Soon to be "Creationnist Museum" , Kentucky

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Let them have their faith. They aren't suicide bombers ... and they aren't beating their women because their holy book says to ... and they aren't molesting children ....

They are if they're Catholic Priests. Also they seem to have a fondness of murdering doctors and firebombing clinics because of their religion.

Though i don't believe in creationism i don't see what the big outrage is. It is not like the theory of evolution doesn't have any flaws in it. On another note though people have done horrible things in the name of religion the world would be a worse place without it since religion sets morals of what is right and wrong. Without morals anyone could do anything they want without fear of anything.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
...since religion sets morals of what is right and wrong. Without morals anyone could do anything they want without fear of anything.

Actually there is evidence that morality is actually a genetic trait, that
is there is a core genetic trait that stops people from just killing or
raping one another all the time.

Also, religion is not the only source or 'morals', I am for all intensive
purposes an Atheist, but I have ethics.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
On another note though people have done horrible things in the name of religion the world would be a worse place without it since religion sets morals of what is right and wrong. Without morals anyone could do anything they want without fear of anything.

Really ? Then the prison system should be filled with Atheists. Yet the majority are staunch theists.

Morality has nothing to do with God, we all know what is right and what is wrong, we obey them not because God has a problem with it but because everybody benefits by us doing the right thing. It makes the world a better place, it helps society progress and thereby the individual. God/faith have little actual relevance in the whole picture.

Do you seriously do the right thing because you will get into heaven or because somebody has told you that this is right and this is wrong. Morality is subjective, each faith has its own values. The true values are already within us, not those that are prescribed by others.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
...since religion sets morals of what is right and wrong. Without morals anyone could do anything they want without fear of anything.

actually, CULTURE and GENETICS set up right and wrong. there is a reason that there are several universals in morality.

like:
NO killing
NO adultery
NO incest

just to name a few. morality can easily be set up through empathy (secular humanism)

I noticed a few posts back something about Darwin's Origin of the Species being authoritative. Read Darwin's theories..

Evolutionists have many experiments to "prove" evolution, but unfortunatly all of them have been proven wrong or debunked. Half of them are still used in biology text books. Evolution is a crap theory and the vast majority of biologists know it.

The more I learned about evolution the more humerous it became.

For example, the bacterial flagella. All of the proteins would have had to come together at once for the flagella to work, otherwise it would have been selected against due to natural selection. The

The Miller Urey experiment is also quoted a lot. It says that with a reducing atmosphere (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor) that amino acids (building blocks of proteins) will be produced when electricity is added, which is true. But it is commonly known in geology and biology that the early earth atmosphere was not as Miller and Urey described and the experiment does not work with what we know as early earth atmospheric conditions. Therefore it would have been impossible to produced amino acids, the building blocks of life. Even if you were able to produce some amino acids, you're nowhere near producing a protein.

For more fun, look up the Cambrian explosion & Haeckel's embryos.

In my opinion, religion doesn't have it all right, but evolution doesn't seem to have any of it right. Creationism is much more logical then the idea that everything came from nothing.

Actually most of Darwins theories support the mounds upon mounds of evidence that has been collected. A few cases are not discerable by evolution and that is only because we havent been able to come up with suffecient evidence to draw a conclusion. Amino acids can very well be made in the early atmosphere, this has been shown with early ice core digs also and volcanic rock collected from the sub mantel. There are tonnes upon tonnes of data that fit evolution, where as other than disproving a few individual cases and some "quackery" Creationism has no proof or logic for that matter. For what ever created us was obviously retarded to make such a deficient and imperfect monstrosity.

The idea that amino acids were baked onto volcanic rock in early earth. I've read about that, it's funny. It is widely known that earth did not have a reducing atmosphere. Call your local university and ask to speak with the Geology department.

I'm not going to argue that point, it's stupid.

I agree that the earth isn't perfect, but it isn't bad. Photosynthesis is a darn good example.

And where are the "tonnes and tonnes" of evidence?

Really ? The tonnes of evidence is in the same University your Geology professor is in. If YOUR university is ill equipped, you could come down to the natural history museum here in NYC. I can give you a tour of the mounds and mounds of evidence. I think its free on Fridays! You can see for yourself in the most basic terms evolution. I think they even have a interactive exhibit for skeptics such as yourself. If you doubt the veracity of the evidence in the museum they have a catalog of the papers published in thousands of scientific journals based on the exhibits there and also the proof of authenticity of the evidence, all of which you are free to go through.

Oh and they also have a Institute for Comparative Genomics which would be most educational to you.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by IAF101]

[edit on 16-4-2007 by IAF101]

I find it sad that so many believe that Darwinism is real science. It essentially has people duped into believing that the incredible complexity of the universe and life itself is just one big unpleasant accident. Even though it would be more likely to find a perfectly formed Intel core duo processor formed by accident from the silicon on the beach than for even a one celled organism to have been formed by accident.

Even worse is the unfailing trust the public has in the current high priesthood of science. These people are famous for suppressing every new discovery that has ever been made! These are the same people who 'debunked' the Wright brothers heavier than air flight, even after eyewitnesses saw them do it. The same thing is going on with the same mentally chained academics. In many ways physics was more advanced in the 19'th century than it is today. You've got corporate thugs who travel the world suppressing real innovation. I recently met two people whose inventions were shut down by these people.

Moreover our current museums and research centers are often in the business of suppressing science that doesn't fit the current paradigm or might threaten their funding. MITs deliberate altering of their cold fusion verification data is just one example. The fact that the Smithsonian threw out tons of artifacts that didn't fit Darwinism or supported, for example, the existence of a race of giants in America is another. Try to grow a brain and realize that the universe is not exactly what your communist, government controlled educator has had you to believe.

s8int.com...

All of the documented evidence of evolution in journals? Surely you're not referring to evidence by people like Peter Grant, Ernst Haeckel, E. B. Ford, & Charles Dawson?

Comparative geonomics, always a fun subject. My favorite is the one where chimps are 97% or 98% the same as humans. Evolutionists harp on this to try and infuence the people that know little about DNA.

Poeople throw out these numbers all the time, but most people fail to realize that the genome of chimps has never been sequenced. Knowing that, one must ask themselves how on earth is the 97/98% number found. The method used to get this number was DNA hybridization, which is an extremely crude way to figure this out. In DNA hybridization, human DNA is split into single strands and allowed to reform into double stands with chimp DNA. And no one ever brings up that there are many reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, not just homology. It is beyond dumb to make such bold statements about the relationship between humans and chimps based on such a crappy method.

Not to mention that the origional papers on this experiment by Sibley and Ahlquist did not contain any of the basic data. No data. The reader must accept the interpretation by faith. Isn't that funny? We have to accept such a huge thing by faith. I think it's hilarious. A bit ironic, no?

For example, the bacterial flagella. All of the proteins would have had to come together at once for the flagella to work, otherwise it would have been selected against due to natural selection.

Wrong. We know how the flagella evolved. IDers tried using that argument when they opened a trial for creationism in school and got debunked.

The Miller Urey experiment is also quoted a lot. It says that with a reducing atmosphere (hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor) that amino acids (building blocks of proteins) will be produced when electricity is added, which is true. But it is commonly known in geology and biology that the early earth atmosphere was not as Miller and Urey described and the experiment does not work with what we know as early earth atmospheric conditions. Therefore it would have been impossible to produced amino acids, the building blocks of life. Even if you were able to produce some amino acids, you're nowhere near producing a protein.

Actually amino acids were brought to earth by meteorites, and the energy released by the impact made them form proteins.



[edit on 16-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Who's "we"..? It was explained how the eukaryotic flagella evolved, not the bacterial. In bacterial flagella (which are much different from eukaryotic) it was found that you can remove about 1/3 of the amino acids in it without harming the function. Unfortunately, the flagella has 497 amino acids. Removing 1/3 leaves 331 amino acids that must be present for a functioning flagella.

And the idea of a meteor almost sounds good but the proteins would have been denatured at such high temperatures which render them useless. I don't think the meteor theory would be the way to go.

Originally posted by Flyer
They are if they're Catholic Priests.

These are obviously Christian fundamentalists, not Catholics.

Also they seem to have a fondness of murdering doctors and firebombing clinics because of their religion.

And considering that there are millions and millions of fundamentalist christians in this country ... what is the ratio of those who firebomb abortuaries and/or murder abortionists? One in every million?

So much for your claim that they have a 'fondness' for murdering and bombing. :shk:


[edit on 4/16/2007 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by alkali
Poeople throw out these numbers all the time, but most people fail to realize that the genome of chimps has never been sequenced

...

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium*

Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.

NATURE, Vol 437, 1 September 2005

www.genome.gov...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by melatonin]

Did you read the journal? It's an initial sequence of the chimp genome. That's hardly proof. That's like going to Russia taking 10 people and making the conclusion that 9 out of 10 of the world's population is white. Or going to Africa and taking 10 people and saying that 9 out of 10 of the world's population is black.

As I said, the chimp genome has never been sequenced.

Evolution takes more faith than scientology, much less mainstream religion.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by alkali]

Furthermore, if human and chimps are 98% identical, shouldn't we beable to use chimp organs in severe trauma patients? Scientists have been trying since the 60s to put chimp organs into people and it has never even almost worked, not once.

To quote Johnathon Marks, a Berkeley antropologist:

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases ”A,G,C, and T” only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical.

Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes…. Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp's genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human's; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans

So the same science that says chimps are 98% human also say that humans share at least 25% of the genome with daffodils. Are you seriously trying to say that I am one quarter daffodil? Seriously?

Originally posted by alkali
Did you read the journal? It's an initial sequence of the chimp genome. That's hardly proof. That's like going to Russia taking 10 people and making the conclusion that 9 out of 10 of the world's population is white. Or going to Africa and taking 10 people and saying that 9 out of 10 of the world's population is black.

As I said, the chimp genome has never been sequenced.

Evolution takes more faith than scientology, much less mainstream religion.

So although scientists have produced a draft sequence of the chimpanzee genome, it has not been sequenced? Interesting POV.

Macaque joins the genome Hall of Fame
19:00 12 April 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Bob Holmes

The rhesus macaque has become the third primate to have its genome fully sequenced, joining humans and chimpanzees.

The newly completed genome gives biologists a much deeper understanding of a crucial organism in biomedical research. It also offers evolutionary biologists a vantage point from which they can better understand the genetic changes that turned humans into such unusual apes.

An international consortium [www.hgsc.bcm.tmc.edu...] of more than 170 scientists at 35 institutions sequenced the entire genome of a female macaque living at a research centre in San Antonio, Texas, US.

The macaque's nearly 3 billion DNA base pairs are 93.5% identical to those found in the human genome, as expected for a species whose lineage diverged from that of humans about 25 million years ago. By comparison, the human and chimp genomes, which diverged about six million years ago, are about 98% identical.

www.newscientist.com...

I suppose we haven't sequenced the macaque genome either...

........

Furthermore, if human and chimps are 98% identical, shouldn't we beable to use chimp organs in severe trauma patients? Scientists have been trying since the 60s to put chimp organs into people and it has never even almost worked, not once.

It doesn't really work with most human organs without pumping people full of drugs.

So the same science that says chimps are 98% human also say that humans share at least 25% of the genome with daffodils. Are you seriously trying to say that I am one quarter daffodil? Seriously?

Do you look 25% daffodil?

Maybe it means you have 25% of the genome of a daffodil. Only a fraction of the human genome actually codes for proteins, much of the rest is transposons and pseudogenes.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by melatonin]

Are you aware of what a draft sequence is? They aren't even remotely close to sequencing the entire chimp genome. The Rhesus monkey was completely sequenced. That's like saying a glass with 1/2 ounce of water is the same as a gallon jug of water. That's ignorant.

And you're right, only around 2% of the genome codes for proteins if I'm not mistaken. But now that you brought up the pseudogenes (which the majority of transposons are in) that is used so much in telling us about our evolutionary past, why doesn't it tell us much about comming from chimps.

Why are you even arguing about this? Use common sense.

It seems like science could have come up with a better theory..

Originally posted by alkali
Why are you even arguing about this? Use common sense.

I did. When you said the chimp genome had never been sequenced, I knew you were wrong. Even a draft sequence is a sequence, that's why they call it a sequence. Therefore, the chimpanzee genome has been sequenced.

The most recent assembly is 6x coverage of around 97% of the chimp genome. So using common sense, the 10 people in Russia analogy you used earlier was quite misleading.

Chimp genome 2006

www.ensembl.org...

[edit on 16-4-2007 by melatonin]