It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

page: 22
16
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
theory+gravity=opps


well now that you laid off smileys, there is even less stuff to ponder in your output here. Barren.




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
Look at "counter-clockwise" from the vantage point of EARTH. Since of course, we are the ones looking at them.

Just sayin..





posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldThinker
theory+gravity=opps


well now that you laid off smileys, there is even less stuff to ponder in your output here. Barren.


I'll spell it out for you since your english is limited ok?

"guessing" = theory

"Gravity" = Law

"ooppsss" = justification for a bad day...a deduction, a hypothesis, a swag

Now, may be please get back to the OP, are you denying 'common cause' as natural, random, inate 'within'?

Please cut with the attacking and let's have a discussion on the subject, or should I just abbreviate your name as BS?


Now that was a good one, sometimes I want to take notes on me



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




www.youtube.com...

I like this version!

RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
Look at "counter-clockwise" from the vantage point of EARTH. Since of course, we are the ones looking at them.


If I'm in North America and look up, my concept of clockwise would be the opposite from that in Australia.

There is not even a single axis of preference in the Universe, so you can't even speak of clockwise vs counter clock-wise.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
I'll spell it out for you since your english is limited ok?

"guessing" = theory

"Gravity" = Law

"ooppsss" = justification for a bad day...a deduction, a hypothesis, a swag


Sheesh... it looks like your English is more limited than mine.

An experiment can prove theories as correct or wrong. Semantically, you cannot "justify" a theory "with" a law. That's nonsense.

Now, I in fact understood what the poster said (I guess you didn't). They meant to use the verb "reconcile", and even then the construct is deficient. They meant to say that you can't reconcile the Big Bang Theory with observed pattern of rotation of galaxies. The problem with that statement is that the poster didn't specify what exactly is wrong with the galaxies rotation except it's "counter-clockwise", which is a pretty silly statement to start with.


Please cut with the attacking and let's have a discussion on the subject, or should I just abbreviate your name as BS?


Feel free. I'm trying to do some critical analysis here, and there is little to chew on except childish rant. Up the quality of your posts and then we can talk, if you have nothing to post, just refrain.


[edit on 17-8-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



and I think it's a lot better than "everything's random, screw you" or "A bearded deity did it, give me your money and don't have sex".

btw, God deosn't need your money and he created SEX, my frustrated poster


Not only did God created sex. He said : Go forth and multiply. So, unless were advanced enough to be able to clone themselves. I'd say he was talking about sex.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Lol, stop and reconsider what you're trying to explain to me. Just think it over one more time.

Are you honestly under the impression that a distant galaxy viewed under a telescope would appear to rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, but would appear to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere???

Think it over one last time.. please.

Lol



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Lol, stop and reconsider what you're trying to explain to me. Just think it over one more time.

Are you honestly under the impression that a distant galaxy viewed under a telescope would appear to rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere, but would appear to rotate clockwise in the southern hemisphere???

Think it over one last time.. please.

Lol


You can't see the galaxy through Earth, of course. What I tried to express is this: definition of clockwise vs counter-clockwise depends on your choice of axis. You didn't specify yours.

Imagine a clock made of glass, so you can see the hands from a few different directions. Flip is around. What was clockwise is now counter-clockwise.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OldThinker
You see, 94% of ALL data and the outcome of variability has at its root a statistical thing called…you ready?


how can 99% of human dna be chimpanzee dna. then according to you humans are 99% chimpanzee dna and 1% human. so we should look all look 99% chimp and 1% human. obviously if you have a mirror you can see thats not true.

You see, 99% of human DNA is chimpanzee. Additionally, in non-Africans 1-4% of homo sapiens sapiens DNA is Neanderthal. I wonder why the bible left out the part about how we evolved from other species and mated with other now extinct hominid species. I mean, since the bible is true and all.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OldThinker
You see, 94% of ALL data and the outcome of variability has at its root a statistical thing called…you ready?


how can 99% of human dna be chimpanzee dna. then according to you humans are 99% chimpanzee dna and 1% human. so we should look all look 99% chimp and 1% human. obviously if you have a mirror you can see thats not true.

You see, 99% of human DNA is chimpanzee. Additionally, in non-Africans 1-4% of homo sapiens sapiens DNA is Neanderthal. I wonder why the bible left out the part about how we evolved from other species and mated with other now extinct hominid species. I mean, since the bible is true and all.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
You see, 99% of human DNA is chimpanzee. Additionally, in non-Africans 1-4% of homo sapiens sapiens DNA is Neanderthal. I wonder why the bible left out the part about how we evolved from other species and mated with other now extinct hominid species. I mean, since the bible is true and all.


Nope, have you seen what David DeWitt published? "A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4

Specific examples of these differences include:

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.

In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared."

Sources:

1. Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241-246.

2. Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.

3. Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134.

4. Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13.

5. Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434.

6. Heyer, E., Zietkeiwicz, E., Rochowski, A., Yotova, V., Puymirat, J., and Labuda D. 2001. ‘Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutation in deep-rooting pedigrees.’ Am J Hum Genet 69:1113-1126.

7. Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314.

8. Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J., and Deninger, P.L. 1996. ‘DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement.’ Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4360-4364.

9.Parsons T.J., Muniec, D.S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, N., Alliston-Greiner, R., Wilson, M.R., Berry, D.L., Holland, K.A., Weedn, V.W., Gill, P., and M.M. Holland. 1997. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat. Genet. 15:363-368.

10. Sigurgardottir, S., Helgason, A., Gulcher, J.R., Stefansson, K., and Donnelly P. 2000. ‘The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region.’ Am J Hum Genet 66:1599-1609.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname


You see, 99% of human DNA is chimpanzee.


??

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross

Source: Haldane's Dilemma recognizes the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7x1011 years of human-like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference. There has simply been insufficient time for ape-like creatures to turn into humans. And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic) - most real genes. See W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215-217.

answers: www.christiananswers.net...



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by randomname


You see, 99% of human DNA is chimpanzee.


??

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all!


It doesn't "mean" that, in a sense that it's not an exclusive and definite proof, but damn good extra evidence it is. And by the way, mice share 85% of genetic material with humans... Since you are a fan of '%', you sure must appreciate that:


Of mice and men

If you correlate % of shared genetic material with the time line of the species development (i.e. rodents existed before primates according to fossil records), that's a pretty compelling picture.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Okay, fine, you don't like the fact that there are galaxies that rotate counter-clockwise from other galaxies? That's fine, I won't press you to grasp that glaring contradiction to the laws of Physics. Let's just look at several things in our OWN solar system that also prove the Big bang theory ridiculous.

"The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards (Retrograde Motion). If something spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). The Big Bang explains Retrograde Motion as cosmic impacts on planets that have stopped and then reversed the spin. This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.

Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some natural satellites have a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have satellites orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?"


God created these planets to spin counter-clockwise, and some of their satellites to orbit counter-clockwise to make the big bang theory look absurd. And I agree, based on simple laws of Physics the theory IS utterly absurd.

SOURCE



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldThinker
theory+gravity=opps


well now that you laid off smileys, there is even less stuff to ponder in your output here. Barren.


I'll spell it out for you since your english is limited ok?

"guessing" = theory

"Gravity" = Law

"ooppsss" = justification for a bad day...a deduction, a hypothesis, a swag

Now, may be please get back to the OP, are you denying 'common cause' as natural, random, inate 'within'?

Please cut with the attacking and let's have a discussion on the subject, or should I just abbreviate your name as BS?


Now that was a good one, sometimes I want to take notes on me


Ouch, big issue here. A scientific theory is NOT a "guess", a guess in science would be more accurately described by the term "hypothesis". A scientific theory has massive explanatory power and is very well substantiated, it stands up to great deals of scrutiny. In science a law describes, a theory explains. This page describes the relationship between law and theory as well as the colloquial use of the word "theory" vs "scientific theory" quite well.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
www.astronomycafe.net...

Clockwise rotation of Venus and Uranus could be the result of a collision.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Which is all fine and well if you believe that our little solar system is a vestial virgin, never having been remade since the beginning of time. My GUESS and GUESS only is that this isn't the first rodeo for our little bucket of stardust; which could explain some of the impossible physics you are describing.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   
What is wrong about the rotation of galaxies? I think their axes of rotation should be more or less random. Are they not?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
Ouch, big issue here. A scientific theory is NOT a "guess", a guess in science would be more accurately described by the term "hypothesis". A scientific theory has massive explanatory power and is very well substantiated, it stands up to great deals of scrutiny. In science a law describes, a theory explains. This page describes the relationship between law and theory as well as the colloquial use of the word "theory" vs "scientific theory" quite well.



Big issue huh?

Websters defines theory as "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another."

And one of the synonyms is hypothesis

www.merriam-webster.com...

I was merely trying to explain to a poster that admitted he struggled with english...

did you have a comment on the OP?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join