Dear Anti-Evolutionists: Human & Bonobo Genomes Differ By 1.3%

[neatofrito1618]

Macroevolution is observable and is not debated on either side.

What's ironic is proof of God and a creator is too obvious. Ponder that for a moment. We, as humans, tend to over analyze. Its part of who we are. People are always claiming 'where is the proof of God'? It's all around us. It is so ridiculously obvious that people just overlook what is in front of them. You will never find God if you are trying to find Him through 'science' because by doing so you are missing the point entirely.

God is so much bigger than cosmoscience - which is a man-made system and is ultimately futile to finding the objective answers.

So to be stuck in this roundabout world of finding 'proof' through the 'scientific method' will get you no where in terms of finding God. If you want to know how real God is, just ask Him. His name is Jesus and if you ask wholeheartedly He will answer you. But don't expect Him to reveal himself to you if you are constantly denying and rejecting Him.

And the truth is, as an atheist, you don't want to know Him. You will cling to every analysis, evidence, theory or study you can to justify Him not being there. At least Christians believe in something tangible. Even if they are wrong about eternity, its a much better scenario than an atheist being wrong about eternity (hate to go there, but I did).

Why do you think atheists are so vigorous and aggressive in trying to prove that there is no God? If He was truly was non-existent, I could think of much better battles to choose.

Out.

Please expand on the claim that there is evidence of a 'creator' everywhere. I WANT to be Christian, why the **** would I or anyone else want to spend all of eternity in hell if we could instead live infinitely in heaven? I really don't think those of us that are Agnostic/Athiest WANT there to be no 'God', it's just really the only rational way to comprehend the natural world/universe once you understand science.

How do you rationalize the fact that 93% of Scientists are Athiest/Agnostic and 99+% are Evolutionists? Are you of the belief that the world's greatest minds are Satanic and attempting to turn the general population away from their lord and savior?

 

[wurd2]

God is so much bigger than [cosmology]...

God represents a celestial dictatorship like an eternal North Korea. Cosmology, on the other hand, has shown us that we are physically connected to the cosmos in ways we never dreamed.

At least Christians believe in something tangible.

If God was tangible, we could investigate Him scientifically.

Why do you think atheists are so vigorous and aggressive...?

The parties of god inspire us to action.

.

 

[germeezy1]

Actually a very good post. It is a shame that many Christians that I've encountered don't necessarily represent their beliefs the same way. I consider myself agnostic but lean toward atheism because of them. I just can't agree with following the bible wholeheartedly, believing it to be complete truth yet picking and choosing what they feel to be God's will. You want to shun homosexuality because the bible condemns it, yet you aren't stoning your children and keeping slaves. And for those take everything literal and can't see the moral lessons offered, I feel sorry for you (see Noah's Ark).

I have heavily researched the thought that I myself once fought against of the existence of God. It has been proven to me in many ways, and it sounds like you unlike most Atheist/ Agnostic people are at least open to the idea that there is a God. When your mind is absolutely made up about something it will find ways, and reasons to justify that.

 

[wurd2]

...scientists...have been theorizing...and will continue to make theories until the end of time.

If it was not for scientific theory, the fastest means of transportation you could hope to own would be a horse.

:bash:

.

 

[carrrnuttt]

I don't have the patience to debate some of the 3rd grade logic some of the "believers" have presented in here, but I do want to make a point of showing this:

[youtube_browser]ocPeJn_hJpk[/youtube_browser]

The degree of derision some of you believers have for that lady is proportional to how the rest of rational, critical-thinking society views you guys. Yes, you'll probably take this derision as some kind of call to martyrdom and go about your usual "Christians are such victims" whine/rant routine, but oh well.

FYI, I've said this before, and I'll say this again: I was born and baptized as a Catholic, went to Catholic school and became a Jesuit pre-Novice (loved the missionary work). I was baptized as a Born-Again Christian as a 14-15yo, and baptized Southern Baptist as a young, impressionable 18yo Airman in the USAF.

I've been around the block, even studied Theology a bit (when I was a pre-Novice--the earliest step to becoming a priest), and I can tell you that the more I learned, even in Theology, the less I believed what I refer to as the Greatest Long Con in Human History.

Anywho, I'll just repeat my post from the funny thread:

 

[devin1986]

I don't have the...

I assume that was just an attempt to rile people up, but there was nothing of value in that post.

 

[wurd2]

...something as ridiculous as calling a THEORY fact.

...[evolution] has never been proven as fact...

A fact in science is an observation. They are a dime a dozen.

A theory in science is an explanation that provides a unifying framework for the set of facts that concern a particular phenomenon. A scientific theory must yield risky and specific predictions that can be experimentally verified with the scientific method. A single failed prediction is all it takes to disconfirm a theory.

A scientific theory, especially one like evolution that has survived the cutting board for over 150 years, is based on THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of FACTS at this point—and more pour in on a daily basis.

Look at it this way:
Atomic theory will never be referred to as atomic fact.

.

 

[danbogart]

I have heavily researched the thought that I myself once fought against of the existence of God. It has been proven to me in many ways, and it sounds like you unlike most Atheist/ Agnostic people are at least open to the idea that there is a God. When your mind is absolutely made up about something it will find ways, and reasons to justify that.

I've read the bible multiple times cover to cover (King James Version once and NIV twice) and was raised in a very religious family. The problem I have had with ORGANIZED religion is that they push THEIR interpretation of the bible on the congregation. To me its my responsibility to understand and interpret what I'm reading. I have NEVER been to a church where passages of the bible weren't taken out of context just to push the churches point home, NEVER. I made a decision in my teenage years that I wanted to learn more before I made a decision on what path I wanted to take in life. What I have found over the past 10+ years, is that MY path really hasn't been all that bad. Have I taken some good lessons on morality (even though the majority is focused on immorality) from the bible, yes. And as far as creationism and evolution, maybe I'm odd, but I see both. How it breaks down for me:
1. Is there some sort of intelligent design (hate that term, but using it anyways)? Honestly to me, it's possible.
2. Do I believe the bible to be gods word and an absolute truth? Hell no.
3. Do I think believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? Nope.
4. Do I believe that the human species has evolved to where we currently are and will continue to evolve (if we dont kill each other first)? Absolutely
5. Do I believe in an afterlife (heaven and hell)? Unfortunately, No.
6. Is my lack of belief in eternal damnation going to send me out in the streets shooting people just because I can without penalty? Mayyyyyyyyyybbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeee.

 

[carrrnuttt]

I assume that was just an attempt to rile people up, but there was nothing of value in that post.

I can tell you what has value. Your tithes:

 

[suaveflooder]

You act as if vehicles were ALWAYS built the way we do now.

Someone over time had to figure out the best combination of parts at their disposal to get the best results.

Look back and see how just the internal combustion engine itself was started and evolved. Hell, it used to be steam that moved a piston that pushed down on a rod that moved a crankshaft that turned the wheels.

Then look back at every other component that we use today and how it was back in the early 1900's.

The first automobile in the world.

Todays automobile.

Yeah, the Bugatti Veyron didnt just pop out of a box one day after being shaken. Its a result of YEARS of change, research, development; evolution.




Your intelligent creater is dumb as shit then, theres nothing intelligent about anything, especially humans.

We are seriously 1% away from dumb as rock apes, but that 1% gives us those abilities to look at our surroundings and think the way we do.

This portion of your posts screams of an intelligent creator. The flaw in your argument is that these cars didn't just build themselves. They had PEOPLE influencing what direction they went in.....they didn't happen by accident. They were intentionally thought out and perfected over time. An "intelligent designer" came up with better ways of making the basics function. Turning the first car into something that is so complex that most humans can't comprehend the technology involved.

If I show you an engine. Any engine, would you tell me it just randomly built itself? You would (logically of course) conclude that there was a designer and a builder. It's complex (even a simple engine) and perfectly formed to perform as the designer wanted it to.

There are parts of our cells that look like outboard motors....quite literally actually. So "logically" you would say that "motor" was created. Sadly, most of us don't like thinking that there is someone bigger than us, so of course, it couldn't be God. So these "outboard motors" attached to these parts/transporters in our sells couldn't possibly have been designed.....they happened randomly. I know you're smart....I've seen it, so hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.

Darwin's theory of evolution assumed that cells were nothing more than a blob of jelly. With the lack of technology back then he would never have guessed at the complexity that is actually involved in each cell. The more science advances and the more we are able to see, the more complex cells become. These tiny "blobs of jelly" are actually factories made up of thousands of parts. As technology increases, I'm sure we will only open up more that we don't know.

 

[devin1986]

I can tell you what has value. Your tithes:

I'm actually not a practicing Christian, but thanks for the cluster **** of memes. Another great contribution to the thread.

 

[carrrnuttt]

This portion of your posts screams of an intelligent creator. The flaw in your argument is that these cars didn't just build themselves. They had PEOPLE influencing what direction they went in.....they didn't happen by accident. They were intentionally thought out and perfected over time. An "intelligent designer" came up with better ways of making the basics function. Turning the first car into something that is so complex that most humans can't comprehend the technology involved.

If I show you an engine. Any engine, would you tell me it just randomly built itself? You would (logically of course) conclude that there was a designer and a builder. It's complex (even a simple engine) and perfectly formed to perform as the designer wanted it to.

There are parts of our cells that look like outboard motors....quite literally actually. So "logically" you would say that "motor" was created. Sadly, most of us don't like thinking that there is someone bigger than us, so of course, it couldn't be God. So these "outboard motors" attached to these parts/transporters in our sells couldn't possibly have been designed.....they happened randomly. I know you're smart....I've seen it, so hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.

Darwin's theory of evolution assumed that cells were nothing more than a blob of jelly. With the lack of technology back then he would never have guessed at the complexity that is actually involved in each cell. The more science advances and the more we are able to see, the more complex cells become. These tiny "blobs of jelly" are actually factories made up of thousands of parts. As technology increases, I'm sure we will only open up more that we don't know.

Feel free to point me to the direction of the divine creature, surgeon or someone else that built and assembled you from scratch. I've seen footage of cell mitosis, and I don't remember a "cell mechanic" being needed to divide and recombine the cells.

With that being said, feel free to regale us with your expertise that proves that amino acids that could even be found on comets couldn't have possibly come together in the chain needed to build the earliest cells without guidance.

 

[carrrnuttt]

I'm actually not a practicing Christian, but thanks for the cluster **** of memes. Another great contribution to the thread.

Just putting it in terms a 3rd grader would understand. You *did* get them, right?

 

[devin1986]

Just putting it in terms a 3rd grader would understand. You *did* get them, right?

What is "them" supposed to be? What I'm saying is that despite your numerous posts in this thread, you haven't actually made a point or added anything to the conversation. I'll just assume that the regurgitated memes are a poor attempt at trollling until proven otherwise.

I'll check this in the morning. I'm expecting... "herp de durp durp... are you 2 stupid to understand my inability to make a meaningful argument? Derp derp... ". Please don't disappoint me.

 

[wurd2]

There are parts of our cells that look like outboard motors....quite literally actually...So these "outboard motors" attached to these parts/transporters in our sells couldn't possibly have been designed.....they happened randomly.

The bacterial flagellum is a component bacterial cells use to swim around. It is quite complex and absolutely resembles an outboard motor. Michael J. Behe, a thoroughly discredited biologist, argued years ago that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, a term he coined by the way. Behe wrote a book for the public on the matter and after it gained the attention of scientists, they went to work on figuring out how the bacterial flagellum evolved. They discovered that it is composed of 26 distinct proteins, all of which individually serve other functions in the bacterial cell. As fate had it, their work—documented in a series of peer-reviewed scientific publications—was presented to Behe while he was on the stand in a court of law during the recent Dover v. Pennsylvania trial. He was forced to concede that the bacterial flagellum did indeed evolve. He was also forced to concede that in order for intelligent design to be considered science, the definition of science would have to be loosened to the point of including astrology.

.

 

[NEp8ntballer]

if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

because despite man's best efforts they still fill an ecological niche and have the resources to support a population. Take away the habitat and resources and you can make anything extinct if it can't adapt quickly enough.

if you look around at everything that surrounds us and thinks its all an accident, i don't know what to tell you.

read a book by a scientist like Stephen Hawking instead of the wisdom of goat herders from 2000+ years ago. Or one of the books on evolution by Dawkins like The Blind Watchmaker would be a good read as well.

you don't just take a crank, cams, pistons, rods, rings, bearings, heads, intake manifolds ect. put them in a box, shake it around and BAM a modular pops out. it is assembled, with wisdom and insight for a purpose.

way to repurpose the watchmaker argument, so this one doesn't even dignify a response

the facts of how EXACT our universe is, our planet it all points to an intelligent creator. our genome maybe "only" 1.3% different but as creation we are VASTLY different. apes don't look at their surroundings and wonder. they don't "think". yes the are smart, but even compared to a little child they pale in comparison.

Humans are not special. Do you really think that a 14 billion light year wide universe exists soley for a human population to exist on a rock that is microscopic in scale to our very own GALAXY let alone the universe and that this creator set it up to create life on this little blue marble?

thats not what i said at all. the engine example is more related t the big bang theory.

it's still a fallacy of equivocation. You can't compare a man made item to the universe.

Do apes wonder about the purpose of life? do they imagine, wonder, pray, look for answers. no. they have thinking abilities, but not much BEYOND basic problem solving.

What is the purpose of life oh great knowing one?(inbefore43) We are one of the few species that we know of that are aware of our own mortality... And when you get down to it we all come from a long line of successful ancestors and our purpose in life is to pass these genes on to our descendants(read The Selfish Gene)

you can teach certain breeds of dogs amazing things, animals are smart but in comparison with humanity its not even close.

the size of our brain in relation to our bodies and especially the size of our cerebrum help us the most in our ability to conduct high level thinking.

you can teach a 5 year old child multiple languages. SOME apes can learn basic sign language.

im not here to change anyones view, imho if you disregard the thought of a creator i feel bad for you.

I feel sorry for you because I find this wonderful accident of a universe much more amazing because of it than if it was created by magic.

is that not one in the same?:dw:

no... Sharing a common ancestor is like having the same great-great-great grandparents not that we came from our cousin

TL;DR: educate yourself you twit

An intelligent creator and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

no, but one does not need the other and there is no need to invoke a designer/creator so why have one? Also, Occam's razor.

Evolutionists see these similarities and use them to support their Theory of Evolution (which has never been proven as fact, BTW). I see these similarities as evidence of a common designer. We could spin this all day long.

This shows me that you don't understand the enormous weight behind a scientific theory and are thus entirely unable to properly form an opinion on the subject due to a fundamental misunderstanding of science as a whole.

What started the big bang? What came before? What initiated it? Where does our moral compass come from?

We don't know, which is much more admirable to claiming that some omnipotent being did it and refusing to search for a good answer. We don't know where the christian god comes from but that leap in faith hasn't stopped billions of people. Although many now agree that god came from the imagination of man...

Even the world leader of the Atheist Religion (Richard Dawkins) is on record saying that we were probably planted here through 'some sort' of intelligent design. Most atheists playing 'follow the leader' do not know this.

prove it, please...

What is also interesting is that many of the world's leading scientists won't even say with certainty that there is no God, (yet all of their followers are absolutely sure of it).

as a person holding a Biology degree I will tell you that the reason why is quite simple, it is extremely arrogant to be sure of anything. Especially when it comes to the existence of something that cannot be proven due to lack of evidence.

Neil degrasse Tyson, for example - as anti-religious as he is - does not rule out the possibility of a higher power. Also it should be noted that 40% of 'productive' scientists believe in a personal God. Furthermore, most of the world's population believe in some sort of God, including a vast majority of Americans.

The American lead for the Human Genome Project believes in the christian god. I don't know how, but he can reconcile it. It doesn't make him any better or worse at his job as long as he can check his faith at the door in the search for deepening human understanding.

So - to say that you just don't know is one thing - but to say with absolute certainty that there is no possible way God could exist is pure ignorance.

but to stand here and preach to the stance that there is a God, well that's entirely different...

Of course their not. But typically non-believers will cling to the 'Theory of Evolution' to self-justify their reason for not believing in a creator. It is shaky ground to stand on IMO. History has shown us that this 'theory' is constantly evolving itself.

I have more than just Evolution on my side for why the religion(especially the Christian religion) is bullshit.

Science can not prove nor disprove the existence of a god. The theory of evolution does not necessarily disprove an intelligent designer either. Now the stupid ID theory that pretends to be science and fights the theory of evolution at every step needs to go away because it's flat out embarrassing. Evolution is observable, it has a substantial amount of tangible evidence and it adheres to the practices of true science. ID theory and creationism do not.

If it wasn't for people trying to reconcile their faith with what we know to be true Intelligent Design wouldn't even exist.

The worst part is that evolution can easily be accepted among the religious if they would only consider it was a tool used by their creator. Instead they had to align themselves against science because they felt insulted at the notion that humans share a similar ancestors as apes. Evolution can easily coexist with the book of Genesis, and it doesn't even have to have a crazy liberal translation to do it.

Literal word of god... Where literal doesn't mean shit...

Macroevolution is observable and is not debated on either side.

then what's debated? Macroevolution is the formation of a new species while microevolution is changes in a population where certain traits are selected for causing genetic shifts...

What's ironic is proof of God and a creator is too obvious. Ponder that for a moment. We, as humans, tend to over analyze. Its part of who we are. People are always claiming 'where is the proof of God'? It's all around us. It is so ridiculously obvious that people just overlook what is in front of them. You will never find God if you are trying to find Him through 'science' because by doing so you are missing the point entirely.

yep, you have all the answers...

God is so much bigger than cosmoscience - which is a man-made system and is ultimately futile to finding the objective answers.

You mean Cosmology? That thing that is one of the most happening fields right now and is quickly breaking down the last bastions of ignorance that we have about our universe and how it came to be thus further killing the 'wisdom' of the bible?

So to be stuck in this roundabout world of finding 'proof' through the 'scientific method' will get you no where in terms of finding God. If you want to know how real God is, just ask Him. His name is Jesus and if you ask wholeheartedly He will answer you. But don't expect Him to reveal himself to you if you are constantly denying and rejecting Him.

And to think of all those poor Hindus, Muslims and Jews that will never know God...

And the truth is, as an atheist, you don't want to know Him. You will cling to every analysis, evidence, theory or study you can to justify Him not being there. At least Christians believe in something tangible. Even if they are wrong about eternity, its a much better scenario than an atheist being wrong about eternity (hate to go there, but I did).

Pascal's wager? You're just full of shitty arguments aren't you? There are thousands of religions and you have all your chips in one basket, if you're wrong you're no better off than I am...

Why do you think atheists are so vigorous and aggressive in trying to prove that there is no God? If He was truly was non-existent, I could think of much better battles to choose.

because I find religion to be abhorrent and brings out the worst qualities in man. Nobody has ever done anything more vigorously than in the name of their chosen god.

Out.

Yay!

 

[suaveflooder]

Feel free to point me to the direction of the divine creature, surgeon or someone else that built and assembled you from scratch. I've seen footage of cell mitosis, and I don't remember a "cell mechanic" being needed to divide and recombine the cells.

With that being said, feel free to regale us with your expertise that proves that amino acids that could even be found on comets couldn't have possibly come together in the chain needed to build the earliest cells without guidance.

Wow....speaking of a third grader. You too tired to read? My point is simply this. Look at a cell. The entire cell down to the smallest parts we can see and you see complexity.

You're still looking at the big picture. Like a child, you don't want to know what makes it work and what parts create the "engine," you are too focused on the engine itself, or a head, or a camshaft. Bigger pictures that, they in themselves, have a lot of engineering involved to make them work.

What formed the amino acids?

"Nothing can come from nothing or else it would be something"

The bacterial flagellum is a component bacterial cells use to swim around. It is quite complex and absolutely resembles an outboard motor. Michael J. Behe, a thoroughly discredited biologist, argued years ago that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, a term he coined by the way. Behe wrote a book for the public on the matter and after it gained the attention of scientists, they went to work on figuring out how the bacterial flagellum evolved. They discovered that it is composed of 26 distinct proteins, all of which individually serve other functions in the bacterial cell. As fate had it, their work—documented in a series of peer-reviewed scientific publications—was presented to Behe while he was on the stand in a court of law during the recent Dover v. Pennsylvania trial. He was forced to concede that the bacterial flagellum did indeed evolve. He was also forced to concede that in order for intelligent design to be considered science, the definition of science would have to be loosened to the point of including astrology.

.

Once again wurd2, you add nothing. I love the copy and paste job you did. Just too "intellectually lazy?"

Here's another cut and paste job for you,

"In the past hundred years science has learned much more about the cell and, especially in the past fifty years, much about the molecular basis of life. The discoveries of the double helical structure of DNA, the genetic code, the complicated, irregular structure of proteins, and much else have given us a greater appreciation for the elaborate structures that are necessary to sustain life.

"Indeed, we have seen that the cell is run by machines—literally, machines made of molecules. There are molecular machines that enable the cell to move, machines that empower it to transport nutrients, machines that allow it to defend itself."..........

............."Second, a more subtle problem is how the parts assemble themselves into a whole. The analogy to an outboard motor fails in one respect: an outboard motor is generally assembled under the direction of a human—an intelligent agent that can specify which parts are attached to which other parts. The information for assembling a bacterial flagellum, however, (or, indeed, all other biomolecular machines) resides in the component proteins of the structure itself. Recent work shows that the assembly process for a flagellum is exceedingly elegant and intricate. (Yonekura et al. 2000) If that assembly information is absent from the proteins, then no flagellum is produced. Thus, even if we had a hypothetical cell in which proteins homologous to all of the parts of the flagellum were present (perhaps performing jobs other than propulsion), but were missing the information on how to assemble themselves into a flagellum, we would still not get the structure. The problem of irreducibility would remain."

 

[danbogart]

That is what drives me absolutely nuts. The fact that it always comes down to, "well even if evolution may be evident, it had to start somewhere". Is that really why some people choose religion? And if so, how do you know you're picking the RIGHT creator?

 

[suaveflooder]

That is what drives me absolutely nuts. The fact that it always comes down to, "well even if evolution may be evident, it had to start somewhere". Is that really why some people choose religion? And if so, how do you know you're picking the RIGHT creator?

It's a double edged sword....going both ways, which is why this argument is so stupid. There is no "proof" of either theory. This argument will go on as long as man lives.

Your flaw is that evolution is not evident. There are bits and pieces that point toward evolution, but science can't come up with any hard facts. You have BIG jumps in the evolutionary line. Periods of simple creatures and then all of a sudden fully complex creatures within a couple million years. I know that sounds like a long time, but for the complexity to arise that is shown in the fossil record, it's impossible. It really is a blink of an eye in the case of the evolutionary line.

Darwins whole theory relies on step by step changes that we simply haven't found. They are HUGE leaps of change that we are finding.

Like I mentioned above, this argument is ludicrous. It's simply the OP trolling trying to ruffle some feathers. It always dies out as the arguments go in circles. There are "facts" on both sides, but in the end, both sides need a little "faith" in their theory.

 

[Mr.Bolt-on]

Dear Evolutionists, about 98% of the entire genome is still undeciphered and like children evolutionists are so lazy they call it junk... Idiots.