our genes or more specifically the coding sequence with house cats, not 90% of our DNA. There actually is a difference. there are a few faults with that particular study however. The genetic testing was done using only a 1.9X coverage which leaves a lot of room for error. The average is 6.8X-7.1X coverage. Less than 58% of the genes had 50% or more of their gene sequence captured. Not exactly a tell all book there is it? from your own citation-

In spite of the benefits derived from the comparative genomics-based genome annotation presented here, there are some notable weaknesses due to a light coverage. Among them are the following: (1) The assembled cat genome retains only 65% of the euchromatin genome sequence, leaving some 660,000 gaps between the contigs; (2) fewer than 58% of the genes have >50% of their gene feature sequence captured (based on cat–dog gene homologs); and (3) estimating the number, extent, and location of segmental duplications (which comprise 5% of the human genome) is difficult with low coverage since segmental duplication discovery depends on highly redundant genome coverage for accuracy

Onwards and upwards to your Chimpanzee claims. literally, the only researcher who makes the claim of 76% shared genes between humans and pan troglodyte is your citation, Dr. Richard Buggs who is an advocate for ID. Every single other source I have read, including the original 2005 paper Dr. Buggs bastardizes his data from upholds the 96-98% genetic similarity @ 6X coverage. Hell, when you compare to humans, you're going to only get a 98% shared genetic expression.

Here is a link to the 2005 paper for you to see for yourself- www.nature.com...

Here is some work detailing similarity between Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Humans. (Chimps and Bonobo share 99.6% Bobobos and Chimps share 98.7% with humans).
news.sciencemag.org...

This details the nearly 99% shared gene expression between Chimpanzee and human- genome.wellcome.ac.uk...

This level of sequencing allows us to see exactly how far back Chimps and Bonobos diverged( ~1MYA) as well as when their lineage diverged from ours(~7MYA) It very much proves common descent amongst all the apes, which whether you like it or not, humans are in fact apes. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities but shying away from truth only hurts you in the end. To quote one of my favorite TV shows-

Knowing is half the battle. Yo Joe

The Bhagavad Gita in particular, chapters 8 and 9, reincarnation is applied not only to all living things but to the universe itself, that the universe goes through a never ending cycle of death and rebirth. This is according to all the commentaries from those who are experts on the Hindu religion and that's exactly what those verses state. Today, this crap is proposed as a valid "scientific" theory, knowing that it was never scientific to begin with.

How hard was that to supply a book and chapters to fact check your source? You make it sound like I wanted the fillings out of your teeth. Not that the Baghavad Gita selections have anything to do with Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and instead refer to a possible cosmology and your first example is reallllllllyyyyyy stretching to make a valid point. Either way, neither example are analogues of MES and doesn't remotely support your conjecture that Vedic text shows evolution exactly as it is approached in biological sciences today therefore its not valid or science because it originated with a polytheistic religion. Christianity's basis is Judaism which started off as polytheistic just an FYI

And way to go ignoring the real crux of the point I was attempting to make, that you hold others to a standard you yourself will not adhere to. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way surprised based on your own prejudices as it's pretty much par for the course in a discussion of this nature but I do get hopeful every once in awhile that someone on your side of the fence will have an iota of integrity and actually discuss the science as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand while cherry picking and quote mining.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Christianity's basis is Judaism which started off as polytheistic just an FYI

It's funny how little some people care about the roots of their own beliefs.

a reply to: peter vlar

Psst... Hey...

You're wasting your time and energy. You'd have just as much luck teaching a shrimp to play the banjo.

a reply to: Answer
A Louisiana shrimp?

a reply to: Answer

It might be worth the effort if I could teach them to play Dueling Banjo's from Deliverance!

a reply to: BlackManINC

Take everything they say with a grain of salt, accept the credible information, discard the rest and move on.

haha..what a slanging match. I wish I could say the same for those who worship a petty jealous mountain god/deimurge called jehovah. I dont think we evolved from primates, but then on really studying your bible...I see how this matrix keeps all under the spell of a religion aka The Roman Empire version 2.

Worship is such a tool. At least scientists wear their motives on their sleave...ie money/salary/scholarly acclaim

All christians have to fall back on is "concern for the heathens soul". Never mind that the heathen actively discourages their offer for help/knowledge.

What gives? Some caananite baal gets transformed into jehovah into jesus christ through a non biblical teaching of trinity, and you have a problem with evolution.

Lets try something simpler like the evolution of 1 jealous OT god into a trinity.

No doubt you'll miss the irony,
whatever you do, spew forth circular biblical reasoning,
whatever you do, do quote Paul
disregard jesus words
keep the lie going

Theres enough out there for you to really open your eyes