Evolution, It's only a theory

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I'm not trying to disprove anything!!!! I'm trying to prove to all of you guys that science is leaving God out of the equations (that were pre-conceived by Him), which means soon soon things are going to be way different. Same thing with the Pharaoh. No matter what Moses did the Pharaoh hardened his heart because Moses was the one taking the plague back by request. I show this and its still there by chance despite the statistics.

Sorry, but your Bible doesn't convince me. It's an anthology of stories told by men with agendas. Nothing more.

As for science, where do we put the step, "And then a miracle occurs"?

Originally posted by watchtheashes
I think you'll find that "you can find codes like that in any book" cannot be used as an argument against the codes.

But what does this argument say about the Bible codes? It says: they're nothing special. It would be freaky if you couldn't find any.

I bet we could find "This is a Hoax" from King James if we looked for it

[edit on 6-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


Yeah I'm sure you could actually, but in the King James version its different. The surface text is relevant to the encoded text beyond belief. Plus that phrase might not be statistically relevant to the matrix. That's what is important.

EDIT: That and the fact that King James didn't have a supercomputer.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by watchtheashes]

reply to post by Gawdzilla


When Maitreya comes down in his silvery space ship with some of his alien friends and starts healing people for show you'll think different. I assure you things will take place just like I've been saying if not worse. Its strange how when I was an (a is the prefix meaning not or opposite of)a-theist I would have just scoffed at everything I say now, but I believe this more than anything I have believed in my life. I would bet all the money that I won in a lottery if I won one on this.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
You don’t need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had? Are you sure about that Tex?

Yes. Here is an example.

Even in this article presented, they still don’t KNOW how many chromosomes it had. They only have an idea that it is a “low number”

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
red herrings are illogical and off topic, what I’ve been saying has hardly been either . . .

Nevertheless I showed that the truth value of your premises was incorrect. Hmm.. Straw man?

Something being illogical or logical is not dependant on whether the proposal is true or untrue. I’m allowed to be wrong, it doesn’t make me illogical.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
i didn’t say that they could definitely interbreed with us; I said that they could possibly produce fertile offspring with us.

So you said that they were possibly same species than us. Then you also said (if my memory serves me right) that they were exactly like us (might have been another member). Great.

I never use the word exactly when comparing two things. So I doubt that I said that.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Why should I attempt explain these things??? The only claim I have made is that your stance is conjectural.

Because they make a good case for evolution.

But I still don’t understand why the question is reliant upon me responding to it. Are you incapable of answering your own question?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Too bad that’s not what happened. What happened is evolutionists discovered 1 2 and 3 ex post facto and then said, “This fits with our theory.”

Bare assertion fallacy! Actually that's more than just a logical fallacy. That's a pure lie.

You see this telomere fusion event was hypothesized at least as early as 1982 (The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy: Science, Vol. 215, 19 March 1982). I'm sure with a little effort I could find earlier articles.

The discovery of those telomere sequences was announced in 1991 (Origin of human chromosome 2: An ancestral telomere-telomere fusion: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 88, October 1991).

What you sited does not show what you’re claiming. Find something that claims to have predicted that human chromosome 2 would have 2 centromeres and that telomere sequences would be at the centerish part of human chromosome 2 before it was discovered to be so and you might have a case.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Are you saying that some one hypothesized that we would discover 1 2 and 3 based on the evolutionary theory before 1 2 and 3 were actually discorvered? That would be amazingly strong evidence.

That's exactly what I said and that's exactly what I showed the case to be. You said it yourself, amazingly strong evidence.

You actually didn’t show that. The source you sited didn’t say anything about predicting that human chromosome 2 had 2 centromeres and that telomere sequences would be at the centerish part of human chromosome 2.

Consider yourself PWNED.

Did you seriously just say that?

Are you one of "us" now?

Definitely not.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
It’s also “exactly” what we’d expect to see if Aliens created us from chimps;
Or if G*d created all of these things;
Or if my pet dragon exists . . .

Bare assertion fallacies!*

None of these are bare assertion fallacies because they were unmistakably written in jest juxtaposed to your ridiculous assertion that something is EXACTLY anything other than itself.

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

When Maitreya comes down in his silvery space ship with some of his alien friends and starts healing people for show you'll think different. I assure you things will take place just like I've been saying if not worse. Its strange how when I was an (a is the prefix meaning not or opposite of)a-theist I would have just scoffed at everything I say now, but I believe this more than anything I have believed in my life. I would bet all the money that I won in a lottery if I won one on this.

You realize that all that stuff is simply a fantasy, don't you? It's a fiction constructed in your mind. Heaven's Gate had similar ideas. I hope you avoid going so far down that particular road, my friend.

Originally posted by JPhish
Even in this article presented, they still don’t KNOW how many chromosomes it had. They only have an idea that it is a “low number”

Lying won't take you far.

The actual number of chromosomes is difficult to ascertain. Nevertheless 10-14 chromosomes could be counted.

This sample was thought to be 115 million years old. The point here was that you don't need DNA for chromosome counting.

Originally posted by JPhish
Something being illogical or logical is not dependant on whether the proposal is true or untrue. I’m allowed to be wrong, it doesn’t make me illogical.

You intentionally misinterpreted my position. It's a Straw man. No way around it.

Originally posted by JPhish
But I still don’t understand why the question is reliant upon me responding to it. Are you incapable of answering your own question?

Oh, I can answer it: past evolution. Clear sign of it.

Originally posted by JPhish
What you sited does not show what you’re claiming. Find something that claims to have predicted that human chromosome 2 would have 2 centromeres and that telomere sequences would be at the centerish part of human chromosome 2 before it was discovered to be so and you might have a case.

Article 1:

The ancestral chromosome 2p is believed to have been similar to that of orangutan and gorilla, with a pericentric inversion accounting for chimpanzee 2p. The ancestral 2q, on the other hand, resembled that of gorilla and chimpanzee, and human chromosome 2 can be explained by fusion of a chimpanzee-like 2p and the ancestral 2q.

They saw evidence for this via chromosome banding. This suggested the very thing that was announced in

Article 2:

We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,-(CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomeretelomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

Originally posted by JPhish
You actually didn’t show that. The source you sited didn’t say anything about predicting that human chromosome 2 had 2 centromeres and that telomere sequences would be at the centerish part of human chromosome 2.

Your claim was (not actual words) that we discovered (kind of by accident) telomere sequences from center of chromosome 2 prior to predicting that they'd be there and then just said "ah this fits our theory". Caught red handed! This is the 2nd time you lied in your post.

None of these are bare assertion fallacies because they were unmistakably written in jest juxtaposed to your ridiculous assertion that something is EXACTLY anything other than itself.

Yet you offer them as plausible explanations. Hmm

p.s. Why did you ignore the other post of mine?

p.p.s. Are you aware that you've got a fanboy? This one member keeps on sending me the weirdest messages concerning your arguments.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


Um, that first part, you are being massively disengiune there. That sentence talks about how it's hard to count them but 10-14 of that unknown exact number CAN be counted.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Even in this article presented, they still don’t KNOW how many chromosomes it had. They only have an idea that it is a “low number”

Lying won't take you far.

The actual number of chromosomes is difficult to ascertain. Nevertheless 10-14 chromosomes could be counted.

This sample was thought to be 115 million years old. The point here was that you don't need DNA for chromosome counting.

Yes, and you don’t need a telescope to count stars either . . . I never said you needed DNA for chromosome counting, I alluded that you need DNA to KNOW how many chromosomes a creature had. I still stand by that.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Something being illogical or logical is not dependant on whether the proposal is true or untrue. I’m allowed to be wrong, it doesn’t make me illogical.

You intentionally misinterpreted my position. It's a Straw man. No way around it.

I didn’t intentionally misinterpret your position. I genuinely did. I can admit when i’ve made a mistake. What you just said IS wishful thinking (26) however.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
But I still don’t understand why the question is reliant upon me responding to it. Are you incapable of answering your own question?

Oh, I can answer it: past evolution. Clear sign of it.

I sincerely hope you’re not serious. That’s comparable to me saying “the flying spaghetti monster, clear sign of it.”

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
What you sited does not show what you’re claiming. Find something that claims to have predicted that human chromosome 2 would have 2 centromeres and that telomere sequences would be at the centerish part of human chromosome 2 before it was discovered to be so and you might have a case.

Article 1:

The ancestral chromosome 2p is believed to have been similar to that of orangutan and gorilla, with a pericentric inversion accounting for chimpanzee 2p. The ancestral 2q, on the other hand, resembled that of gorilla and chimpanzee, and human chromosome 2 can be explained by fusion of a chimpanzee-like 2p and the ancestral 2q.

They saw evidence for this via chromosome banding. This suggested the very thing that was announced in

Article 2:

We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome 2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG),,-(CCCTAA),,3'. Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13 and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomeretelomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

What you’ve shown did not predict anything. It’s comparable to me holding a pen above my desk, dropping it, hypothesizing that it falls because of fairies; then concluding 3 years later that the reason it falls is because there are indeed magic fairies that pull pens down. Doesn’t mean I predicted pen pulling fairies.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
You actually didn’t show that. The source you sited didn’t say anything about predicting that human chromosome 2 had 2 centromeres and that telomere sequences would be at the centerish part of human chromosome 2.

Your claim was (not actual words) that we discovered (kind of by accident) telomere sequences from center of chromosome 2 prior to predicting that they'd be there and then just said "ah this fits our theory". Caught red handed! This is the 2nd time you lied in your post.

What are you talking about . . . This is the second time you have poorly paraphrased my quotes to the point that they have new meaning in an apparent attempt to slur my true words. Try actually quoting me when you’re done beating up your straw man (27)

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
None of these are bare assertion fallacies because they were unmistakably written in jest juxtaposed to your ridiculous assertion that something is EXACTLY anything other than itself.

Yet you offer them as plausible explanations. Hmm

Something being plausible doesn’t make it true.

p.s. Why did you ignore the other post of mine?

I didn’t ignore it, I missed it, I will respond to it now.

p.p.s. Are you aware that you've got a fanboy? This one member keeps on sending me the weirdest messages concerning your arguments.

no

[edit on 5/8/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by JPhish

 

First of all let me congratulate you on derailing the discussion for so long.

You’re the one who refused to answer your own rhetorical question for 5 pages, not i.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhishIt was what you said but I changed it grammatically for clarification.

“Where is this lack of evidence shown? Certainly not in the fossil record, that's for sure.”
Paraphrased reads: no lack of evidence in the fossil record.
“There's plenty of evidence around.”
Paraphrased reads: there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record.

It reads: There is plenty of evidence around. But where is this lack of evidence seen? Well it's certainly not seen in the fossil record. I could have continued that this supposed lack of evidence is also not shown in comparative anatomy, genetics, biochemistry, geographical distribution of species, antibiotic resistance, etc., but I figured that this was not necessary.

You committed a fallacy there, I believe it's called Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I did not say: “There is no lack of evidence in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record”.. I said that there is no lack of evidence and that there certainly is no lack of evidence in the fossil record. Where did I exclude this evidence to only belonging to fossil record? This is needed for your accusation of my. Of course I did no such thing and thus you're guilty.

Ha, very nice ATTEMPT, though I am nearly certain that was not the original angle of your last sentence.

Regardless, it is still circular reasoning. Your last sentence (though it clearly was) doesn’t have to be directly referring to the fossil record for it to be circular reasoning. Even if what you said, grammatically reads. “There is certainly no lack of evidence shown in the fossil record, because there is plenty of evidence for everything.” That is still circular reasoning . . .

If I claim that “there is certainly no lack of water in my cup because there is plenty of water everywhere” that is circular reasoning.

Nice try though.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
. . . The question presupposes we had a common ancestor (loaded question) and that it had 23 OR 24 chromosomes. (False dichotomy)

Okay fine, you got me there. This should have been rather obvious from context but I guess I should have said: Question goes, how about our common ancestor that the theory predicts? Did it have 23 or 24 pairs of chromosomes? Are you satisfied now?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Explaining illogical fallacies with illogical fallacies doesn’t count.

You should know.

Should i?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
when did this happen?

In my post to which I've already given a link.

Oh the one that was one giant causal oversimplification? Or was it the one with all the wishful thinking? You'll have to be more specific because I’m losing track.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by JPhish
Oh I’m sorry; it’s not a bare assertion fallacy because you claim the evidence supporting your bare assertion fallacy is true? Are you serious?
This is what you’re essentially saying. “I have an undetectable pet dragon, he exists. You don’t understand him but I know he exists because he drinks Gatorade. You should believe he exists because Gatorade exists.”

Be more specific. What exactly is my bare assertion fallacy here? The way I see it you're just guilty of one more Straw man.

It’s no fault of mine that you’re quoting what I said out of context.

You said

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Well the answer is that after our species diverged, in our lineage two chromosomes fused together.

You gave absolutely no proof to how you could know this and then when on a tangent about telomere sequences not coding proteins.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
They have used evolutionary theory to predict what a certain fossil will look like when discovered, and been correct.

That’s not nearly the same thing. We know fossils exist. To claim to have predicted the way centromeres and telomeres would be, before telomores and centromeres were discovered as they were, is completely absurd.

You really should have some grounding in the science before you starting dissing it.

I love science and have a great aptitude for it. I’m in no way slandering science, only bad science that claims to have predicted things when it hasn’t.

BTW, immunologists use evolutionary theory to work on flu vaccines. "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." You may hate that, but it's a fact.

huh? "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." I might hate it if it were intelligible. What the heck were you trying to say?

Originally posted by JPhish

BTW, immunologists use evolutionary theory to work on flu vaccines. "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." You may hate that, but it's a fact.

huh? "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." I might hate it if it were intelligible. What the heck were you trying to say?

Just a typo, phishy one, just a typo. "Not" should read "Nothing". Sorry, I was laughing to hard to proof-read.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhish

BTW, immunologists use evolutionary theory to work on flu vaccines. "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." You may hate that, but it's a fact.

huh? "Not in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." I might hate it if it were intelligible. What the heck were you trying to say?

Just a typo, phishy one, just a typo. "Not" should read "Nothing". Sorry, I was laughing to hard to proof-read.

oh, sorry, haven't slept in a while.

Um, i'm pretty sure that lots of things make sense in biology without evolutionary theory, especially since biology preceded it . . .

My pen falling and hitting my desk when i drop it, makes sense regardless as to the reasons why it does so.

Originally posted by JPhishUm, i'm pretty sure that lots of things make sense in biology without evolutionary theory, especially since biology preceded it . . .

"Pretty sure"? Biologists are certain. They use evolutionary principles routinely. They predict how the next season's flu vaccine should be developed based on predictions made from those principles.

My pen falling and hitting my desk when i drop it, makes sense regardless as to the reasons why it does so.

Not really sure how that relates to evolution. Did your pen evolve to be attracted to the desktop?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


my point is, something making sense is not dependent on knowing the possible intricacies of its nature.

It's like postulating the creation and existence of our sun till now. Do we really need to understand the sun's intricacies for it to make sense? It brings us light, makes plants grow, keeps us warm, etc. oo. Sometimes things makes sense without drawn-out explanations.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

my point is, something making sense is not dependent on knowing the possible intricacies of its nature.

It's like postulating the creation and existence of our sun till now. Do we really need to understand the sun's intricacies for it to make sense? It brings us light, makes plants grow, keeps us warm, etc. oo. Sometimes things makes sense without drawn-out explanations.

"Making sense" is purely an opinion. Nothing more. Nothing "makes sense" in any real fashion. It either works or it doesn't. So, it makes sense that the world is flat. But that doesn't work.

BTW, in 99.9999% of the Universe, if you let go of your pen, it won't fall to your desk, it will simply remain where it was until acted upon by an outside force. There's not a lot of gravity that can be felt outside the galaxies.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

my point is, something making sense is not dependent on knowing the possible intricacies of its nature.

It's like postulating the creation and existence of our sun till now. Do we really need to understand the sun's intricacies for it to make sense? It brings us light, makes plants grow, keeps us warm, etc. oo. Sometimes things makes sense without drawn-out explanations.

"Making sense" is purely an opinion. Nothing more.

Don’t knock me for entertaining your subjective notion.

Nothing "makes sense" in any real fashion. It either works or it doesn't.

no, because some things work while remaining elusive to our understanding of them. we have the wonderful word "phenomenon" for such things.

So, it makes sense that the world is flat. But that doesn't work.

Yes it does in a lot of ways. Why doesn't it work?

BTW, in 99.9999% of the Universe, if you let go of your pen, it won't fall to your desk, it will simply remain where it was until acted upon by an outside force. There's not a lot of gravity that can be felt outside the galaxies.

OBVIOUSLY, but how is this relevant?

[edit on 5/9/2009 by JPhish]

You think that things are explained if they "make sense"? Things "make sense" when we're used to them happening that way, nothing more. The term itself is meaningless.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


meaningless??? i've always thought that something that "makes sense" is graspable; psychically and/or psychologically.

[edit on 5/9/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

meaningless??? i've always thought that something that "makes sense" is graspable; psychically and/or psychologically.

[edit on 5/9/2009 by JPhish]

It's purely subjective. "It just makes sense that whites are superior to blacks." "It just makes sense that voodoun is a satantic religion." Etc. Nothing more.