The Gullibility of Evolutionists

reply to post by Beachcoma


oh that's interesting. so that means potentially, that ETs will have stereo senses, as well? sure sounds like it. i wonder how that explains the one angelic being with eyes all over its body. (that's gotta be one freaky looking being)

I thank anyone who opposes the view of the creationist, thank you for all your posts and your supply of "factual" information. I'm through posting since any replying to my posts keeps addressing the same topic on every new post, so in conclusion keep using your mind to dream about fairy tales and I'm sure most of the posters here wouldn't dare use it for interesting research and intellect. Don't bother replying I won't be back, this thread seems more like a sunday school class then a debate forum.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by sufusci

 

This site says it's 93%. It's from 2007.
Here

An international team of more than 170 scientists has now sequenced the genome of the rhesus macaque monkey and compared it to both the chimpanzee and human genomes. Their analysis reveals that the three primate species share about 93% of their DNA.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Clearskies]

I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but you own link has the text:

"The researchers found that macaques split from the line that led to chimps and humans about 25 million years ago. Chimps, our closest relatives, diverged from our ancestors roughly 6 million years ago. Humans and macaques share about 93% of their DNA, in contrast to the 98-99% similarity between humans and chimps."

Did you even read it?

reply to post by undo
You couldn't be more correct, I trust your pragmatic reasoning in this thread. I have started to barely scratch the surface of your ingenious stargate thread, but you know the possibility of these interpretations I speak of, I've seen the research you did, you might be able to prove or disprove by memory, I'm just let down by the hostility of man(or woman lol) in this thread! Keep them post comin'!

Originally posted by marg6043
Well I guess that 18 pges 12 flags of religious bickering and preaching is turning this forum into ca ca and nobody cares.

What a shame.

I agree - although it is quite predictavble these days here. The title of the post didn't help of course - although I'm guilty of sensationalistic titles too myself...heh. Time to move on for me, this all looks too familiar.

J.

reply to post by undo


You mean this guy?



That dude is freaky scary! Nothing angelic about it at all

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Which post are you talking about? Which link?

Hi there. This one :

www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com...

J.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
reply to post by undo

 

You mean this guy?

That dude is freaky scary! Nothing angelic about it at all

Yikes! No, i don't think the one I'm referring to has a suit coat! LOL!
It's only job is to praise God, 24/7/365 or something like that. I wonder what it actually is. I bet it's something we haven't even considered in our theories thus far (Bible scholars, i mean)

[edit on 4-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
Yikes! No, i don't think the one I'm referring to has a gun! LOL!

That's actually a scroll. It was from the movie A Scanner Darkly. The scene was when one of the characters tried to commit suicide by taking a large quantity of downers with a bottle of expensive wine. Instead of dying, the guy started hallucinating and saw that being who began reading all his sins.

reply to post by sufusci


Actually, I was having such a hard time finding ANYTHING that I just skimmed it and posted.



Maybe you could provide some info and links.???

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Clearskies]

animals learn by experience, we experience by learning. create the axioma and then we'll find out if its true or not. mathematics is the one science whose axiomas stand as a rock. unbeatable, because of its nature. it has an infinite way to define infinite stuffs.

evolutionism or creationism is a science whose axiomas are based upon something like "red is in fact blue, and never the other way around". but the fact may be that "red is never blue and the order dose not matter"

so we absolutely dont know. it all may hit a brick wall like quantumphysics (they almost ran out of names for the particles).

so i came down to my first reply, before arguing against evolution.
lets make it also clear that i dont support creation.

they have found few million years old modern shoe, human footsteps along dino tracks, and stuff like that. the methods are imprecise, unfortunately the resulting picture to, and it is dominated by egoistic hoaxes.

creationism... well. God cant be that stupid. in fact i might say that there is a god above the entity that we might think god. we dont know.

the bible was written by human flesh and it is corrupted accordingly.
and i wont discard theories by witch appears to be more unbelievable. i discard both. because both have presented to be not working in front of my eyes, and never will, at least the way they tell me..

it might be one ET creating humans, but it is not God...
it might be an evolution, but it is nothing like Darwin imagined...

Originally posted by Beachcoma

That's actually a scroll.

I noticed that after I posted that and changed it to "suit"
LOL anyway, yeah, now what process would cause that
many eyes? Maybe they aren't actually eyes. Maybe that
was just the only way John could describe what he was
seeing. Anyway, interesting side topic

Originally posted by encoder
animals learn by experience, we experience by learning.
create the axioma and then we'll find out if its true or not. mathematics is the one science whose axiomas stand as a rock. unbeatable, because of its nature. it has an infinite way to define infinite stuffs.

evolutionism or creationism is a science whose axiomas are based upon something like "red is in fact blue, and never the other way around". but the fact may be that "red is never blue and the order dose not matter"

so we absolutely dont know. it all may hit a brick wall like quantumphysics (they almost ran out of names for the particles).

so i came down to my first reply, before arguing against evolution.
lets make it also clear that i dont support creation.

they have found few million years old modern shoe, human footsteps along dino tracks, and stuff like that. the methods are imprecise, unfortunately the resulting picture to, and it is dominated by egoistic hoaxes.

creationism... well. God cant be that stupid. in fact i might say that there is a god above the entity that we might think god. we dont know.

the bible was written by human flesh and it is corrupted accordingly.
and i wont discard theories by witch appears to be more unbelievable. i discard both. because both have presented to be not working in front of my eyes, and never will, at least the way they tell me..

it might be one ET creating humans, but it is not God...
it might be an evolution, but it is nothing like Darwin imagined...

I barely understood this sorry. I am assuming that your first language is not english.

I agree though, if there is a creator it sure was smarter than the creation "science" bunch. It is amazing to think that a creator knew we would be around after kickstarting the universe. If you understand this, it is SOOO much more impressive than a click of the fingers, hey presto you are here, but i faked it to look like I didn't do it.

"God" if he exists is surely the universes most amazing scientist.

If you are a creation believer, DONT EVEN TRY to disprove evolution, be happy in the faith you are correct no matter what the evidence. God would never leave evidence for you to find, because otherwise you wouldn't NEED faith!

Get it through your heads... the two are fundamentally incompatible at their roots. Evolution is the thinking mans solution. Faith in the face of contrary evidence is the magic mans solution.

Take your pick, you can't have it both ways.

reply to post by undo


to expand the point. anything that you pick up from the surroundings goes through yr brain until you spit it out in a word. but the word might be different from what you "saw"

reply to post by sufusci


Can you provide some in-depth information on the current genome studies of human/chimp similarities? I couldn't find anything, except, "but, as chimps and humans share 98%-99% similarities,...blah, blah...."
Nothing specific.
I would really appreciate it.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by sufusci


i was saying both are wrong.
we don't know the truth.
...yet

edit


[edit on 4-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by sufusci

 

Actually, I was having such a hard time finding ANYTHING that I just skimmed it and posted.

Maybe you could provide some info and links.???

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Clearskies]

Well, if you really want to know for yourself, download the two genomes and do the sequence comparison yourself. Don't trust us "evil scientists", be a real scientist/enquiring mind and verify it yourself. The tools are free, and students less motivated than you can do it!

I do this with undergrads. Google and ncbi are your friends.

Google: bioinformatics tools, dna sequence comparison and find the papers, look at their methods then replicate it. It's how science works, and is done all the time. You will come to the same conclusion as everyone else does, the creation science guys are doing rubbish science and ignoring contrary evidence.

// sufu sci

Originally posted by dbates
But why just the last 200 years? Why not sooner? There is no good reason that this couldn't have happened 5,000 years ago.

The written word. The ability to transmit complex 'memes', or ideas if you like. Used to transmit some helpful, some not so. The enlightenment. The open spread of great ideas. Education. The scientific method.

The last 400 years have seen massive increases in knowledge. Thank you Frankie Bacon, and other great historical trailblazers in philosophy, freethinking/rationalism, and the embyronic science (Galileo, Bruno, Kepler, Hume, Voltaire, Hooke, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and many many others).

The knowledge of how to produce and harness electricity doesn't appear de novo. It is by standing on the shoulders of giants we gradually consolidate and expand knowledge. From the first ancient proto-scientists to learn how to extract metals, to the first true scientists who played around with their toys.

Memes evolve!

(ABE: well, good ones do)

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Conspiriology


You completely misunderstand evolution. There is no "prime directive". Evolution is not a "thing", but a model formed by observing genetic change. Evolution is stateless.