Possible key human evolution genes identified

[RandomGuy]

Possible key human evolution genes identified
By Jeremy Lovell
40 minutes ago

LONDON (Reuters) - They could be the missing links of human genetic evolution -- areas of human DNA that changed dramatically after the evolutionary division from chimpanzees, though they had remained almost unchanged for millennia before.

Scientists from the United States, Belgium and France identified 49 "human accelerated regions" (HARs) showing a lot of genetic activity.

In the most active, identified as HAR1, they found 18 out of the 118 nucleotides had changed since evolutionary separation from chimps some 6 million years ago, while only two had changed in the 310 million years separating the evolutionary lines of chimps and chickens.

"Right now we have very suggestive evidence that it might be involved at a critical step in brain development, but we still need to prove that it really makes a difference," team leader David Haussler from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the University of California, Santa Cruz told Reuters.

Other members of the team came from the University of Brussels and Universite Claude Bernard in France.

"It is very exciting to use evolution to look at regions of our genome that haven't been explored yet," Haussler said.

"It is extremely unlikely that the evolution of just one region in the genome made the difference between our brains and the brains of non-human primates," he said.

"It is much more likely to be a series of many, many small changes, each very important, but none doing the entire job by itself," he added.

HAR1 is part of a novel RNA gene HAR1F that is produced during the key formative period for the human brain from seven to 19 weeks of gestation.

Not only that, but the RNA is produced by the Cajal-Retzius neuron that plays a crucial role in the six layers of neurons in the human cortex.

"We still can't say much about the function. But it's a very exciting finding because it is expressed in cells that have a fundamental role in the design and development of the mammalian cortex," Haussler said, noting the need to investigate the remaining 48 HARs.

The findings were published on Wednesday in the science journal Nature. Chris Ponting of Oxford University wrote in the same issue hailing it as a possible major step forward.

"Previously, the hunt for changes in DNA that are causally linked to human-specific biology had concentrated on differences that would alter the amino-acid make-up of the encoded protein," Ponting wrote.

"Now it would seem that searches within the functional non-coding 'dark matter' might be more enlightening," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/sc_nm/science_evolution_dc

It will be very enlightening to see what we will learn about our brains and how they work from this.

[DarkReign]

Queue Boa in 3....2....1....

:lmao

It still seems this team should have sat on this story for awhile. Test it out thoroughly before going public.

Another "premature ejaculation" as someone so eloquently put it.

[boutons_]

"areas of human DNA that changed dramatically after the evolutionary division from chimpanzees, though they had remained almost unchanged for millennia before."

It's Divine intervention's invisible Hand stoopig to muck around in our DNA!!

The evidence FOR (human) evolution is piling up at astonishing rate from DNA and other micro-biological studies, while the evidence FOR literal Genesis cosmology from the childish Bible-thumpers and their Bible-scientists (akin to Repug scientists or Russian scientists) is absent.

"My pastor done told me it's so, so I believe it" ain't gonna make into to scientific journals any time soon. But it might make the 700 Club show or TBN.

[101A]

Human's are very likely are the result of evolution.

God created Humans.

I believe both of these statements.

[101A]

"while the evidence FOR literal Genesis cosmology from the childish Bible-thumpers and their Bible-scientists (akin to Repug scientists or Russian scientists) is absent.



The more impossibly complex and elegent we learn life and the universe is, the more, I believe, the existence of a creator is established.

[boutons_]

I believe in a Creator, too, just that He/She/It has been spectating since He/She/It set off the Big Bang, which according to Vedic cosmology is about the 40th in a series of Big Bangs.

[RandomGuy]

Human's are very likely are the result of evolution.

God created Humans.

I believe both of these statements.

I agree.

[smeagol]

I believe in a Creator, too, just that He/She/It has been spectating since He/She/It set off the Big Bang, which according to Vedic cosmology is about the 40th in a series of Big Bangs.
So, because this is what you believe, everybody else should also believe it?

At heart, you are a facist.

[midgetonadonkey]

What idiot would believe a scientist over a 3000 year old, many times translated, book of text? Fucking morons believing in science.

[boutons_]

"because this is what you believe, everybody else should also believe it?"

Not my position at all, but typical tactic and error from you right-wing, extremist "religious" assholes.

I believe what I want to believe, but I don't mount political campagns to force my beliefs to be taught as hard science to public school children, like you religious fascists do. I also try to make sure my beliefs are consistent with, or at least not in total conflict with rational science and logic and hard evidence.

And I figure that there is One Reality. When science and a belief are totally at odds, one of them is very probably totally wrong. In the past serveral 100 years, as rationalism and science of the Enlightement dispelled the religiously dominated Dark Ages, it has been the religious beliefs that have been shown to have been totally wrong (astrology, flat earth, geocentrism, etc).

Note that Vedantic cosmology of an oscillating universe, which was arrived at by intuition rather than rational science, is in not in conflict with Big Bang theory, whereas the Bible thumpers' 6-day Genesis cosmology is laughably absurd and evidence-free.

[BIG IRISH]

http://news.aol.com/strange/story/_a/scientist-tests-anti-stupidity-pill/n20060807125109990003?cid=936
BERLIN (Aug. 7) - A German scientist has been testing an "anti-stupidity" pill with encouraging results on mice and fruit flies, Bild newspaper reported Saturday.

It said Hans-Hilger Ropers, director at Max-Planck-Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin, has tested a pill thwarting hyperactivity in certain brain nerve cells, helping stabilize short-term memory and improve attentiveness.

"With mice and fruit flies we were able to eliminate the loss of short-term memory," Ropers, 62, is quoted saying in the German newspaper, which has dubbed it the "world's first anti-stupidity pill."

[Phenomanul]

"because this is what you believe, everybody else should also believe it?"

Not my position at all, but typical tactic and error from you right-wing, extremist "religious" assholes.

I believe what I want to believe, but I don't mount political campagns to force my beliefs to be taught as hard science to public school children, like you religious fascists do. I also try to make sure my beliefs are consistent with, or at least not in total conflict with rational science and logic and hard evidence.

And I figure that there is One Reality. When science and a belief are totally at odds, one of them is very probably totally wrong. In the past serveral 100 years, as rationalism and science of the Enlightement dispelled the religiously dominated Dark Ages, it has been the religious beliefs that have been shown to have been totally wrong (astrology, flat earth, geocentrism, etc).

Note that Vedantic cosmology of an oscillating universe, which was arrived at by intuition rather than rational science, is in not in conflict with Big Bang theory, whereas the Bible thumpers' 6-day Genesis cosmology is laughably absurd and evidence-free.


....and so you sit there and spout your anger at 4 in the morning showing just how remarkably bitter the human soul can get. :drunk Good job.

I don't even know which of your fallacies to address first. Which is why I won't even try. Besides, the 'bubble' you've placed around yourself was never meant to be burst from the outside; but sooner or later all your hot air will leave you exposed.

[Phenomanul]

I'll address this thread later when I'm off from work but I will point this out....



"Previously, the hunt for changes in DNA that are causally linked to human-specific biology had concentrated on differences that would alter the amino-acid make-up of the encoded protein," Ponting wrote.

"Now it would seem that searches within the functional non-coding 'dark matter' might be more enlightening," he added. ".

By this reasoning the DNA code is even more significant than previously thought, because now even the non-coding regions that scientists claimed could harbor hundreds of deleterious mutations without adverse effects are considered just as important to our geno/phenotypes.

Which is it then?

Truly this makes our genome that much more complex than initially thought.

[smeagol]

"because this is what you believe, everybody else should also believe it?"

Not my position at all, but typical tactic and error from you right-wing, extremist "religious" assholes.

It is clearly your position because anybody who opines differently gets bashed by you with your typical “repug-lover/IDer/Bible-thumper/Dubya-lover/etc/etc/etc”. That is the sign of an intolerant fascist, which is what you are.

Oh, and again, funny that you dub me as a right-wing while gtown characterizes me as a liberal.


I believe what I want to believe, but I don't mount political campagns to force my beliefs to be taught as hard science to public school children, like you religious fascists do.

I don’t either. Try to find a post where I did. You won’t.


I also try to make sure my beliefs are consistent with, or at least not in total conflict with rational science and logic and hard evidence.

I still fail to see how ID conflicts with evolution.

[boutons_]

"I still fail to see how ID conflicts with evolution."

As you Dark Ages extremists define it, there's a conflict.

There is an Absolute Entity underlying the universe, but I don't believe he mucks around "personally" with specific incarnated beings on specfic planets, nor do I need to believe in anthropomorphic "personal God", which is nothing but human hubris.

[Phenomanul]

"I still fail to see how ID conflicts with evolution."

As you Dark Ages extremists define it, there's a conflict.

There is an Absolute Entity underlying the universe, but I don't believe he mucks around "personally" with specific incarnated beings on specfic planets, nor do I need to believe in anthropomorphic "personal God", which is nothing but human hubris.


Of course, in your little bubble you are always right. I've never seen you enter an argument and at least try to listen to the other side. Your mind is already made up.


Oh well.

[Mr. Peabody]

"I still fail to see how ID conflicts with evolution."

As you Dark Ages extremists define it, there's a conflict.

There is an Absolute Entity underlying the universe, but I don't believe he mucks around "personally" with specific incarnated beings on specfic planets, nor do I need to believe in anthropomorphic "personal God", which is nothing but human hubris.

What about as the non-Dark Ages extremists define it? Still a conflict?

[Obstructed_View]

The more impossibly complex and elegent we learn life and the universe is, the more, I believe, the existence of a creator is established.
The universe is amazing and complex. So is a microwave oven. That doesn’t mean it was designed by aliens. -- Mark Jabo

[Crookshanks]

In heaven, God is laughing at the "intelligent" scientists. Read the first chapter of Genesis - it tells exactly in what order all life was created.

[smeagol]

"I still fail to see how ID conflicts with evolution."

As you Dark Ages extremists define it, there's a conflict.

Man, you really enjoy calling people who don't agree with you names, don't you?

The fact that some posters say I'm a liberal, and other posters, such as you, say I'm a right-wing nut, proves I'm no extremist. I'm in the middle. You, on the other hand, are called extremist by almost every poster, even the ones with liberal ideas.

In any case, there is no conflict between ID and evolution.


There is an Absolute Entity underlying the universe,

Says boutons, so it must be true. Everybody who differs is hanging from Dubya's nuts/suck Cheney's dick/is a Bible thumper/blah, blah and fucking blah.


but I don't believe he mucks around "personally" with specific incarnated beings on specfic planets,

I do. Prove me I'm wrong and you are right.


nor do I need to believe in anthropomorphic "personal God", which is nothing but human hubris.

Again, because you say so, it must be true. :rolleyes

[smeagol]

In heaven, God is laughing at the "intelligent" scientists. Read the first chapter of Genesis - it tells exactly in what order all life was created.
First chapter of Genesis is not meant to be read literally.

[boutons_]

yes, knowledge-based resistance to faith-based ignorance.

your ilk are resurrecting the Dark Ages.

[jochhejaam]

First chapter of Genesis is not meant to be read literally.
For the sake of arguement, where does it say it's not meant to be interpreted literally?

p.s. An answer of "it just isn't" will not suffice. :)

[Phenomanul]

The universe is amazing and complex. So is a microwave oven. That doesn’t mean it was designed by aliens. -- Mark Jabo


Silly argument.

Scratch that --- pathetic argument. It's almost as bad as when Shaq claimed his game was as undecipherable as the pythagorean theorem. :lol :lol Of course, the fact that most 6th graders know the pythagorean theorem inside and out made Shaq look like a fool.

There are instruction books for building a microwave oven. Shoot, I could probably build a weak one myself with a few extra gadgets here and there. But the 'instruction manual for genetics, the universe' and a myriad of other fields is far from complete. If and when Mark Jabo produces said manual then maybe what he thought was a witty comment would have a little more substance and a lot less air.

[Phenomanul]

yes, knowledge-based resistance to faith-based ignorance.

your ilk are resurrecting the Dark Ages.

Not every Christian is the dumb, ignorant, stupid, naive, sheepish, twerp you make them out to be señor boutons_

The constant stereotyping by 'your ilk' in an attempt to discredit our belief system is getting old.

In fact, your insistance on blaming the 'Dark Ages' solely on Christianity, is just downright ignorant.

[smeagol]

yes, knowledge-based resistance to faith-based ignorance.

your ilk are resurrecting the Dark Ages.
What is that you are saying, left-wing taliban?

Your message get's tangled in between your hate and your lack of humility.

[smeagol]

For the sake of arguement, where does it say it's not meant to be interpreted literally?

p.s. An answer of "it just isn't" will not suffice. :)
Nowhere. But reality and evidence are enough to prove Genesis is not to be taken literally.

I like you and Hector and all the other posters who defend Christianity with a lot of passion but there is no way the World is 6000 years old.

[smeagol]

In fact, your insistance on blaming the 'Dark Ages' solely on Christianity, is just downright ignorant.

Dark Ages are not to be "blamed" on anybody.

[sabar]

Boutons is stuck on auto-reply, once again turning an informative thread with no relation to politics into a right vs left wing thing. Boutons is like a forum parasite. Attaches to a healthy host and leeches all the life and good from it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i dont believe in evolution

if there is, then how come today monkeys are still monkeys?

and the thing about god creating life etc, made the first human beings adam n eve, does he mean created monkeys?

[Phenomanul]

Nowhere. But reality and evidence are enough to prove Genesis is not to be taken literally.

I like you and Hector and all the other posters who defend Christianity with a lot of passion but there is no way the World is 6000 years old.


Perhaps, but we do know that the creation of Adam and Eve is supposed to be taken literally since the Bible takes a pause to emphasize that 'Adam was created in the image of GOD.' This is a highly significant attribute that only humans possess, and eliminates the notion that some other primate later evolved into man.

Besides how can we explain the burial of entire petrified forrests whose very trees penetrate several geological layers that are each on the supposed order of millions of years? 500 million year old trees -- that is much harder to believe than a 6,000 - 12,000 year-old earth if you ask me.

But I'm much more flexible on this particular creationism controversy (the age of earth) than I am with the acceptance of a chaotic evolutionary theory that aims to discredit our Creator. Do animals of a 'kind' adapt? Yes. Have some of them taken on different phenotypes stored in their genes? Yes. Are there similiarities among the different groups and sub-species that can be misconstrued for false genetic linearity? I believe their Creator to be the same so Yes. The random unguided evolutionary model is given far more credit than it deserves.

[Phenomanul]

Dark Ages are not to be "blamed" on anybody.


If anything it should be blamed on the Germanic (barbaric) destruction of the Roman Empire.

[RandomGuy]

If anything it should be blamed on the Germanic (barbaric) destruction of the Roman Empire.

The Roman empire collapsed due to corruption, and less to any external factor.

[DarkReign]

Ok, ok, we get it. The Bible is the truth because its popular (right now).

Evolution aside, heres one that no one can ever refute or explain in a context of 6000 years (shit, call it a million).

EXPLAIN FUCKING DINOSAURS!!

Oh thats right, God in all his wisdom forgot to tell Adam and Eve about his prototype run with life of giant fucking reptiles.

--------------------------------------------------

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just let the light touch you
And let the words spill through
And let them pass right through
Bringing out our hope and reason ...
before we pine away."

[Yonivore]

i dont believe in evolution

if there is, then how come today monkeys are still monkeys?

and the thing about god creating life etc, made the first human beings adam n eve, does he mean created monkeys?
I think that if you view current speciation in terms of all life evolving from a single biological incident (such as the primordial soup theory) and then progressing forward, like branches of a tree, where all life has a common ancestry in as far as they evolved from the same source; then evolution is perfectly consistent with both Biblical creationism and/or Intelligent Design theory.

[Yonivore]

Ok, ok, we get it. The Bible is the truth because its popular (right now).

Evolution aside, heres one that no one can ever refute or explain in a context of 6000 years (shit, call it a million).

EXPLAIN FUCKING DINOSAURS!!

Oh thats right, God in all his wisdom forgot to tell Adam and Eve about his prototype run with life of giant fucking reptiles.

--------------------------------------------------

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just let the light touch you
And let the words spill through
And let them pass right through
Bringing out our hope and reason ...
before we pine away."
I think the answer to this is that God's time is not our time.

[DarkReign]

I think that if you view current speciation in terms of all life evolving from a single biological incident (such as the primordial soup theory) and then progressing forward, like branches of a tree, where all life has a common ancestry in as far as they evolved from the same source; then evolution is perfectly consistent with both Biblical creationism and/or Intelligent Design theory.

Now that I can believe. People that dismiss evolution out of hand are just ignorant IMO. There is too much empirical evidence to just dismiss it for no other reason than it might conflict with religious beliefs.

With that mindset, we are doomed to fail His experiment. Embracing change when presented with new info and adversity is the definition of adaptation.

[DarkReign]

I think the answer to this is that God's time is not our time.

Do you mean that 6000 years in God-time is something like 600 million years ours?

[Yonivore]

Do you mean that 6000 years in God-time is something like 600 million years ours?
I think it's unknowable. Linear time is a social construct.

[Phenomanul]

I think that if you view current speciation in terms of all life evolving from a single biological incident (such as the primordial soup theory) and then progressing forward, like branches of a tree, where all life has a common ancestry in as far as they evolved from the same source; then evolution is perfectly consistent with both Biblical creationism and/or Intelligent Design theory.


I can accept this theory. However, I still believe that man was created as a different entity altogether. Adam was made out of 'the clay of the earth' and bore no genetic linearity with the rest of the animals -- including primates. We have a spirit and a soul -- none of the other animals do. In other words, animals were given a soul but were not endowed with an immortal spirit.

[Phenomanul]

The Roman empire collapsed due to corruption, and less to any external factor.

Crazy dictators for one... yes I know their history. But their untimely destruction came at the hand of barbaric invaders from the north.

[Yonivore]

I can accept this theory. However, I still believe that man was created as a different entity altogether. Adam was made out of 'the clay of the earth'...
Not inconsistent with the primordial soup theory.


...and bore no genetic linearity with the rest of the animals -- including primates.
Unfortunately, scientific evidence -- specifically genetic evidence -- tends to refute that claim.


We have a spirit and a soul -- none of the other animals do. In other words, animals were given a soul but were not endowed with an immortal spirit.
Okay, but, that, in itself, doesn't refute evolution.

[DarkReign]

The human gene is only 3% different than a chimpanzee. That right there is fascinating and factual.

Fact because its been proven. Fascinating because the difference between a tool-user-in-infancy and civilization in all its intricacies is only +/- 3%.

[Phenomanul]

Ok, ok, we get it. The Bible is the truth because its popular (right now).

Evolution aside, heres one that no one can ever refute or explain in a context of 6000 years (shit, call it a million).

EXPLAIN FUCKING DINOSAURS!!

Oh thats right, God in all his wisdom forgot to tell Adam and Eve about his prototype run with life of giant fucking reptiles.

--------------------------------------------------

"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
Just let the light touch you
And let the words spill through
And let them pass right through
Bringing out our hope and reason ...
before we pine away."

Most of them died out due to the huge climate shift that occured shortly after Noah's flood. Consider that prior to Noah's deluge -- it never rained on earth.

Some, like the Behemoth and the Leviathan mentioned in the Bible sound alot like descriptions of dinosaurs... Not to mention our little friend known as the Coelacanth is still around, alive and kicking... err swimming.

[smeagol]

Most of them died out due to the huge climate shift that occured shortly after Noah's flood. Consider that prior to Noah's deluge -- it never rained on earth.

Some, like the Behemoth and the Leviathan mentioned in the Bible sound alot like descriptions of dinosaurs...

Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, Hector, they did not die in the great flood.

[Phenomanul]

Now that I can believe. People that dismiss evolution out of hand are just ignorant IMO. There is too much empirical evidence to just dismiss it for no other reason than it might conflict with religious beliefs.

With that mindset, we are doomed to fail His experiment. Embracing change when presented with new info and adversity is the definition of adaptation.


My mindset cannot be described by what you just wrote. Though you may not agree with it, I have countless of scientific reasons as to why I dismiss the notion of an unguided evolutionary model. Sometimes though, people just don't care to listen, or with all due respect - simply don't understand....

I recommend you read the following book.

http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&productID=BK_SANS_000715&redirectFlag=

And before people start spouting about the source, realize that you would be making severe error in judgement. The author is one of the foremost authorities on the Human Genome. His credentials are not to be taken lightly.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Most of them died out due to the huge climate shift that occured shortly after Noah's flood. Consider that prior to Noah's deluge -- it never rained on earth.

Some, like the Behemoth and the Leviathan mentioned in the Bible sound alot like descriptions of dinosaurs... Not to mention our little friend known as the Coelacanth is still around, alive and kicking... err swimming.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif I'm sorry, I just find it funny that someone who is intent in disproving the veracity of the current evolutionary theory by saying its unguided is quoting Noah's flood as if it is a proven fact. Just curious, do you actually believe in Noah's ark?

[Phenomanul]

Unfortunately, scientific evidence -- specifically genetic evidence -- tends to refute that claim.



GOD was the Creator of plants, animals and humans.... our genetic structure should be similar. I wouldn't expect a painting by Van Gogh to look like one of Picaso's. All of his paintings were made in the same mold, and a with a consistent style.

In the same fashion, GOD was able to create life so infinitely diverse, and yet so inherently the same - in His style. The bioengineering principles he used were the same.

Genetic similarity doesn't automatically suggest genetic linearity and or divergence from one source.

[DarkReign]

Sometimes though, people just don't care to listen, or with all due respect - simply don't understand....

Nah man, this is America, you can think whatever the hell you want. I've since given up talking to you about this stuff. Youve researched heavily into the subject knowingly or unknowingly with your religious goggles on trying to punch holes in the argument solely for the purpose of your personal religious values.

To me, youre putting the cart before the horse. But thats neither here nor there anymore.

[Phenomanul]

Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, Hector, they did not die in the great flood.


We will never truly know. Carbon dating is a farse -- which is why I asked you all to question the suggestion of 500 million year old trees... this from an observation that saw a whole forrest penetrating multiple geologic layers --

What was embarrassing about the find was that before the petrified forrest was found each of these layers had been 'aged' with the conventional standards -- each spanning millions of years... Somehow this story is always overlooked (or swept under the rug) by many people.

I may be right, or I may be completely wrong regarding the age of the earth, or how Genesis 1 should be interpreted. Either way, the co-existence of dinosaurs with man (becuase their fossils show that they in fact lived -- something I've never denied) is not something upon which my entire belief system hinges on. Again, I've always been flexible with the 'age-of-earth' controversy.

[Phenomanul]

Nah man, this is America, you can think whatever the hell you want. I've since given up talking to you about this stuff. Youve researched heavily into the subject knowingly or unknowingly with your religious goggles on trying to punch holes in the argument solely for the purpose of your personal religious values.

To me, youre putting the cart before the horse. But thats neither here nor there anymore.


Goggles or no goggles my interest in the material is 1000x that of your typical person. And without boasting (<-- a comment never taken lightly around here), my understanding of it is also well above that of your typical person.

The issue however is not how I choose to interpret what I find or read... the issue is that I try to reconcile what I have found with concepts and principles from 8 or 9 other scientific fields... something many scientists nowadays are failing to do.

Bottom line. I'm not easily swayed by misinterpreted scientific opinion that is drawn from legitimate scientific data but don't mistake that for me having developed a case of 'tunnel-visionitis'.

Besides, my spiritual belief system is completely independent from how the 'scientist in me' chooses to see the world. That is based strictly on a personal relationship with GOD.

[Phenomanul]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif I'm sorry, I just find it funny that someone who is intent in disproving the veracity of the current evolutionary theory by saying its unguided is quoting Noah's flood as if it is a proven fact. Just curious, do you actually believe in Noah's ark?

Not unguided.... I'm a proponent of a guided-adaptation theory.

And yes, I believe in Noah's flood.

[Buddy Holly]

heg, stfu dude.

Carbon dating is a farse? Right there just tells me how big a retard you are.

[sabar]

It's silly to outright say evolution is false. Explain the existance of Homo Erectus skeletons everywhere or Homo Neanderthalensis. This alone is pretty solid evidence.

How about things which rapidly reproduce? You can see evolution and natural selection in bacteria. Poison them and eventually one bacterium will have a mutant gene to where the poison does nothing. The others all die and this new bacteria continues. Fast forward 15 million years and hundreds of thousands of changes have been made to the bacteria DNA. It wouldn't even be considered the same species anymore.

And humans didn't evolve from monkeys people. Monkeys and humans evolved from a COMMON ancestor. That's why there's still apes and humans. They both evolved seperately from some ape/human thing that has yet to be found.

[boutons_]

"Explain the existance of Homo Erectus skeletons"

These "religious" jerks believe that when their "God" created the universe a few 1000 years ago, He faked all the evidence scientists have found so the universe seems to be 14B years old, further proof of their "God" is all powerful. Their "God" is a prankster.

[sabar]

Incoming wall of text.
I'll offer a different view of creation and end. Science.

13.7 billion years ago the universe is created from near nothing. The big bang scatters matter in all directions. The strong and weak nuclear forces come into existance. Particles collide and reactions occur. From the most elementary particles, common elements like hydrogen and helium occur.

Particles bump into eachother in space. They randomly trade electrons and become charged. This happens over and over again. Opposite charges attract and form clumps. When this clump is several miles wide it has enough gravity to bring in more particles. Heavy elements will sink to the center of this mass. High pressure and heat start a nuclear reaction and a star is born. Fast forward several billion years. The star is dying and explodes in a supernova. The process starts over again. Scattered particles bump into eachother and slowly over millions of years clump up. A new star will be born, our sun. Farther chunks of mass form away from the sun in the same process. They are too small to start a nuclear reaction and the sun's gravity places them into orbit. There are 30-40 planets orbiting the sun.

Planets collide with eachother and become larger. The earth is a very hot planet, the entire surface is molten and will take thousands of years to cool. Heavy elements like iron sink into the center of the earth. High pressure creates a solid iron and nickel core. It is surrounded by a molten liquid core. This rapidly spinning metal creates a magnetic field that extends thouands of miles into space and protects the young earth from the deadly solar wind from our sun.

Fast forward again. The earth is cooling down. Jupiter is formed. It's massive gravity sends asteroids in the outer asteroid belt into erratic orbits. These asteroids are 15-25% water. Over millions of years they bombard the earth, very slowly creating water. Fast forward a bit. A mars sized planet is on a collision course with the earth. It hits. The energy created melts the earth's surface. The mars sized planet is in millions of pieces, orbiting the earth. It will slowly all collect into our moon. This young moon is 15 time larger in the sky and 10 times closer to the earth than today. It slowly drifts away.

The moon creation places the earth on a tilt and the moon's gravity keeps it that way. Tides are created. The moon, much closer to the earth, has a massive effect on oceans. Seas are washed into the mineral rich land, forming a primordial soup. At the bottom of the oceans under high pressure and heat, the first life forms are created. Simple DNA. Over many years this will become a bacterium. These first bacteria will slowly use photosynthesis to convert the carbon dioxide in the air into oxygen. The iron-rich ocean will absorb most of the oxygen, creating rusty clay that will settle at the bottom of the sea waiting to be found by mankind, a good proof of what happened during this stage. Eventually the air has enough oxygen to support different life forms. The oceans hold all life for years. Slowly creatures will walk on land. Reptiles and birds will come along. Dinosaurs will live and die. Continents will shift and the moon will get farther.

Somewhere the common ancestor to apes and man will reach a fork. One species will become apes, gorillas, chimps. The other path will create homo erectus, neanderthals, and eventually, homo sapiens. We have only been around for 200,000 years tops. Dinosaurs survived 160 million years. We are a tiny speck on a timeline that extends 13,700,000,000 years.

And what about the end of all life? Depending on the structure of the universe, it's grim no matter what. Either the universe keeps expanding, spreading out heat until all life ends in a big freeze, or the universe stops expanding and starts to contract, ending all life in a big crunch. If it crunches, the big bang can start over again, with a totally new universe and no proof of any other ever having existed. If it's a big freeze, then everything will end for all eternity.

Some people say it all sounds just as fictional as a creation story based in religion, but it's backed by solid facts. The laws of the universe, it's just the way things work. While I believe the science having done a lot of study in astronomy (not astrology, psuedo-science), it's all too perfect to have no creator. Why have a universe at all instead of nothing? There must be a purpose, there has to be a creator that created all these laws of physics, these atoms, life in itself. with no creator, the universe is nothing but a machine to test evolution. A simulation if you will. A big bang occurs, life evolves, it all ends, it starts over. Different every time because of the randomness of evolution.

I believe in a soul. No species is as advanced as ours. None has the thinking power of our brains. We are advanced enough to simulate life and creation on supercomputers. Is there an afterlife? When we die, are we reborn? Into a different universe? Or do we ascend into a heaven? Or is life meaningless, and when you die, it's all over. It's possible that humans are so advanced that we are our own creation, living in a real Matrix. Unfortunately, the only way to find out is to die. Only then is the question answered. What is the meaning of life? That question alone created religion. That alone drives the will to live in many people.

[jochhejaam]

Nowhere. But reality and evidence are enough to prove Genesis is not to be taken literally.

I like you and Hector and all the other posters who defend Christianity with a lot of passion but there is no way the World is 6000 years old.
Smeagol, I don't think of the God we serve being constrained by man's definition of reality or any evidence we may be able to come up with. I personally don't want to put God into a box that would cause him to be viewed as limited in what he's able to do. We don't have the capacity to fully understand his power, do you agree?

Again, I'm not stating that I believe the earth is or isn't 6,000 years old, I am saying that based on arguments for a young earth, it's quite possible. No one can flat out prove the age of the earth but in order to come up with an intelligent response to the question we should educate ourselves with both sides of the arguement.


Evidence for a Young Earth:

Introduction:
Contrary to what we have been told over and over again by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth / slow-Creationists (who don't want God to get too much glory), there are, in fact, numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, these young-earth measuring rods are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the mass media are biased in favor of evolution, and against the Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth in order to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely informed of the mounting evidence that contradicts the old earth dogma of evolution.

In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young: in fact, much less than the purported 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have proclaimed (over and over and over again), with the hearty approval and assistance of the agenda-driven, evolution-promoting, and Heavily Biased mass media, who speak of evolution as if it were a fact of science.


Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for. All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.

In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the above assumptions are true. For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty. Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been. The shorter the time involved, the more likely it is that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.



Clock
Age Estimate

1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max

2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years

3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max

4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max

5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max

6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max

8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years

9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years
10. Axel Heiberg Island
5,000 - 10,000 years

11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max

12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max

13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max

14. Historical Records
5,000 years max

15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years

16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years

17. Population Growth
10,000 years max

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages
19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years
20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years
21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max)
22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years


For those interested, the following link goes into detail on each of the 22 points and more.

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

[Phenomanul]

heg, stfu dude.

Carbon dating is a farse? Right there just tells me how big a retard you are.


Thanks for your annual pop-in into the Political forum...

If you can tell me exactly how carbon dating works without the need to google it.... you know what? Forget it. I don't need to prove anything to you. Coming in here as if you know me... please.

All I need to say is that carbon dating has limited applicability. Most people don't even realize that carbon dating only works for a limited range of years into our past. But let me guess, you didn't know that.

[Phenomanul]

It's silly to outright say evolution is false. Explain the existance of Homo Erectus skeletons everywhere or Homo Neanderthalensis. This alone is pretty solid evidence.

How about things which rapidly reproduce? You can see evolution and natural selection in bacteria. Poison them and eventually one bacterium will have a mutant gene to where the poison does nothing. The others all die and this new bacteria continues. Fast forward 15 million years and hundreds of thousands of changes have been made to the bacteria DNA. It wouldn't even be considered the same species anymore.

And humans didn't evolve from monkeys people. Monkeys and humans evolved from a COMMON ancestor. That's why there's still apes and humans. They both evolved seperately from some ape/human thing that has yet to be found.

Explain the deformed mummies of Guanajuato México? (they have an explanation BTW due the heavy mineral deposits in the area)... we would be duped were someone to say they were a new hominid subspecies. Or how about the flat heads of the Mayas? If we knew nothing about their culture (which fortunately we do) would we assume that they were a different species as well? Or the little feet of chinese women would they too be classified as a different species if they were unearthed in the future without knowledge of their culture? The list of physiological alterations from cultural differences is large. Long necks of the tribe in Africa. The shrunken heads (and sometimes complete skeletons) created by some polynesian cultures.
Sometimes the most exotic explanation isn't always right.

Oh BTW... there are only a handful of complete skeletons of other 'homo' species. Quantities not sufficient enough to consider significant samples. Consider for example that we have found several hundred complete fossils of the same species on different continents (Africa and S. America). That amount readily allows paleontologists to proclaim with absolute certainty that the sample size was sufficiently large enough to declare it as a species.

Remember the 'Brontosaurus' debacle? Only one fossil existed, and the particular paleontologist (I can't remember who) plucked the fossilized head off of one fossilized species and put it on the body of another.

Yet somehow with regards to our human ancestors, we let this criterion slide. Little old 'Lucy' represents one of few complete fossilized homonid skeletons. Several other hominid species however consist of a few thousand different bones here and there. Please.

And the Bible makes references to Giants and sons and daughters of Angel/human hybrids... but I guess you wouldn't ever factor that into any of your theories today.

[Phenomanul]

"Explain the existance of Homo Erectus skeletons"

These "religious" jerks believe that when their "God" created the universe a few 1000 years ago, He faked all the evidence scientists have found so the universe seems to be 14B years old, further proof of their "God" is all powerful. Their "God" is a prankster.


Such a feeble explanation for what 'the other side' believes I believe... laughable.

It's no wonder you can't even understand my premises.

[ChumpDumper]

And the Bible makes references to Giants and sons and daughters of Angel/human hybrids... but I guess you wouldn't ever factor that into any of your theories today.How old are the angel skeletons you have seen?

[Phenomanul]

How old are the angel skeletons you have seen?

Does it matter if I've dug one up or not? The point is that what we find may not always be what we would want it to be --- i.e. another supposed missing link.

[Buddy Holly]

So the world is only 6,000 years old? Seriously, gtfo of here with that retarded shit. If I want my intelligence insulted, I'll go to church.

[ChumpDumper]

Does it matter if I've dug one up or not?Absolutely.

[Phenomanul]

Absolutely.


OK CD... go get me some anti-matter.

Otherwise, I won't believe it exists (even though I do).

[ChumpDumper]

It would make a difference.

[Phenomanul]

So the world is only 6,000 years old? Seriously, gtfo of here with that retarded shit. If I want my intelligence insulted, I'll go to church.


Go back and read my posts... otherwise you've insulted yourself. (Reading comprehension 101)

[Phenomanul]

It would make a difference.


Yes it would, I don't deny that. I believe those Giants existed. Hell, If Yao Ming were found 2000 years from now and all written human history was lost, would Yao's remains be declared a new species?

[smeagol]

So the world is only 6,000 years old? Seriously, gtfo of here with that retarded shit. If I want my intelligence insulted, I'll go to church.
hegamboa has expressed more than once his view regarding the age of the Earth.

Learn to read before trying to be a smart ass.

Furthermore, you don't need to go to Church to have your intelligence insulted. You are a full time idiot.

[Buddy Holly]

hegamboa has expressed more than once his view regarding the age of the Earth.

Well, he believes in the bible, correct? Go read up on it, see how long they give earth's history.


Learn to read before trying to be a smart ass.

I am not about to research Heg's entire post history so it can apppease you.


Furthermore, you don't need to go to Church to have your intelligence insulted. You are a full time idiot.

Coming from you. :lol :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't asking about giants.

[Phenomanul]

I wasn't asking about giants.


The Bible quoted them (angel/human hybrids) as being giants.... that's the connection.

Did you get some anti-matter yet?

[ChumpDumper]

How could you tell they were angels?

There were bad giants too if I remember correctly.

[ChumpDumper]

And the difference here is I don't care at all about anti-matter.

You care alot about giant mutant angels.

[Phenomanul]

And the difference here is I don't care at all about anti-matter.

You care alot about giant mutant angels.


aaaahhhh funny!!!

No, to your dismay I don't hinge my beliefs on the discovery of angel fossils... (kind of reminds me of a Simpsons episode)

The point I was making was that I don't need to have first-hand contact with something in order to believe in it -- i.e. I don't require the discovery of fossilized angelic remains, to believe that some angels crossbred with humanity -- or for that matter than angels exist. Nor do I need for you or anybody else to retreive/create anti-matter in order for me to believe that anti-matter exists. One was written down in the Torah of Jewish history, and the other is a valid scientific theory. I happen to believe them both.

[Phenomanul]

Ohhh and besides, the original point was that hominid fossils containing obvious physiological differences with modern-day humans don't necessary mean that they were different species. That is the conclusion that is always drawn.

And if highly advanced primates did in fact exist what's to say that they weren't created by GOD from the get-go. Their existence doesn't necessarily mean that they were our geneological ancestors.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ohhh and besides, the original point was that hominid fossils containing obvious physiological differences when compared with modern-day humans don't necessary mean that they were different species.

And if highly advanced primates did in fact exist what's to say that they weren't created by GOD from the get-go. Their existence doesn't necessarily mean that they were our geneological ancestors.

you're such a little bitch. I think Jebus would want you to rest up for Sunday mass instead of trying to teach us obstinate heathens your voodoo. pwnt

[Phenomanul]

I'll take this smeagol


Well, he believes in the bible, correct? Go read up on it, see how long they give earth's history.
Where is the age of earth explicitly stated? I don't believe I've read that verse.



I am not about to research Heg's entire post history so it can apppease you.
Well then don't go around calling people retards just because their opinion differs from yours. If and when you want to be that bold it is in your best interest to be as informed as possible on the subjectmatter at hand including being knowledgable about the perspectives of those involved in the discussion.

You came in here shooting your pistol left and right and then expected a legitimate response? It doesn't work that way.

[Phenomanul]

you're such a little bitch. I think Jebus would want you to rest up for Sunday mass instead of trying to teach us obstinate heathens your voodoo. pwnt

I'm an insomniac of sorts...

Owned?? Please... go spew your ignorance elsewhere...

Edit: But this thread is putting me to sleep... so nighty night. :hat

[smeagol]

I am not about to research Heg's entire post history so it can apppease you.
That is one of your many problems. You don't read entire threads and respond to a particular post without the full knowledge of what's going on. At the end of the day, it makes you look stupid.

If you don't believe me ask around. It's not just me , there are plenty of posters who think you are a retard.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

aaaahhhh funny!!!

No, to your dismay I don't hinge my beliefs on the discovery of angel fossils... (kind of reminds me of a Simpsons episode)

The point I was making was that I don't need to have first-hand contact with something in order to believe in it -- i.e. I don't require the discovery of fossilized angelic remains, to believe that some angels crossbred with humanity -- or for that matter than angels exist. Nor do I need for you or anybody else to retreive/create anti-matter in order for me to believe that anti-matter exists. One was written down in the Torah of Jewish history, and the other is a valid scientific theory. I happen to believe them both.
wow...

[boutons_]

not wow, but :lol http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

These "religious" freaks can believe anything that they and their thought-meisters pull out of their asses. They're way out their with their Kool-Aid drinking, comet-tail-riding, polygamous "brethern".

Which is their right, just don't try to force this wacko bullshit into public school curriricula or other tax-supported govt venues.

[Phenomanul]

not wow, but :lol http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

These "religious" freaks can believe anything that they and their thought-meisters pull out of their asses. They're way out their with their Kool-Aid drinking, comet-tail-riding, polygamous "brethern".

Which is their right, just don't try to force this wacko bullshit into public school curriricula or other tax-supported govt venues.


1) The angelic/human hybrids are written in the Bible for one... I've stated repeatedly that this is an opinion emanating from Biblical reference.

2) Polygamy was destructive for all those who entered such relationships in the Bible. In fact the Bible doesn't endorse it.

3) When have I clamored for the subject of angels to be taught in schools? Yeah that's what I thought.

4) I don't like kool-aid

5) Boutons_ gets owned again. :rolleyes

[mookie2001]

ROFL when i saw this thread and that hememegoaboa was the last posted, I had to read it and laugh out loud because hememgoaboa doesnt believe in evolutionary evolution, and to make matters worse, he doesnt just keep to himself about it, he loves to argue against it on internet spursbased politcal forums, and hes quick to tell you how many ivy league degrees he has

[smeagol]

ROFL when i saw this thread and that hememegoaboa was the last posted, I had to read it and laugh out loud because hememgoaboa doesnt believe in evolutionary evolution, and to make matters worse, he doesnt just keep to himself about it, he loves to argue against it on internet spursbased politcal forums, and hes quick to tell you how many ivy league degrees he has
Impressive post.

Thanks :rolleyes

[mookie2001]

ROFL when i saw this thread and that smeagol was the last posted, i had to read it and laugh out loud because smeagol is hememegoaboas little anti evolution buddy

[smeagol]

:lol

You are funny Mooks.

You are like BH. You Don't really care about reading other poster's views. You simply go out and write the first dumb thought that pops into your brain.

I disagree on my things with hegamboa, but I respect his views. I don't believe Genesis is to be interpreted leterally and I believe in evolution as part of God's plan for humanity. It's pretty clear to me the human race is not the result of chance.

[Phenomanul]

ROFL when i saw this thread and that hememegoaboa was the last posted, I had to read it and laugh out loud because hememgoaboa doesnt believe in evolutionary evolution, and to make matters worse, he doesnt just keep to himself about it, he loves to argue against it on internet spursbased politcal forums, and hes quick to tell you how many ivy league degrees he has


Only when someone asks... or blindly attacks my scientific credentials. You make it seem like my degree is plastered on my avatar.... :rolleyes

Feeling a little inferior are we? Who's laughing now?

[Ya Vez]

Even athiest believe...

Associated Press


NEW YORK - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God - more or less - based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

[mookie2001]

Only when someone asks... or blindly attacks my scientific credentials. You make it seem like my degree is plastered on my avatar.... :rolleyes
Feeling a little inferior are we? Who's laughing now? you DONT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

[MannyIsGod]

So, because this is what you believe, everybody else should also believe it?

At heart, you are a facist.Um, dude. Do you understand what a missionary is? I don't think any staunch Christian should make statements like these without first considering where they stand in the same regard.

[MannyIsGod]

Ah screw it, I couldn't get past smeagols post and I think I'll just back out of this thread before I go any further. Same old shit.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Ah screw it, I couldn't get past smeagols post and I think I'll just back out of this thread before I go any further. Same old shit.
exactly http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[Ya Vez]

so its pretty obivious the left doesn't like descent as well as the right.... the age of statesmanship is long gone.... probably do to the evolution of survival of the fittest...

[Phenomanul]

Ah screw it, I couldn't get past smeagols post and I think I'll just back out of this thread before I go any further. Same old shit.


Fine, you're entitled to believe what you want to. Some people are just curious to know what the criticisms on 'the other side' happen to be... I can at least offer them that. That's what this forum is for, isn't it???... intellectual discussion.

[boutons_]

Since when is spouting your freak-o religious beliefs "intellectual discussion" ? You flatter yourself.

[Phenomanul]

you DONT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION

Not by its mainstream definition, no. What we observe in nature and the processes we see are the handiwork of GOD -- not random chance.

Biological perfection could not have been the result of chance alone.

[Phenomanul]

Since when is spouting your freak-o religious beliefs "intellectual discussion" ? You flatter yourself.

Look in the mirror Mr. Hate.

Whether or not you realize it, your 'religion' is characterized by hate itself.


Edit: Besides if you can't discern the difference between my Christian opinions and my scientific statements, don't just assume I'm trying to convert people.

You seem to avoid heavily laden scientific topics and wait until a buzzword like 'angel' or 'Jesus' pops out, to claim that the whole thing reeks with religiosity. Where were you to offer up counterpoint on the topic of DNA origins??? Or was that topic not 'intellectual' enough for you?

[mookie2001]

Not by its mainstream definition, no. What we observe in nature and the processes we see are the handiwork of GOD -- not random chance.

Biological perfection could not have been the result of chance alone.




I agree, I just dont think god gave a shit if dog had a brown tail, and if we all had big brows and shit and everything else was the same, you would still say that was biological perfection. AND evolutionary evolution should be taught in every public school in america, and even if we might somewhat agree, you arguing against it benefits the dumbest, most neocon theocrats, to not teach the science is an injustice and making up names like intelligent design and changing textbooks, and having different policies in everyother district or state is even more heinous

didnt you once say the earth was 6,000 years old?

[Phenomanul]

I agree, I just dont think god gave a shit if dog had a brown tail, and if we all had big brows and shit and everything else was the same, you would still say that was biological perfection.

Harmonious biological diversity is most definitely an attribute of perfection.


AND evolutionary evolution should be taught in every public school in america, and even if we might somewhat agree, you arguing against it benefits the dumbest, most neocon theocrats, to not teach the science is an injustice and making up names like intelligent design and changing textbooks, and having different policies in everyother district or state is even more heinous

didnt you once say the earth was 6,000 years old?

I've been flexible on that one. I'm inclined for a young earth theory. BUT I've always said I could be wrong. Several factors exist for evidence of a young earth.

[smeagol]

Um, dude. Do you understand what a missionary is?

Of course I do


I don't think any staunch Christian should make statements like these without first considering where they stand in the same regard.

Find a post of mine where I try to “shove my beliefs down people’s throats”, like boutons enjoys pointing out of whoever hints he/she believes in a Higher Being.

I know where I stand on this topic and, again, I don’t think I’ve ever taken boutons extreme position of insulting the living daylights out of everyone who does not agree with his religious position.

[smeagol]

Ah screw it, I couldn't get past smeagols post and I think I'll just back out of this thread before I go any further. Same old shit.

A pitty. Although we don’t always agree, I enjoy reading what you have to say on the different topics in the political forum.

[DarkReign]

This thread is rockin'!!

w00t!

I do enjoy this immensely. One shouldnt take all this stuff so seriously. When you die, youll find out the truth. Wait until then.

[Phenomanul]

This thread is rockin'!!

w00t!

I do enjoy this immensely. One shouldnt take all this stuff so seriously. When you die, youll find out the truth. Wait until then.

If I'm wrong... nothing will happen.

But if 'belief in salvation through GOD' was right... some of you all (I don't know who -- only you do) will not get the chance to remediate or recant your decisions.

[DarkReign]

If I'm wrong... nothing will happen.

But if 'belief in salvation through GOD' was right... some of you all (I don't know who -- only you do) will not get the chance to remediate or recant your decisions.

No offense, than that is a God I dont much care about, personally. I am who I am. Never killed anyone, etc. If that isnt good enough, that to be accepted I must conform to popular cults....piss on it.

See everyone else in hell.

[Phenomanul]

No offense, than that is a God I dont much care about, personally. I am who I am. Never killed anyone, etc. If that isnt good enough, that to be accepted I must conform to popular cults....piss on it.

See everyone else in hell.

That's not a place you should take lightly.

[Extra Stout]

No offense, than that is a God I dont much care about, personally. I am who I am. Never killed anyone, etc. If that isnt good enough, that to be accepted I must conform to popular cults....piss on it.

See everyone else in hell.
I don't remember the part about conforming to a popular cult. I don't conform very well.

(The following is in jest) If you are feeling noncomformist, you could join some obscure church with very few members. Hey, you're in Michigan... join the Maronites! All the hummus and baklava you can eat...

[jochhejaam]

No offense, than that is a God I dont much care about, personally. I am who I am. Never killed anyone, etc. If that isnt good enough, that to be accepted I must conform to popular cults....piss on it.

That's an impressive statement. Mind if I borrow it for a very important upcoming job interview?


If it isn't good enough and I must conform to get the job then piss on it.

[sabar]

Oh what this has turned into.
I blame boutons.

[DarkReign]

That's an impressive statement. Mind if I borrow it for a very important upcoming job interview?


If it isn't good enough and I must conform to get the job then piss on it.

If entry to Heaven (by your definition) is more likened to a job interview than a rite of passage, then yes, Fuck your God.

I lived a full life, helped others and family, sinned no more or less than anyone else, pretty much floated thru, taking it all in as I went.

If my life isnt "good enough" than I dont give a shit. I will not worship with popular cults, ahem, I mean organized religion. I will not kneel before another human for any reason...ever. I will not declare any one faith to be the true faith in my life. I have my faith, and mine alone. I do not share it with others, I do not actively challenge those who differ.

This is my creed and my decison. If He truly is as irrational as you all propose, than He knew what He was getting into when he gave me free will. Like I said, life is not an interview. This is not a job or some entry exam. And if you truly live your life like it is, JJ, then I pity you.

[Phenomanul]

If entry to Heaven (by your definition) is more likened to a job interview than a rite of passage, then yes, Fuck your God.

I lived a full life, helped others and family, sinned no more or less than anyone else, pretty much floated thru, taking it all in as I went.

If my life isnt "good enough" than I dont give a shit. I will not worship with popular cults, ahem, I mean organized religion. I will not kneel before another human for any reason...ever. I will not declare any one faith to be the true faith in my life. I have my faith, and mine alone. I do not share it with others, I do not actively challenge those who differ.

This is my creed and my decison. If He truly is as irrational as you all propose, than He knew what He was getting into when he gave me free will. Like I said, life is not an interview. This is not a job or some entry exam. And if you truly live your life like it is, JJ, then I pity you.

Nor do I. We render no hommage to humans. Only GOD.

[DarkReign]

I don't remember the part about conforming to a popular cult. I don't conform very well.

Popular religion is just that. At a time, all organized religions were just small cults. They just grew in popularity and somehow along the way became legitimate. Its all still bullshit, IMO.


(The following is in jest) If you are feeling noncomformist, you could join some obscure church with very few members. Hey, you're in Michigan... join the Maronites! All the hummus and baklava you can eat...

You dont have to preface sarcasm, I understand it perfectly. I am not familiar with the Maronites though. I have never been compelled to research religion at all. I tried reading the Bible once, to broaden my understanding. After realizing some people actually believe this hogwash halway thru Genesis, I put it down and took a long, hot shower and abruptly stopped laughing. That was 10 year ago. (dont ask me recite any passages, no interest and 10 years later)

[DarkReign]

Nor do I. We render no hommage to humans. Only GOD.

Are you Catholic?

I am, or should I say, thats what I was baptized as.

I know Catholicism isnt as big in the South (ie nonexistent, you WASP motherfuckers :lol ), but I thought you (boa) dont live in America? Latin America?

[Phenomanul]

Are you Catholic?

I am, or should I say, thats what I was baptized as.

I know Catholicism isnt as big in the South (ie nonexistent, you WASP motherfuckers :lol ), but I thought you (boa) dont live in America? Latin America?


I was born in Mexico. Lived in Corpus Christi, Texas since the age of 5 (Look at the title I was given under my username).

I'm a Christian first and foremost. My congregation is affiliated with the Southern Baptists.

[DarkReign]

I was born in Mexico. Lived in Corpus Christi, Texas since the age of 5 (Look at the title I was given under my username).

I'm a Christian first and foremost. My congregation is affiliated with the Southern Baptists.

Thank you for answering. Obviously being Catholic, I see many who worship another human. Either way, I may have my fault of going out of my way to be different, but organised religion isnt of any interest to me. I dont care to feel embraced, I dont long for ritual or conformity. I dont care to feel accepted by others of similar worship and I dont care how they feel my soul will be judged by their God.

I know my peace with God and that is all that matters. The standards by which another feels I should attain are little more than hot air from insignificant sources. To be filed under the same advice I get from TV personalities, a cocktail party joke.

[Phenomanul]

Thank you for answering. Obviously being Catholic, I see many who worship another human. Either way, I may have my fault of going out of my way to be different, but organised religion isnt of any interest to me. I dont care to feel embraced, I dont long for ritual or conformity. I dont care to feel accepted by others of similar worship and I dont care how they feel my soul will be judged by their God.

I know my peace with God and that is all that matters. The standards by which another feels I should attain are little more than hot air from insignificant sources. To be filed under the same advice I get from TV personalities, a cocktail party joke.


And that's fine. You've obviously placed more thought on your decisions and your beliefs than others. But I disagree with the notion that fellowship = conformity. Furthermore, the 'kindest', 'nicest', 'goodest' person you can think of, fill in the blank "______," is still vile and corrupt before GOD.

The only thing that allows us to enter GOD's presence is the fact that our atonement was paid for with the ultimate price -- the blood of Christ. It took the death of GOD, to atone for the sins that only He, and His sacrifice alone could redeem. Nothing else short of this requirement would have accomplished the task.

This sacrifice is what allows us an eternal place in GOD's glory -- for those who are willing to accept this gratuitous gift. We don't have to do anything other than just recieve it [gift of salvation] by faith... Those who told you, that you had to conform to this or that were wrong. Your life is transformed by the power of GOD and guidance from above, should you earnestly seek it, will compel you to do what is right before GOD's eyes... not those of people around you. After all, we should aim to please GOD alone, not human critics.

See, what you don't realize is that I too am a non-comformist. Because those who seek to please GOD and not themselves are in the 'minority' not the 'majority'.

[smeagol]

Thank you for answering. Obviously being Catholic, I see many who worship another human.

I' a Catholic and for the record, we don't worship any other human being.

Travis, where the hell are you?

[DarkReign]

I' a Catholic and for the record, we don't worship any other human being.

Travis, where the hell are you?

LOL...thats all interpretation. Do you bow before the Pope? Yes.

I will never do that. Ever.

EDITED: To be specific, I speak of when devout Catholics go to the Vatican. Or when Pope John Paul came to Detroit when I was a child. My fiances' ex-boyfriend actually got to meet and greet the Pope. He is 100% Polish, 1st generation. Might have had something to do with it.

[DarkReign]

After all, we should aim to please GOD alone, not human critics.

Disagree. Human flaw does not allow the total disregard of your fellow man's opinion. I am a prime example, for all my hoopla about conformity and such, I still own a 60 widescreen hi def TV because its an awesome picture and its really very cool. Im 26 and live in a house twice the size of any house my parents have ever lived in much less owned. Sure, these things can be justified as self-gratification, but who doesnt get a slight rise out of seeing your peers ogle your belongings. The cool car is as much for the owner as it is for the onlooker. Bit of ego exists in all man, even the most pious and humble.


See, what you don't realize is that I too am a non-comformist. Because those who seek to please GOD and not themselves are in the 'minority' not the 'majority'.

Now this may be true. If you truly live every waking moment trying to please God instead of yourself, I am not sure thats a life I even begin to understand or could even pretend to enjoy. I stay with my wife because thats what God wants, it pleases him. Nevermind shes fucking the poolboy, stealing money from me, and beats the kids. That lifestyle is full of falacies. Moral potholes that every individual encounters walking thru life.

To truly live such a way is impossible. Maybe not to personal shortcomings (no offense, but I doubt that highly), but to outside influences alone. You cant control those around you and like it or not they (us) have a direct bearing on your everyday decisons. Thats the exact fallacy that religion tends to ignore directly, but addresses thru fellowship. Living and socializing amongst people like yourself solves alot of that very problem.

Which is why I detest it. The world isnt perfect, nor should it ever strive to be. Pleasing God sounds all well and good, but when your standards for excellence are entirely wishful, youre setting yourself up for failure.

Its not so much the "risk of being wrong", thats easy, I am wrong everyday. Being right has its pitfalls, too. If the way I live is wrong, bottom line, I dont want to be right. This life is assured, its guaranteed. The afterlife is not.

[velik_m]

not to mention being good for the sake of being good is moraly superior to being good to please your god.

[Phenomanul]

not to mention being good for the sake of being good is moraly superior to being good to please your god.


I believe it is implied. GOD's precepts just provide the standard.

[velik_m]

I believe it is implied. GOD precepts just provide the standard.

is's not standard, it's rule(s).

[Phenomanul]

Disagree. Human flaw does not allow the total disregard of your fellow man's opinion. I am a prime example, for all my hoopla about conformity and such, I still own a 60 widescreen hi def TV because its an awesome picture and its really very cool. Im 26 and live in a house twice the size of any house my parents have ever lived in much less owned. Sure, these things can be justified as self-gratification, but who doesnt get a slight rise out of seeing your peers ogle your belongings. The cool car is as much for the owner as it is for the onlooker. Bit of ego exists in all man, even the most pious and humble.



Now this may be true. If you truly live every waking moment trying to please God instead of yourself, I am not sure thats a life I even begin to understand or could even pretend to enjoy. I stay with my wife because thats what God wants, it pleases him. Nevermind shes fucking the poolboy, stealing money from me, and beats the kids. That lifestyle is full of falacies. Moral potholes that every individual encounters walking thru life.

To truly live such a way is impossible. Maybe not to personal shortcomings (no offense, but I doubt that highly), but to outside influences alone. You cant control those around you and like it or not they (us) have a direct bearing on your everyday decisons. Thats the exact fallacy that religion tends to ignore directly, but addresses thru fellowship. Living and socializing amongst people like yourself solves alot of that very problem.

Which is why I detest it. The world isnt perfect, nor should it ever strive to be. Pleasing God sounds all well and good, but when your standards for excellence are entirely wishful, youre setting yourself up for failure.

Its not so much the "risk of being wrong", thats easy, I am wrong everyday. Being right has its pitfalls, too. If the way I live is wrong, bottom line, I dont want to be right. This life is assured, its guaranteed. The afterlife is not.

I hope you didn't feel as if I was claiming to have attained 'perfection'... Life is a marathon that requires attributes of patience, restraint, comprehension, and sacrifice to get through the strife-causing hurdles that befall our paths. I look towards Christ's example - His perfection gives us hope that we can overcome our troubles if and when our faith is placed on GOD.

You're right though... the world isn't perfect, it's not peaceful, it's very corrupt, it's complicated, it's greedy, it's lustful, and filled with deceptions of all levels. GOD however, has promised us an inner peace, 'that defies all human understanding'. Again, all He seeks is a personal relationship with people. If you believe you are right with GOD, he will always be listening. You don't necessarily have to join any 'group' or congregation for this to happen... Your approach however, has to be genuine.

[smeagol]

LOL...thats all interpretation. Do you bow before the Pope? Yes.


Bowing before the Pope does not mean we worship the Pope.

British dudes bow before the queen. I don’t believe they worship her.

[DarkReign]

I hope you didn't feel as if I was claiming to have attained 'perfection'...

No, no, no...not at all. I havent entered this conversation to hurl insults or say "Youre wrong, Im right! HA!"

I am not reading into anything you have written beyond exactly what you have written.

[DarkReign]

Bowing before the Pope does not mean we worship the Pope.

British dudes bow before the queen. I don’t believe they worship her.

Good point. Very good point. But, another argument all together, the Pope is seen as the "closest to God" so to speak. Like it or not, that is a small form of worship. But I realize what you mean Smeagol, and the way I wrote it was not the way I meant it. I very much understand that Catholics do not pray to the Pope.

I should have been less acute.

"I will never bow before another human being."

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyone ever question WHY we need to worship or why God display's such a horrible form of pride where he demands to be worshipped?

Yeah you know, a God who would say pride is wrong, then demand you worship him and only him doesn't quite add up in my head. I question not the existance of spirituality, I question - or deny rather - the legitimacy of christian/islamic/jewish churches which are supposubly carrying out his wishes.

[jochhejaam]

If entry to Heaven (by your definition) is more likened to a job interview than a rite of passage, then yes, Fuck your God.

I think you may have missed the point of my post.
We'll put on our best front, bend over backwards. kiss butt and even lie to get a job which equates to what, 40 years of expendable income. Yet when it comes to doing what it takes to obtain eternal life, (merely acknowledging that we are sinners who can receive eternal life with God by acknowledging that His Son died to remit those sins, thereby redeeming us) your position is that " I am who I am. Never killed anyone, etc. If that isnt good enough," too damn bad.

Obtaining fourty years of income is worth a much greater effort on our part than simply making a decision that allows us to receive eternal life?

Not trying to convince you of anything DR, just expounding on the point of my post.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you missed DR's point that somethings should be above grovelling for.

[jochhejaam]

I think you missed DR's point that somethings should be above grovelling for.
Thanks Manny. I guess you're trying to be helpful but DR's message that etennal life with God is not worth the decision it takes to obtain it was quite clear.

[Phenomanul]

Anyone ever question WHY we need to worship or why God display's such a horrible form of pride where he demands to be worshipped?

Yeah you know, a God who would say pride is wrong, then demand you worship him and only him doesn't quite add up in my head. I question not the existance of spirituality, I question - or deny rather - the legitimacy of christian/islamic/jewish churches which are supposubly carrying out his wishes.

We worship Him out of gratitude for WHO HE is.

Holiness demands worship.
GOD is without beginning or end... HE has always existed. That is an amazing notion in and of itself that goes beyond human comprehension.

We are so insignificant in terms of size, strength, knowledge, and even the duration of our puny short-lived lives. And yet, GOD loves us... knows everything about us. Worship should be the normal response to His affection. Reverence is only required because again, He is supremely Holy. And deference should be shown simply out of awe for his grandeur.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

All of this nonsense would be expunged if we all adhered to Hoff's theory of relativism.

[Guru of Nothing]

We worship Him out of gratitude for WHO HE is.

Holiness demands worship.
GOD is without beginning or end... HE has always existed. That is an amazing notion in and of itself that goes beyond human comprehension.

We are so insignificant in terms of size, strength, knowledge, and even the duration of our puny short-lived lives. And yet, GOD loves us... knows everything about us. Worship should be the normal response to His affection. Reverence is only required because again, He is supremely Holy. And deference should be shown simply out of awe for his grandeur.

Is Jesus without beginning or end?

I have a few follow-up questions, one of which includes the use of "greater than."

[Phenomanul]

Is Jesus without beginning or end?

I have a few follow-up questions, one of which includes the use of "greater than."

Yes

"Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed." -- John 17:5

JESUS is GOD; hence since GOD is eternal so is JESUS.



The prophet Isaiah once had a vision (the whole passage is found in Isaiah 6):

"In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple." -- Isaiah 6:1



Then look what Jesus says in the Book of John Chapter 12 speaking about himself:

37 "But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they didn't believe in him,

38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "Lord, who has believed our report? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

39 For this cause they couldn't believe, for Isaiah said again,

40 "He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and would turn, and I would heal them."

41 Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory, and spoke of him.

42 Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they didn't confess it, so that they wouldn't be put out of the synagogue,

43 for they loved men's praise more than God's praise.

44 Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me, but in him who sent me.

45 He who sees me sees him who sent me.

46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in the darkness.

47 If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.

49 For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50 I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak." -- John 12:37-50

[Guru of Nothing]

JESUS is GOD; hence since GOD is eternal so is JESUS.


So if Jesus is eternal, he has no beginning, correct?

Pardon me for not reading all your quotes; I assumed you were talking to yourself.

[Phenomanul]

All of this nonsense would be expunged if we all adhered to Hoff's theory of relativism.


OK.

If under this society, say someone killed a person that you held dear to your heart claiming it was part of their belief system. Would you then accept his relativistic view of murder?

There has to be an inmovable standard. Otherwise the powerful would overcome the weak (the elderly, unborn children, social outcasts, the poor)... and the morals of society would decay even further.

[Phenomanul]

So if Jesus is eternal, he has no beginning, correct?

Pardon me for not reading all your quotes; I assumed you were talking to yourself.


He Always Was... Is... and Forever will be.

[Guru of Nothing]

So that story about what happened in Bethleham was a ruse?

[Phenomanul]

So that story about what happened in Bethleham was a ruse?

That was the story about how GOD became a man... birth included. While JESUS was on earth he was 100% man and 100% GOD. Yeah.

[velik_m]

Anyone ever question WHY we need to worship or why God display's such a horrible form of pride where he demands to be worshipped?

Yeah you know, a God who would say pride is wrong, then demand you worship him and only him doesn't quite add up in my head. I question not the existance of spirituality, I question - or deny rather - the legitimacy of christian/islamic/jewish churches which are supposubly carrying out his wishes.

godv also says don't kill and doesn't mind doing some mass murders himself.

[BIG IRISH]

Whydoesn't America believe in evolution?

Public acceptance of evolutionHuman beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.

Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised," he says. "Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."

Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That's despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says.

There is some cause for hope. Team member Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, finds solace in the finding that the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution has dropped from 48 to 39 in the same time. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared, from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year. "That is a group of people that can be reached," says Scott.

The main opposition to evolution comes from fundamentalist Christians, who are much more abundant in the US than in Europe. While Catholics, European Protestants and so-called mainstream US Protestants consider the biblical account of creation as a metaphor, fundamentalists take the Bible literally, leading them to believe that the Earth and humans were created only 6000 years ago.



.... I question not the existance of spirituality, I question - or deny rather - the legitimacy of christian/islamic/jewish churches which are supposubly carrying out his wishes.
good point Manny


Ironically, the separation of church and state laid down in the US constitution contributes to the tension. In Catholic schools, both evolution and the strict biblical version of human beginnings can be taught. A court ban on teaching creationism in public schools, however, means pupils can only be taught evolution, which angers fundamentalists, and triggers local battles over evolution.

These battles can take place because the US lacks a national curriculum of the sort common in European countries. However, the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind act is instituting standards for science teaching, and the battles of what they should be has now spread to the state level.

Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes

[jochhejaam]

Miller thinks more genetics should be on the syllabus to reinforce the idea of evolution. American adults may be harder to reach: nearly two-thirds don't agree that more than half of human genes are common to chimpanzees. How would these people respond when told that humans and chimps share 99 per cent of their genes

FWIW, while two-thirds didn't get it right, the 99 percent is a bit high.

Human-chimp DNA difference trebled:


Scientists sort the chimps from the men
11 April 2002
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are.

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single "letter" differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species.

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. "Insertions" occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, "deletions" mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species.

Littered with indels
Together, they are termed "indels", and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma.

When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.

But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.

Junk and genes
"We're not any more different than we were," says Britten. "But we see a bit more divergence than before because insertions and deletions are taken into account. It almost triples the difference."

The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. "It's just a glance," he says.

But the differences were equally split between "junk" regions that do not have any genes, and gene-rich parts of the genome, suggesting they may be evenly distributed.

Britten thinks it will be some time before we know what it is about our genes that makes us so different from chimps. He thinks the real secrets could lie in "regulatory" regions of DNA that control whole networks of genes. "It'll be a while before we understand them," he says.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.172510699)


http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2833

[Phenomanul]

godv also says don't kill and doesn't mind doing some mass murders himself.


He is the Author of Life... He can do as He pleases...

More specifically all sinners deserve death... so we should all be dead anyways... The only reason we live is out of GOD's infinite mercy.

[Phenomanul]

FWIW, while two-thirds didn't get it right, the 99 percent is a bit high.


Furthermore, it disregards one of the findings from the article that started this whole thread. A finding that discovered that the supposed 'dead zones' in DNA were just as important to the functionality of our Genome as our active genes. This fact alone would add another 7% percent difference between the genomes of the species.

Again though, genetic similarity does not necesarily suggest genetic linearity or divergence from one source. Our DNAs should be very similar and that shouldn't be a surprise. We were all made by the same Engineer.

[DarkReign]

Thanks Manny. I guess you're trying to be helpful but DR's message that etennal life with God is not worth the decision it takes to obtain it was quite clear.

No, I think your strict interpretation is far off. I will not beg God for entry to anywhere. If my entry into His kingdom is predicated upon me groveling for it, or somehow living on faith that he is truly good and loving without ever proving it, then He can keep it. Im sorry if this offends you or anyone else, but if you are willingly ignorant enough to try and pass a test no one is even sure exists, good for you. When your Creator whispers in your ear to jump off a bridge, or kill a bunch of people, or suppress certain ideas, as so many have claimed with fervency in the past, just keep it to yourself. You stand in righeousness from nothing you personally have ever done, have ever achieved, or have ever shared except that you worship a deity. Congratulations on being one of the crowd. I was raised to question everyone and everything, accept nothing at face value. Not even traditional religion. You know nothing more (or less) than I do. You just think you do. Which makes you a know-it-all loud-mouth. Stick with your flock and your sheppard, they might actually give a damn.

Manny had it spot on. I will not beg, anyone for anything. Not even my life, this one or the next. Prideful? Maybe. But just because your particular belief system is popular does not make it correct. Just ask the current Republican party (lol).

--------------------------------------------------------------

I tire of this thread and this subject. There are really two camps, the Religion>Science crowd and the Science>Religion crowd. I dont care how many degrees from the greatest schools this Earth has to offer any member on this board has. Saying the Earth is 6000 years old and that carbon dating is a hoax is really very scary to me. To me alone. I respect your opinion, Boa. Youve obviously thought long and hard about your value system, your education, your life, etc.

But you do scare me. I would say your mindset and perversion of science is what mainly scares me. Evolution and the age of Earth are the only subjects you choose to attack because they directly contradict yor literal interpretation of the Bible. Challenging other popualr theories to the length and breadth at which you attacked Evolution and Carbon Dating wouldnt even be worth it. If you truly stood on scientific ground, you would be given endless streams of money to research and prove your theories.

My cousin just graduated with his masters in Chemical Engineering. He just got accepted into a research lab in Arizona (something to do with experimental plastics, dont ask me, not my area). He knows the Lab Director from grad school (professor-student relationship) and has a serious chance to be running his own lab in a couple of years (maybe more).

The Lab Director (PhD) is funding this thru a research grant he got from his dissertation (sp?). It was disseminated thru the usual venues and was picked up by a muiltitude of large corporations offering money for specific research. Obviously, according to his NDA, he didnt tell me anything at all about what specifically he is working on. I mean nothing. Hes new, doesnt know exactly what he can discuss, so he doesnt discuss at all.

My point is, even theoretical science get research grants. Evolutionary scientists spend their lifetimes researching the comon links in current and extinct species. Yet you stand on your education providing minimal, controversial data to support your claims. Whilst the evolutionary scientists stand on decades of information, science, data and the like, yet you feel confidant enough to say "Nope, they are dead wrong."

Thats cocky. Some would say arrogant. I would say delusional, but yet I dont hold any degree in any field.

My point being, you can believe as you will. You can convince other like-minded religious types of the same ideals. But dont expect to be taken seriously when you denounce outright that carbon-dating is a hoax, that the world is 6000 years old and Noahs flood killed the dinosaurs.

Putting those 3 key points in one sentence really drives home your need, your desire, your agenda. That your God is right, and everyone else is wrong. Science, tradition, scientific method, known fact, common practices accepted the world over by leading scientists be damned. Its fanaticism that maybe you dont even realize or care to admit.

I accept their is a creator. I personally believe that he did in fact provide answers to the obviously curious mind. But we, humans, are not unique. We arent the only ones with souls, with minds, with ambition. If the universe is truly devoid of life outside of Earth, what a complete and utter waste of space.

[Phenomanul]

No, I think your strict interpretation is far off. I will not beg God for entry to anywhere. If my entry into His kingdom is predicated upon me groveling for it, then He can keep it.

Manny had it spot on. I will not beg, anyone for anything. Not even my life, this one or the next. Prideful? Maybe. But just because your particular belief system is popular does not make it correct. Just ask the current Republican party.

Again though, our belief system isn't as 'popular' as you make it out to be -- considering that more than 70% of professed Christians don't even live by what they preach.

[Yonivore]

Again though, our belief system isn't as 'popular' as you make it out to be -- considering that more than 70% of professed Christians don't even live by what they preach.
You could make that 100%. No Christian is able to live up to the standards of the faith. We are all broken and fall short in the eyes of the Lord.

Now, the verdict is still out on how many Christians truly repent of their sins.

That's where the whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" thing comes in.

[Phenomanul]

You could make that 100%. No Christian is able to live up to the standards of the faith. We are all broken and fall short in the eyes of the Lord.

Now, the verdict is still out on how many Christians truly repent of their sins.

That's where the whole "judge not, lest ye be judged" thing comes in.


I'm not judging them.

I've said repeatedly that perfection is unattainable -- since only Christ was perfect. That doesn't mean we can't live a life of true worship and repentance (look to King David's example).

Now, I was addressing how many people claim to be Christians but know squat about the creeds of their faith. People who wouldn't be able to pick out the names of Biblical characters, the Books of the Bible or even describe the basic tenets of their faith. No one is judging them, I'm simply quoting a statistic.

[Yonivore]

I'm not judging them.

I've said repeatedly that perfection is unattainable -- since only Christ was perfect.
Perfection is not only unattainable, it is not even expected.


That doesn't mean we can't live a life of true worship and repentance (look to King David's example).
How old was King David when laid Bathsheba and had her husband murdered? God forbid it takes a similar failing for all of us to reach pure repentance.


Now, I was addressing how many people claim to be Christians but know squat about the creeds of their faith. People who wouldn't be able to pick out the names of Biblical characters, the Books of the Bible or even describe the basic tenets of their faith. No one is judging them, I'm simply quoting a statistic.
Well, unlike King David, most don't have the advantage of having their biblical history drilled into them from an early age by church elders and family. So, whose fault is that? The person who grows up not knowing their faith or the people who failed to impart it?

And, considering King David did have that advantage and still committed adultry and murder says alot for those who are obversely disadvantaged and have not.

Like I said, in the area of faith and eternal salvation/damnation, "judge not, lest ye be judged."

[DarkReign]

"judge not, lest ye be judged."

That goes for everything in life.

[Yonivore]

That goes for everything in life.
Actually no, it doesn't.

We make judgements all the time. Just like we discriminate all the time.

You judge the quality of products so that you can make a determination of whether or not you want to buy them again. You judge the quality of an employee's work so that you can decide to whom to give raises or whom you're going to let go in a downsize. You judge criminals based on the law. You judge your sister's choice in clothing so that you can save her from embarrassment -- if she'll listen.

We all judge each others' behaviors and beliefs against our own behaviors and beliefs so that we can either modify our own behaviors and beliefs or attempt (with varying degrees of effort and zeal) to affect the behaviors and beliefs of others.

The only judgement reserved is that reserved by God -- and, it is -- in simple terms -- whether or not you're going to heaven or hell.

[Phenomanul]

Perfection is not only unattainable, it is not even expected.

I think you missed my point entirely.



How old was King David when laid Bathsheba and had her husband murdered? God forbid it takes a similar failing for all of us to reach pure repentance.

The point was that even in King David's lowest moment, GOD's grace is still sufficient to allow for repentance... as long as it is genuine. This model is available to us, but like you said; hopefully we don't have to fall as deep in the hole to draw upon it.



Well, unlike King David, most don't have the advantage of having their biblical history drilled into them from an early age by church elders and family. So, whose fault is that? The person who grows up not knowing their faith or the people who failed to impart it?

And, considering King David did have that advantage and still committed adultry and murder says alot for those who are obversely disadvantaged and have not.

There is no need to treat everyone as a child. Most people, once they have recieved the Holy Spirit (which is given to you when accepting Jesus Christ as Lord), know when they are doing right, and when they are doing wrong. Following through still requires a commited action. Don't kid yourself...

And living years of your life without lifting the Bible, while calling yourself a Christian is a sign of non-commitment. It has everthing to do with that person's true desire to follow GOD and very little to do with whether or not he was taught as a child. Again, these are professed Christians we're talking about.... not two day-old, or two week-old converts.


Like I said, in the area of faith and eternal salvation/damnation, "judge not, lest ye be judged."

I don't claim to know the state of others' souls.... But you should know that a Christian is 'known by their fruit'... If they don't earnestly seek GOD they will be fruitless trees... I'm not judging anyone any more than just making the observation (which doens't include judgement). Many in fact, hide behind that curtain and live out hypocritical lives... and unfortunately, this gives the rest of us a bad name.

[Yonivore]

I think you missed my point entirely.
No, I don't think I did.


The point was that even in King David's lowest moment, GOD's grace is still sufficient to allow for repentance... as long as it is genuine. This model is available to us, but like you said; hopefully we don't have to fall as deep in the hole to draw upon it.
And, only God knows if it is genuine. We should not even base our judgements on the behaviors of others in trying to determine if their repentence is genuine.

David was hand-picked as a child to lead the People of Israel. He understood the providence and divinity of his selection as King at no better time than when he stood across from Goliath and, placing his fate in God's hand, defeated a mighty army.

Did that understanding insulate him from further failings? And, none of us -- at least I don't think -- have even come close to having such an experience.


There is no need to treat everyone as a child. Most people, once they have recieved the Holy Spirit (which is given to you when accepting Jesus Christ as Lord), know when they are doing right, and when they are doing wrong. Following through still requires a commited action. Don't kid yourself...
And all people fail miserably. Some in worse and more public ways than others.


And living years of your life without lifting the Bible, while calling yourself a Christian is a sign of non-commitment.
Of whose non-commitment? That was my point. Maybe it's a lack of understanding more than a lack of committment.


It has everthing to do with that person's true desire to follow GOD and very little to do with whether or not he was taught as a child. Again, these are professed Christians we're talking about.... not two day-old, or two week-old converts.
Eh, some are better at it than others. But, again, these are matters I choose to leave to God to judge.

I will agree there are professed Christians that are anything but. But, in that sense, I believe there are people who act as Christians that aren't in the faith.


I don't claim to know the state of others' souls....
That's a relief.


But you should know that a Christian is 'known by their fruit'... If they don't earnestly seek GOD they will be fruitless trees...
Really? What of people who bear the same good fruit and profess to be Athiests?

I personally know a man who spent 45 years of his life believing he was an athiest and is now a Christian minister.

I say it's all a matter of God's timing and that you should quit trying to do His job for Him.


I'm not judging anyone any more than just making the observation (which doens't include judgement). Many in fact, hide behind that curtain and live out hypocritical lives... and unfortunately, this gives the rest of us a bad name.
We give ourselves a bad name. You shouldn't be burdened with the sins of another. That was the promise of Christ. Have you forgotten? You have the power to be blameless yourself -- thinking that others affect how the world sees you is a cop out.

[Phenomanul]

No, I think your strict interpretation is far off. I will not beg God for entry to anywhere. If my entry into His kingdom is predicated upon me groveling for it, or somehow living on faith that he is truly good and loving without ever proving it, then He can keep it. Im sorry if this offends you or anyone else, but if you are willingly ignorant enough to try and pass a test no one is even sure exists, good for you. When your Creator whispers in your ear to jump off a bridge, or kill a bunch of people, or suppress certain ideas, as so many have claimed with fervency in the past, just keep it to yourself. You stand in righeousness from nothing you personally have ever done, have ever achieved, or have ever shared except that you worship a deity. Congratulations on being one of the crowd. I was raised to question everyone and everything, accept nothing at face value. Not even traditional religion. You know nothing more (or less) than I do. You just think you do. Which makes you a know-it-all loud-mouth. Stick with your flock and your sheppard, they might actually give a damn.

Manny had it spot on. I will not beg, anyone for anything. Not even my life, this one or the next. Prideful? Maybe. But just because your particular belief system is popular does not make it correct. Just ask the current Republican party (lol).

--------------------------------------------------------------

I tire of this thread and this subject. There are really two camps, the Religion>Science crowd and the Science>Religion crowd. I dont care how many degrees from the greatest schools this Earth has to offer any member on this board has. Saying the Earth is 6000 years old and that carbon dating is a hoax is really very scary to me. To me alone. I respect your opinion, Boa. Youve obviously thought long and hard about your value system, your education, your life, etc.

But you do scare me. I would say your mindset and perversion of science is what mainly scares me. Evolution and the age of Earth are the only subjects you choose to attack because they directly contradict yor literal interpretation of the Bible. Challenging other popualr theories to the length and breadth at which you attacked Evolution and Carbon Dating wouldnt even be worth it. If you truly stood on scientific ground, you would be given endless streams of money to research and prove your theories.

My cousin just graduated with his masters in Chemical Engineering. He just got accepted into a research lab in Arizona (something to do with experimental plastics, dont ask me, not my area). He knows the Lab Director from grad school (professor-student relationship) and has a serious chance to be running his own lab in a couple of years (maybe more).

The Lab Director (PhD) is funding this thru a research grant he got from his dissertation (sp?). It was disseminated thru the usual venues and was picked up by a muiltitude of large corporations offering money for specific research. Obviously, according to his NDA, he didnt tell me anything at all about what specifically he is working on. I mean nothing. Hes new, doesnt know exactly what he can discuss, so he doesnt discuss at all.

My point is, even theoretical science get research grants. Evolutionary scientists spend their lifetimes researching the comon links in current and extinct species. Yet you stand on your education providing minimal, controversial data to support your claims. Whilst the evolutionary scientists stand on decades of information, science, data and the like, yet you feel confidant enough to say "Nope, they are dead wrong."

Thats cocky. Some would say arrogant. I would say delusional, but yet I dont hold any degree in any field.

My point being, you can believe as you will. You can convince other like-minded religious types of the same ideals. But dont expect to be taken seriously when you denounce outright that carbon-dating is a hoax, that the world is 6000 years old and Noahs flood killed the dinosaurs.

Putting those 3 key points in one sentence really drives home your need, your desire, your agenda. That your God is right, and everyone else is wrong. Science, tradition, scientific method, known fact, common practices accepted the world over by leading scientists be damned. Its fanaticism that maybe you dont even realize or care to admit.

I accept their is a creator. I personally believe that he did in fact provide answers to the obviously curious mind. But we, humans, are not unique. We arent the only ones with souls, with minds, with ambition. If the universe is truly devoid of life outside of Earth, what a complete and utter waste of space.


Just out of clarification... I never said carbon-dating was a hoax... I said it had a limited range of applicability. Meaning you can't use it to date 50,000 year old material if the isotope only allows you to determine it's age over the last 10,000 years or so. 'Perversion of Science' would be to ignore that facet of the field.

I do believe in Noah's flood, just like I believe in the Exodus etc... (did you catch the History Channel's show on 'Deciphering the Exodus' - they found three clay tablets in a mycenean/minoan?? tomb that dated back to the time of Moses that illustrated the demise of Pharoh and his men by the collapse of the Red Sea... Egyptian gold and Hebrew artifacts were found in that same tomb.)

And regarding the age of the earth there is evidence for a young earth model and evidence for a multi-billion year old model. I'm inclined to gravitate towards one but that doesn't preclude the other from being right. I've said that much on several occasions. If I change my mind, I don't need to hide in a corner, I'll admit my error and move on. The point is, none of this matters when the presence of GOD himself is manifested in our lives. What greater proof is needed to take Him by His Word? Of course, this is a completely intangible experience and one can't prove it.

[Yonivore]

Just out of clarification...blah...blah...blah...
I judge that you're too pious.

[Phenomanul]

No, I don't think I did.


And, only God knows if it is genuine. We should not even base our judgements on the behaviors of others in trying to determine if their repentence is genuine.

David was hand-picked as a child to lead the People of Israel. He understood the providence and divinity of his selection as King at no better time than when he stood across from Goliath and, placing his fate in God's hand, defeated a mighty army.

Did that understanding insulate him from further failings? And, none of us -- at least I don't think -- have even come close to having such an experience.


And all people fail miserably. Some in worse and more public ways than others.


Of whose non-commitment? That was my point. Maybe it's a lack of understanding more than a lack of committment.


Eh, some are better at it than others. But, again, these are matters I choose to leave to God to judge.

I will agree there are professed Christians that are anything but. But, in that sense, I believe there are people who act as Christians that aren't in the faith.


That's a relief.


Really? What of people who bear the same good fruit and profess to be Athiests?

I personally know a man who spent 45 years of his life believing he was an athiest and is now a Christian minister.

I say it's all a matter of God's timing and that you should quit trying to do His job for Him.


We give ourselves a bad name. You shouldn't be burdened with the sins of another. That was the promise of Christ. Have you forgotten? You have the power to be blameless yourself -- thinking that others affect how the world sees you is a cop out.


Forget it... we're running in circles. You've accused me of judging others and in doing so you've judged me. Discernment and judgement are two different things.

The original point was that true followers of GOD are in the minority and not a majority like DR had suggested.

The Bible says that much, "Narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and wide is the road that leads to destruction." If you had a problem with why I believed that statement then look it up; it's there.

The reality is that many Christians don't practice their faith. And thus, an apparently larger group is in fact truly smaller than it seems. And yes, I know fully well that only GOD is qualified to quantify that gap Himself - not me. Which is why I said you missed my point.

[Phenomanul]

I judge that you're too pious.

I strive to live a life that is worthy of my Lord. If that offends you, I'm sorry. I don't live my life to assuage your criteria -- I try to please GOD alone, and that's all that should matter. And no, I'm not anywhere near perfect - I have many flaws.

I also have pet-peeves: and being called a 'spritual snob' is not something I take kindly or rejoice over.

Did you wake up on the wrong side of bed today or something? What's with all the anger?

[Yonivore]

I strive to live a life that is worthy of my Lord. If that offends you, I'm sorry. I don't live my life to assuage your criteria -- I try to please GOD alone, and that's all that should matter. And no, I'm not anywhere near perfect - I have many flaws.
So, why are your sins less relevant to the discussion than others? After all, doesn't Paul teach that, in the eyes of the Lord, all sin is equal and separates us from the love of God? Murder and piety alike?


I also have pet-peeves: and being called a 'spritual snob' is not something I take kindly or rejoice over.
The pious crack was tongue-in-cheeks but, if it burns -- who am I to disagree.


Did you wake up on the wrong side of bed today or something? What's with all the anger?
Point to the anger please.

[Yonivore]

Forget it... we're running in circles. You've accused me of judging others and in doing so you've judged me. Discernment and judgement are two different things.
Your judgement and mine are two different things as well.


The original point was that true followers of GOD are in the minority and not a majority like DR had suggested.
My point is that the true followers of God are known only by God.


The Bible says that much, "Narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and wide is the road that leads to destruction." If you had a problem with why I believed that statement then look it up; it's there.
I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with you claiming to know who's on the path and who's in the ditches.


The reality is that many Christians don't practice their faith. And thus, an apparently larger group is in fact truly smaller than it seems. And yes, I know fully well that only GOD is qualified to quantify that gap Himself - not me. Which is why I said you missed my point.
Again, I don't think I did miss your point.

[Phenomanul]

So, why are your sins less relevant to the discussion than others? After all, doesn't Paul teach that, in the eyes of the Lord, all sin is equal and separates us from the love of God? Murder and piety alike?


The pious crack was tongue-in-cheeks but, if it burns -- who am I to disagree.


Point to the anger please.


You are harping on something that is irrelevant to the original point.

All Christians are sinners, since no one is faultless. Many choose to live in their sinful indulgence. I try to live redeemed. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Again, you say 'tongue-in-cheeks' but then keep on insinuating my whole perspective is spiritually arrogant. It doesn't burn. I'm irritated by your stubborness... particularly because our disagreement stems from your miscalculated assessment of the statistic I quoted.

How many times must I repeat, I'm not judging anyone if I observe a lackadaisical approach in someone's faith. I can't measure genuineness -- only GOD can do that. But speaking to people who have professed to be Christian for years, and then finding out that they don't even know where the book of Matthew is, or that they don't know 'how to pray' -- Hey, these are signs of apathy on their part - barring a mental disability of course. This is not to say that they don't have a relationship with GOD. They've just chosen to experience Him in a limited way.

2nd Timothy says "Study to show thyself approved unto GOD" --- how can you be a Christian for years and go about your business without ever trying to learn WHO GOD is? What He wants for our lives? Or without developing a prayer habit. The Bible is a reflection of GOD's character, but if we don't read the Bible we will remain spiritually stagnant. If we don't pray we will remain spirtually stagnant. JESUS himself said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes out of the mouth of the Lord". Learning WHO GOD is, is an essential step in the path for spiritual maturity. Many are too lazy or non-committal to take this step. This observation in and of itself is not judgement.

[Phenomanul]

Your judgement and mine are two different things as well.


My point is that the true followers of God are known only by God.

Where have I said any different.


I don't have a problem with it. I have a problem with you claiming to know who's on the path and who's in the ditches.

Produce this list. You won't find it. I never said that.



Again, I don't think I did miss your point.

Fine. Whatever. Just bear in mind that the phrase, "ye shall know them by their fruit" is explicitly stated in the Bible. This is not something I made up, nor is it something that implies judgement. Otherwise, it would never have been written. Think about it.

[Yonivore]

Where have I said any different.
If you'll look back through your posts, just in this thread alone, you've as much said that many people who claim to be Christians must not be because they choose to not live up to Christian standards while at the same time you hold yourself up to be a Christian while, at the same time, admitting that you fail to live up to the Christian standards yourself.

Do you see the irony of that position?

I think you've judged their hearts when you use the word "choose" as you specifically did earlier in this thread:


All Christians are sinners, since no one is faultless. Many choose to live in their sinful indulgence. I try to live redeemed. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
How do you know what they "choose?" Wasn't it Paul -- himself a wretched example of humanity before God had that little talk with him on the road to Damascus -- who, while begging God to remove a thorn from his side, said he could not understand why it is that we do the things we hate while, at the same time, not doing the things we know are right?

I think so. It's in his epistle to the church in Rome somewhere.


Produce this list. You won't find it. I never said that.
List? List of what? You've said there are many professed Christians that must not be Christians at all because of their behaviors.


Fine. Whatever. Just bear in mind that the phrase, "ye shall know them by their fruit" is explicitly stated in the Bible. This is not something I made up, nor is it something that implies judgement. Otherwise, it would never have been written. Think about it.
You'll find a lot in the Bible. Much, if not most, of which can't be just taken out of context and used to settle an argument of this nature.

If we shall know them by their fruit, what do you make of the person who has never professed a belief in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and, yet, manages to produce "fruit" that is consistent with the principles of Christianity?

While I'm not a biblical scholar, I'm betting there's a lot more context surrounding that verse which is important to understanding it's ultimate meaning.

[Phenomanul]

Sorry for the delay... I've been pretty busy.


If you'll look back through your posts, just in this thread alone, you've as much said that many people who claim to be Christians must not be because they choose to not live up to Christian standards while at the same time you hold yourself up to be a Christian while, at the same time, admitting that you fail to live up to the Christian standards yourself.

Do you see the irony of that position?

You've again misunderstood my perspective.

Christianity is a lifestyle not a title.

HOW many times must I repeat that only GOD can gauge a human heart. Being accused of gauging them myself is insulting. Particularly when I'm the one stating I try not to do it.

If you can't understand that there are 'bench warmers' in churches across America you're only fooling yourself. Speaking about the reality of this condition does not imply that I have judged them. It is merely an observation. The Bible clearly states, "not everybody who calls me Lord will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" (no context is needed the message is very clear).

Our disagreement lies with the definition of judgement. Discernment does not equate to judgement otherwise, how else would you know which doctrines were biblically sound and which ones weren't? Are you judging a congregation if you don't like what they preach?



I think you've judged their hearts when you use the word "choose" as you specifically did earlier in this thread:

I will concede on this point considering it was bad word choice. But I try not to judge anyone specifically or single them out.



How do you know what they "choose?" Wasn't it Paul -- himself a wretched example of humanity before God had that little talk with him on the road to Damascus -- who, while begging God to remove a thorn from his side, said he could not understand why it is that we do the things we hate while, at the same time, not doing the things we know are right?

I think so. It's in his epistle to the church in Rome somewhere.

Seeking GOD and hiding from /avoiding GOD are two different things -- but again this is only something GOD can know. It is true, Paul struggled through these obstacles but we are later told by Paul himself that they served to strengthen his faith. Some people struggle with temptations because they are 'playing with fire' needlessly. Neither of these statements implies that a connection to GOD is severed. But some people feel that they alone can handle their problems whereas in Paul's example he relied on GOD for his sustenance.




List? List of what? You've said there are many professed Christians that must not be Christians at all because of their behaviors.

Not behaviors. From their lack of dedication. How can you be dedicated if you don't even bother to study GOD's Word? <--- Your typical bench warmer. This is an obvious attribute that one can percieve in others after brief chats with them. Again, no judgement is implied, nor is their standing with GOD questioned. These people will only rob themselves of the blessing of experiencing GOD fully.



You'll find a lot in the Bible. Much, if not most, of which can't be just taken out of context and used to settle an argument of this nature.

If we shall know them by their fruit, what do you make of the person who has never professed a belief in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and, yet, manages to produce "fruit" that is consistent with the principles of Christianity?

While I'm not a biblical scholar, I'm betting there's a lot more context surrounding that verse which is important to understanding it's ultimate meaning.

Here are the verses around that phrase; you tell me...

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

-- Matthew 7:12-29




Notice Jesus says... ye shall know them. It is a given that GOD knows, but He is clearly denoting that people around them would know too.

As far as the athiest producing 'good fruit' --- well... I honestly don't know.

[Yonivore]

Sorry for the delay... I've been pretty busy.
No sweat.

I'm only going to address a couple of points...


Seeking GOD and hiding from /avoiding GOD are two different things -- but again this is only something GOD can know. It is true, Paul struggled through these obstacles but we are later told by Paul himself that they served to strengthen his faith. Some people struggle with temptations because they are 'playing with fire' needlessly. Neither of these statements implies that a connection to GOD is severed. But some people feel that they alone can handle their problems whereas in Paul's example he relied on GOD for his sustenance.
Jonah and Moses both tried to hide from God. God pressed them into service. In Jonah's case, when he tried to flee the opposite direction from Nineveh, God had a great fish swallow him up and spit him out onto the beach a short distance from where He wanted him to be.

Moses tried to beg and barter his way out of the deal God handed him.

Then, just look at the disciples. Most of them were "bench warmers" until after Christ was crucified and they witnessed him ressurrected. Imagine that! Hanging out with the Lord, in the flesh, watching him perform miracles and still, you doubt and bicker and equivocate.


Not behaviors. From their lack of dedication. How can you be dedicated if you don't even bother to study GOD's Word? <--- Your typical bench warmer. This is an obvious attribute that one can percieve in others after brief chats with them. Again, no judgement is implied, nor is their standing with GOD questioned. These people will only rob themselves of the blessing of experiencing GOD fully.
Lack of dedication is a behavior.


As far as the athiest producing 'good fruit' --- well... I honestly don't know.
Well, you listed a few verses around the quote. Did you list enough? Did you consider other biblical text that might be relevant? Compare it to the other gospels?

And, as far as an athiest producing "good fruit," I do know. I've seen it.

[Phenomanul]

Lack of dedication is a behavior.

But seeing that something is red doesn't mean I'm the one that will paint it white. It is merely an observation... in fact, I encourage some of my students at church to continually study the scriptures and to develop a habit of prayer. Some don't do it, I can tell because they don't put forth the effort to study the books and always have to reference the index to find a book etc... In no way do I question their standing with GOD. I do however, let them know that in the end, they will only end up limiting their own experience with GOD. Again, no judgement is imparted.

The statement that there are Christians who profess to be Christians and are not is a concept directly from the Bible (in that same passage in fact).

Stating this does not imply judgement was imparted.


Well, you listed a few verses around the quote. Did you list enough? Did you consider other biblical text that might be relevant? Compare it to the other gospels?

Yes I read them, they say the same thing. JESUS clearly implies one can distinguish a tree that bears good fruit from one that doesn't.


And, as far as an athiest producing "good fruit," I do know. I've seen it.


I've thought about it longer and I remembered the following passage. So if you couple the previous passage with the following verses.... you tell me:

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

- John 15:1-8


And as far as salvation goes... the answer is given in John 14:6.

[jochhejaam]

[
QUOTE=DarkReign] I will not beg God for entry to anywhere. If my entry into His kingdom is predicated upon me groveling for it, or somehow living on faith that he is truly good and loving without ever proving it, then He can keep it.
I didn't beg God for to forgive me and no where in the Bible does it say anything about begging or groveling for forgiveness. I just asked Him (Jesus) in earnest to forgive me. It was as simple as that.







Im sorry if this offends you or anyone else, but if you are willingly ignorant enough to try and pass a test no one is even sure exists, good for you.
There was no test for me to pass. All of the work and effort needed to free mankind from sin was taken care of 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ who died on the Cross. The only thing I did was acknowledge that I was born a sinner and came to the heartfelt realization that Christ died for my sins. From that day on it's up to me to try to live life the way Christ lived his and to tell others about it so they might have the same opportunity to receive eternal life.
No groveling, begging or tests to pass.




When your Creator whispers in your ear to jump off a bridge, or kill a bunch of people, or suppress certain ideas, as so many have claimed with fervency in the past, just keep it to yourself.
What a crock of BS. You use extreme examples of macabre behavior by nutcases and attribute that behavior to Christians as a whole.

You admitted that you've only read a couple chapters of Genesis, then threw the Book down. What happened to the guy that was taught to question everyone and everything? Were you taught to question, object and condemn something without any real knowledge of it? That's what you've done and by choosing to do so you reek with the stench of hypocrisy . You know nothing about God or Christ but yet you have the audacity to shout out "Fuck your God"!
Who's ignorant DR?!




You stand in righeousness from nothing you personally have ever done, have ever achieved, or have ever shared...
Spot on. I am not righteous, His righteous dwells within me. As I previously stated, He did it all, the achievement was His but he did it for us and I accepted that with open arms.




Congratulations on being one of the crowd.
Actually you're the one that's lost in the crowd but it's hardly something to congratulate you for.

Quote=Jesus Christ: For the gate is wide and the way broad that leads to destruction
And many enter through it.
But the gate is small and the path narrow that leads to life
And only a few find it.












Now, back to the subject of the key human evolution genes.

[RandomGuy]

The Bible quoted them (angel/human hybrids) as being giants.... that's the connection.

Did you get some anti-matter yet?

Isn't that something of a false dichotomy?

Anti-matter is based on verifiable data derived from research. It's existance can be proved in a laboratory, and indeed small amounts of anti-matter have been created in certain high-speed particle accelerators.

Angel/human hybrids are suggested by an arbitrarily chosen translation of a book written thousands of years ago and can only be proven once they or their remains have been found.

To equate the two in terms of validity defies logic.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, while two-thirds didn't get it right, the 99 percent is a bit high.

Human-chimp DNA difference trebled:


Scientists sort the chimps from the men
11 April 2002
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA.

[article truncated for sake of brevity]

Interesting bit given the article that started off the whole shebang.

[RandomGuy]

I can accept this theory. However, I still believe that man was created as a different entity altogether. Adam was made out of 'the clay of the earth' and bore no genetic linearity with the rest of the animals -- including primates. We have a spirit and a soul -- none of the other animals do. In other words, animals were given a soul but were not endowed with an immortal spirit.


I am reading this whold thing from the beginning and there is a good chance that this is addressed on a later page, but...

So if the first human bor no genetic linearity with "the rest of the animals", if we find a sequence of genes, especially non-functioning junk genes, a few billion charactors long that correspond exactly with other animals that we allegedly have a common ancestor with, then this is simply (against all statistical science) a coincidence?

and if, the further away from us in the evolutionary tree an animal is, then the fewer of these exact sequences we find, just as evolution would predict, that is also a coincidence?

Or is that just waved away as "god did it that way on purpose"?

[RandomGuy]

Not unguided.... I'm a proponent of a guided-adaptation theory.

And yes, I believe in Noah's flood.

I used to think guided-adaptation was correct, but anymore I simply think that the universe is simply structured so that it was a statistical certainty that some form of intelligent life arose.

I think the whole thing was set in motion and let to roll where-ever it went.

We just happen to be one form of intelligent life among a statistically certain many.

Quantum physics changes things a bit more than most have quite assimilated yet.

[boutons_]

God loves non-linearities. Bible-thumpers tell us so.

[Phenomanul]

I used to think guided-adaptation was correct, but anymore I simply think that the universe is simply structured so that it was a statistical certainty that some form of intelligent life arose.

I think the whole thing was set in motion and let to roll where-ever it went.

We just happen to be one form of intelligent life among a statistically certain many.

Quantum physics changes things a bit more than most have quite assimilated yet.


The odds are not statistically certain... if anything, the odds would tell us that a genetically relevant DNA strand could never arise from nothing at all -- and that its 'random' construction would require far more time than the universe is old.

[Phenomanul]

Isn't that something of a false dichotomy?

Anti-matter is based on verifiable data derived from research. It's existance can be proved in a laboratory, and indeed small amounts of anti-matter have been created in certain high-speed particle accelerators.

Angel/human hybrids are suggested by an arbitrarily chosen translation of a book written thousands of years ago and can only be proven once they or their remains have been found.

To equate the two in terms of validity defies logic.

Good catch. I meant to write dark-matter.

The point was, I believe in the existence of dark-matter; without the need for its physical find.

[boutons_]

Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter'

Analysis of Galactic Collision Said to Reveal Mysterious Substance

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; A01

For decades, many scientists have theorized that the universe is made up of nearly undetectable mysterious substances called dark matter and dark energy. But until yesterday there was no proof that the subatomic matter actually exists.

After studying data from a long-ago collision of two giant clusters of galaxies, researchers now say they are certain dark matter does exist and plays a central role in creating and defining gravity throughout the universe.

While the scientists are still not sure exactly what dark matter is, since they have yet to identify it in a laboratory, they said that the workings of the universe cannot be explained without it.

The finding will have potentially great impact on an active debate among physicists and cosmologists about not only dark matter but also the workings of gravity that it helps explain. Indeed, the theory of dark matter evolved largely to explain the finding several decades ago that there was not enough visible matter in the universe to produce and account for the gravity needed to keep galaxies from flying apart.

"A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona in Tucson, leader of the NASA-Harvard University study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

The breakthrough came using data from NASA's orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory and involved information from what researchers called the most massive release of detected energy in the universe since the big bang.

Scientists said that the "bullet cluster," formed by a collision between an enormous cluster of galaxies more than 3 billion light-years away and a smaller galaxy cluster, demonstrated the existence of dark matter. In effect, the collision stripped the dark matter away from visible matter. Once stripped, dark matter was clearly identified by the strong gravitational pull that it exerted.

"We now have direct evidence" of dark matter, said Sean Carroll, a cosmologist in the physics department of the University of Chicago, who did not participate in the study. "There is no way to explain the observations without dark matter."

While the theoretical existence of dark matter has been broadly embraced for years -- and has now been further endorsed by some of the most prominent researchers and institutions in the field -- a strong countertheory has also grown, contending that the laws of gravity established by Newton and Einstein need modification. The group supporting this theory believes that a relatively limited tweaking of those laws, especially as they pertain to the massive nature of faraway galaxies, could explain the missing gravity better than could undetectable dark matter.

Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist at the University of Maryland, has been one of the dark-matter skeptics, and he said yesterday that he remained unconvinced.

"I've been aware of this result some time, and I agree that it is interesting and may make more sense in terms of dark matter than alternative gravity," he said. "However, it is premature to say so."

He said that a definitive detection of dark-matter particles would mean "grabbing them in the laboratory, not just inferring that their effects can be the only possible explanation for an observation before the alternatives have actually been checked."

The NASA-affiliated team that announced its findings yesterday said that the next step in trying to understand dark matter (and related dark energy) is, in fact, to identify it in a laboratory. That task has proved difficult so far, they said, because dark matter leaves no detectable traces, except to create a gravitational pull.

"This finding doesn't tell us where dark matter comes from," Carroll said. "It tells us that dark matter exists, but it doesn't say what it is, or why there's so much of it. The real adventure is ahead of us."

The researchers said yesterday that visible and detectible matter -- the atoms in everything from gases to elephants and stars -- makes up only 5 percent of the matter in the universe. Another estimated 20 percent is subatomic dark matter, which has no discernible qualities except the ability to create gravitational fields and pass through any object without leaving a trace. The rest, they said, is the even more mysterious dark energy, which fills empty space with a force that appears to negate gravity and push the universe to expand ever faster.

According to team member Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., their discovery was made only because the Chandra observatory was able to clearly track the effects of the collision between the two galaxy clusters. Monitors on Chandra, which has an elliptical orbit that sometimes carries it one-third of the distance to the moon, were able to detect and describe an unusual process in which the super-hot gases of the galaxy clusters separated from the remaining stars.

The super-hot gases have qualities that typically would have become the seat of any new gravitational fields, cosmologists say, but instead they went with the stars. That could happen, Markevitch said, only if dark matter separated from the gases and collected with the stars.

The team's paper will be published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

=====================

So does the expanding universe now have enough mass to stop expanding and then to collapse into a point before Big Banging again, and again, oscillating, as Vedic cosmology claims?

[Phenomanul]

I am reading this whold thing from the beginning and there is a good chance that this is addressed on a later page, but...

So if the first human bor no genetic linearity with "the rest of the animals", if we find a sequence of genes, especially non-functioning junk genes, a few billion charactors long that correspond exactly with other animals that we allegedly have a common ancestor with, then this is simply (against all statistical science) a coincidence?

and if, the further away from us in the evolutionary tree an animal is, then the fewer of these exact sequences we find, just as evolution would predict, that is also a coincidence?

Or is that just waved away as "god did it that way on purpose"?


We were engineered in a similar fashion. Hemoglobin is hemoglobin... which strongly resembles myoglobin... which bears resemblance to chlorophyll etc...

You would have to take a closer look at our genome to know that the techniques used to create 'matches' were flawed.... Why? Because the matches are created only after the genes are sliced, sliced and spliced.... But the placement of the code is just as important as the sequence itself.

It's a flawed conclusion to think that because species A has a 20 segment section that matches identically to that of species B, that they then share a similar gene. Was it located in the same codified area? That would be the more important and telling question? Furthermore, we are a couple of years removed from making this cross reference with multiple species.... hell, it took over 15 years (and billions of dollars) just to map the human genome. Without the interest, who do you think is going to pump the money to map the entire genomes of several other species? Only by comparing genomes of multiple species can your premise be correct... otherwise, it's not.

[Phenomanul]

Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter'

Analysis of Galactic Collision Said to Reveal Mysterious Substance

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; A01

For decades, many scientists have theorized that the universe is made up of nearly undetectable mysterious substances called dark matter and dark energy. But until yesterday there was no proof that the subatomic matter actually exists.

After studying data from a long-ago collision of two giant clusters of galaxies, researchers now say they are certain dark matter does exist and plays a central role in creating and defining gravity throughout the universe.

While the scientists are still not sure exactly what dark matter is, since they have yet to identify it in a laboratory, they said that the workings of the universe cannot be explained without it.

The finding will have potentially great impact on an active debate among physicists and cosmologists about not only dark matter but also the workings of gravity that it helps explain. Indeed, the theory of dark matter evolved largely to explain the finding several decades ago that there was not enough visible matter in the universe to produce and account for the gravity needed to keep galaxies from flying apart.

"A universe that's dominated by dark stuff seems preposterous, so we wanted to test whether there were any basic flaws in our thinking," said Doug Clowe of the University of Arizona in Tucson, leader of the NASA-Harvard University study. "These results are direct proof that dark matter exists."

The breakthrough came using data from NASA's orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory and involved information from what researchers called the most massive release of detected energy in the universe since the big bang.

Scientists said that the "bullet cluster," formed by a collision between an enormous cluster of galaxies more than 3 billion light-years away and a smaller galaxy cluster, demonstrated the existence of dark matter. In effect, the collision stripped the dark matter away from visible matter. Once stripped, dark matter was clearly identified by the strong gravitational pull that it exerted.

"We now have direct evidence" of dark matter, said Sean Carroll, a cosmologist in the physics department of the University of Chicago, who did not participate in the study. "There is no way to explain the observations without dark matter."

While the theoretical existence of dark matter has been broadly embraced for years -- and has now been further endorsed by some of the most prominent researchers and institutions in the field -- a strong countertheory has also grown, contending that the laws of gravity established by Newton and Einstein need modification. The group supporting this theory believes that a relatively limited tweaking of those laws, especially as they pertain to the massive nature of faraway galaxies, could explain the missing gravity better than could undetectable dark matter.

Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist at the University of Maryland, has been one of the dark-matter skeptics, and he said yesterday that he remained unconvinced.

"I've been aware of this result some time, and I agree that it is interesting and may make more sense in terms of dark matter than alternative gravity," he said. "However, it is premature to say so."

He said that a definitive detection of dark-matter particles would mean "grabbing them in the laboratory, not just inferring that their effects can be the only possible explanation for an observation before the alternatives have actually been checked."

The NASA-affiliated team that announced its findings yesterday said that the next step in trying to understand dark matter (and related dark energy) is, in fact, to identify it in a laboratory. That task has proved difficult so far, they said, because dark matter leaves no detectable traces, except to create a gravitational pull.

"This finding doesn't tell us where dark matter comes from," Carroll said. "It tells us that dark matter exists, but it doesn't say what it is, or why there's so much of it. The real adventure is ahead of us."

The researchers said yesterday that visible and detectible matter -- the atoms in everything from gases to elephants and stars -- makes up only 5 percent of the matter in the universe. Another estimated 20 percent is subatomic dark matter, which has no discernible qualities except the ability to create gravitational fields and pass through any object without leaving a trace. The rest, they said, is the even more mysterious dark energy, which fills empty space with a force that appears to negate gravity and push the universe to expand ever faster.

According to team member Maxim Markevitch of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., their discovery was made only because the Chandra observatory was able to clearly track the effects of the collision between the two galaxy clusters. Monitors on Chandra, which has an elliptical orbit that sometimes carries it one-third of the distance to the moon, were able to detect and describe an unusual process in which the super-hot gases of the galaxy clusters separated from the remaining stars.

The super-hot gases have qualities that typically would have become the seat of any new gravitational fields, cosmologists say, but instead they went with the stars. That could happen, Markevitch said, only if dark matter separated from the gases and collected with the stars.

The team's paper will be published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

=====================

So does the expanind universe now have enough mass to stop expanding and then to collapse into a point before Big Banging again, and again, oscillating, as Vedic cosmology claims?


OK boutons_ get some dark matter for me.... I already told you I believed in its existence.

The point was ChumpDumper wanted me to give him angel fossils. And I said "sure, when you get me some dark matter." (Of course originally I wrote down anti-matter -- but I was speaking of dark matter). Not that he would have been able to get some anti-matter anyway.

[Spurminator]

There are really two camps, the Religion>Science crowd and the Science>Religion crowd.

Not really, it's just those two camps that do the most talking.

[RandomGuy]

The odds are not statistically certain... if anything, the odds would tell us that a genetically relevant DNA strand could never arise from nothing at all -- and that its 'random' construction would require far more time than the universe is old.

DNA strands don't reproduce. RNA stands do.

All that it takes is just some very simple self-replicating proteins. This requires very little in the way of complexity.

Sooner or later it is a statistical certainty that some of those proteins will change slightly. Some of those changes will, with a statistical certainty, lead to a version of the protein that is better adapted to its evironment, and enable that version of the protein to out-reproduce the proceeding versions.

The complexity increases over time with new adaptations. The adaptations aren't quite random--they will favor changes that allow for more reproduction.

[RandomGuy]

We were engineered in a similar fashion. Hemoglobin is hemoglobin... which strongly resembles myoglobin... which bears resemblance to chlorophyll etc...

You would have to take a closer look at our genome to know that the techniques used to create 'matches' were flawed.... Why? Because the matches are created only after the genes are sliced, sliced and spliced.... But the placement of the code is just as important as the sequence itself.

It's a flawed conclusion to think that because species A has a 20 segment section that matches identically to that of species B, that they then share a similar gene. Was it located in the same codified area? That would be the more important and telling question? Furthermore, we are a couple of years removed from making this cross reference with multiple species.... hell, it took over 15 years (and billions of dollars) just to map the human genome. Without the interest, who do you think is going to pump the money to map the entire genomes of several other species? Only by comparing genomes of multiple species can your premise be correct... otherwise, it's not.

I am not talking a 20 segment section.

I am talking essentially about a quadranary number billions of digits long. Replace each of the four chemicals a number 1,2,3,4.

Common ancestors start with a number trillions of digits long and that number will change over time as different populations diverge into new species.

New species=New number

The closer two species are in the evolutionary tree, the longer the numbers that match.

[RandomGuy]

OK boutons_ get some dark matter for me.... I already told you I believed in its existence.

The point was ChumpDumper wanted me to give him angel fossils. And I said "sure, when you get me some dark matter." (Of course originally I wrote down anti-matter -- but I was speaking of dark matter). Not that he would have been able to get some anti-matter anyway.

Not any more than you can give angel fossils...

The difference between the two is that dark matter can be inferred from physics, and angel fossils can be inferred from... what?

Show me an equation that infers the existence of angel fossils.

[boutons_]

"get some dark matter for me."

There is evidence of dark matter now, as the article said, the scientists are working on more evidence and better understanding, which will amount to more evidence than you have for 6-day creation and new earth creation.

[Phenomanul]

"get some dark matter for me."

There is evidence of dark matter now, as the article said, the scientists are working on more evidence and better understanding, which will amount to more evidence than you have for 6-day creation and new earth creation.


Light years away!!!! CD wanted tangible evidence. You missed the whole point of the analogy.

But that's OK, I don't need you to understand it. It's not like you will ever change your mind -- it's already set.

Whoopdeee dooooo....

[Phenomanul]

DNA strands don't reproduce. RNA stands do.

All that it takes is just some very simple self-replicating proteins. This requires very little in the way of complexity.

Sooner or later it is a statistical certainty that some of those proteins will change slightly. Some of those changes will, with a statistical certainty, lead to a version of the protein that is better adapted to its evironment, and enable that version of the protein to out-reproduce the proceeding versions.

The complexity increases over time with new adaptations. The adaptations aren't quite random--they will favor changes that allow for more reproduction.

DNA strands don't self-replicate... but they require a myriad of proteins just to allow the replication process - including RNA.

The odds we're talking about here are higher than accounting for a mutation every second for every second that's ever existed (even with a 13 billion year-old or an 18 billion year-old universe model). You still wouldn't get a viable strand of DNA.

BTW I hold a degree in Bio-Engineering. There is more relevance than meets the eye in terms of random articles here and there claiming to have discovered this or that. Trust me, most geneticists I know, truly understand the complexity of the code we're dealing with here and are in complete awe of DNA.

Edit: That's not to say that everything you wrote was completely wrong. Merely that there is more to it than what's on the surface.

[Phenomanul]

I am not talking a 20 segment section.

I am talking essentially about a quadranary number billions of digits long. Replace each of the four chemicals a number 1,2,3,4.

Common ancestors start with a number trillions of digits long and that number will change over time as different populations diverge into new species.

New species=New number

The closer two species are in the evolutionary tree, the longer the numbers that match.

GENOMES have to match... not random segments --- because even the non-coding regions are placed there for a purpose.

The location is just as important as the code itself.

[Phenomanul]

Not any more than you can give angel fossils...

The difference between the two is that dark matter can be inferred from physics, and angel fossils can be inferred from... what?

Show me an equation that infers the existence of angel fossils.


I was saying that some of the more bizzare looking hominid fossils could in fact be those of angel hybrids. In which case more physical evidence is attained. Can it be proven? Probably not. That would first require that the person believe in Angels in the first place.

Did you even read that part of the thread? I discussed the whole hominid fossil controversy in full...

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Einstein believed in intelligent design!

[Guru of Nothing]

It's as if some of us are playing Metaphysical I Spy.

[boutons_]

Agreed my mind is already set ... dead set against evidence-free bullshit fairy tales from you Bible-thumpers.

I actually am very open minded about scientific work, and enjoy when some old scientific axiom or paradigm gets ripped up and thrown out. eg:

================================


Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel


By GINA KOLATA http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.

Coaches and personal trainers tell athletes and exercisers that they have to learn to work out at just below their "lactic threshold," that point of diminishing returns when lactic acid starts to accumulate. Some athletes even have blood tests to find their personal lactic thresholds.

But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.

( I knew the the heart muscles consumed lactic acid as fuel, but like everybody else, I always heard that lactic acid was the enemy of skeletal muscles )

The notion that lactic acid was bad took hold more than a century ago, said George A. Brooks, a professor in the department of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley. It stuck because it seemed to make so much sense.

"It's one of the classic mistakes in the history of science," Dr. Brooks said.

Its origins lie in a study by a Nobel laureate, Otto Meyerhof, who in the early years of the 20th century cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. The frog's muscles had no circulation * no source of oxygen or energy.

Dr. Myerhoff gave the frog's leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Then, when Dr. Myerhoff examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid.

A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue.

Athletes were told that they should spend most of their effort exercising aerobically, using glucose as a fuel. If they tried to spend too much time exercising harder, in the anaerobic zone, they were told, they would pay a price, that lactic acid would accumulate in the muscles, forcing them to stop.

Few scientists questioned this view, Dr. Brooks said. But, he said, he became interested in it in the 1960's, when he was running track at Queens College and his coach told him that his performance was limited by a buildup of lactic acid.

When he graduated and began working on a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, he decided to study the lactic acid hypothesis for his dissertation.

"I gave rats radioactive lactic acid, and I found that they burned it faster than anything else I could give them," Dr. Brooks said.

It looked as if lactic acid was there for a reason. It was a source of energy.

Dr. Brooks said he published the finding in the late 70's. Other researchers challenged him at meetings and in print.

"I had huge fights, I had terrible trouble getting my grants funded, I had my papers rejected," Dr. Brooks recalled. But he soldiered on, conducting more elaborate studies with rats and, years later, moving on to humans. Every time, with every study, his results were consistent with his radical idea.

Eventually, other researchers confirmed the work. And gradually, the thinking among exercise physiologists began to change.

"The evidence has continued to mount," said L. Bruce Gladden, a professor of health and human performance at Auburn University. "It became clear that it is not so simple as to say, Lactic acid is a bad thing and it causes fatigue."

As for the idea that lactic acid causes muscle soreness, Dr. Gladden said, that never made sense.

"Lactic acid will be gone from your muscles within an hour of exercise," he said. "You get sore one to three days later. The time frame is not consistent, and the mechanisms have not been found."

The understanding now is that muscle cells convert glucose or glycogen to lactic acid. The lactic acid is taken up and used as a fuel by mitochondria, the energy factories in muscle cells.

Mitochondria even have a special transporter protein to move the substance into them, Dr. Brooks found. Intense training makes a difference, he said, because it can make double the mitochondrial mass.

It is clear that the old lactic acid theory cannot explain what is happening to muscles, Dr. Brooks and others said.

Yet, Dr. Brooks said, even though coaches often believed in the myth of the lactic acid threshold, they ended up training athletes in the best way possible to increase their mitochondria. "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't," he said.

Through trial and error, coaches learned that athletic performance improved when athletes worked on endurance, running longer and longer distances, for example.

That, it turns out, increased the mass of their muscle mitochondria, letting them burn more lactic acid and allowing the muscles to work harder and longer.

Just before a race, coaches often tell athletes to train very hard in brief spurts.

That extra stress increases the mitochondria mass even more, Dr. Brooks said, and is the reason for improved performance.

And the scientists?

They took much longer to figure it out.

"They said, 'You're anaerobic, you need more oxygen,' " Dr. Brooks said. "The scientists were stuck in 1920."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Phenomanul]

Agreed my mind is already set ... dead set against evidence-free bullshit fairy tales from you Bible-thumpers.

I actually am very open minded about scientific work, and enjoy when some old scientific axiom or paradigm gets ripped up and thrown out. eg:

================================


Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel


By GINA KOLATA http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Everyone who has even thought about exercising has heard the warnings about lactic acid. It builds up in your muscles. It is what makes your muscles burn. Its buildup is what makes your muscles tire and give out.

Coaches and personal trainers tell athletes and exercisers that they have to learn to work out at just below their "lactic threshold," that point of diminishing returns when lactic acid starts to accumulate. Some athletes even have blood tests to find their personal lactic thresholds.

But that, it turns out, is all wrong. Lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid.

( I knew the the heart muscles consumed lactic acid as fuel, but like everybody else, I always heard that lactic acid was the enemy of skeletal muscles )

The notion that lactic acid was bad took hold more than a century ago, said George A. Brooks, a professor in the department of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley. It stuck because it seemed to make so much sense.

"It's one of the classic mistakes in the history of science," Dr. Brooks said.

Its origins lie in a study by a Nobel laureate, Otto Meyerhof, who in the early years of the 20th century cut a frog in half and put its bottom half in a jar. The frog's muscles had no circulation * no source of oxygen or energy.

Dr. Myerhoff gave the frog's leg electric shocks to make the muscles contract, but after a few twitches, the muscles stopped moving. Then, when Dr. Myerhoff examined the muscles, he discovered that they were bathed in lactic acid.

A theory was born. Lack of oxygen to muscles leads to lactic acid, leads to fatigue.

Athletes were told that they should spend most of their effort exercising aerobically, using glucose as a fuel. If they tried to spend too much time exercising harder, in the anaerobic zone, they were told, they would pay a price, that lactic acid would accumulate in the muscles, forcing them to stop.

Few scientists questioned this view, Dr. Brooks said. But, he said, he became interested in it in the 1960's, when he was running track at Queens College and his coach told him that his performance was limited by a buildup of lactic acid.

When he graduated and began working on a Ph.D. in exercise physiology, he decided to study the lactic acid hypothesis for his dissertation.

"I gave rats radioactive lactic acid, and I found that they burned it faster than anything else I could give them," Dr. Brooks said.

It looked as if lactic acid was there for a reason. It was a source of energy.

Dr. Brooks said he published the finding in the late 70's. Other researchers challenged him at meetings and in print.

"I had huge fights, I had terrible trouble getting my grants funded, I had my papers rejected," Dr. Brooks recalled. But he soldiered on, conducting more elaborate studies with rats and, years later, moving on to humans. Every time, with every study, his results were consistent with his radical idea.

Eventually, other researchers confirmed the work. And gradually, the thinking among exercise physiologists began to change.

"The evidence has continued to mount," said L. Bruce Gladden, a professor of health and human performance at Auburn University. "It became clear that it is not so simple as to say, Lactic acid is a bad thing and it causes fatigue."

As for the idea that lactic acid causes muscle soreness, Dr. Gladden said, that never made sense.

"Lactic acid will be gone from your muscles within an hour of exercise," he said. "You get sore one to three days later. The time frame is not consistent, and the mechanisms have not been found."

The understanding now is that muscle cells convert glucose or glycogen to lactic acid. The lactic acid is taken up and used as a fuel by mitochondria, the energy factories in muscle cells.

Mitochondria even have a special transporter protein to move the substance into them, Dr. Brooks found. Intense training makes a difference, he said, because it can make double the mitochondrial mass.

It is clear that the old lactic acid theory cannot explain what is happening to muscles, Dr. Brooks and others said.

Yet, Dr. Brooks said, even though coaches often believed in the myth of the lactic acid threshold, they ended up training athletes in the best way possible to increase their mitochondria. "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't," he said.

Through trial and error, coaches learned that athletic performance improved when athletes worked on endurance, running longer and longer distances, for example.

That, it turns out, increased the mass of their muscle mitochondria, letting them burn more lactic acid and allowing the muscles to work harder and longer.

Just before a race, coaches often tell athletes to train very hard in brief spurts.

That extra stress increases the mitochondria mass even more, Dr. Brooks said, and is the reason for improved performance.

And the scientists?

They took much longer to figure it out.

"They said, 'You're anaerobic, you need more oxygen,' " Dr. Brooks said. "The scientists were stuck in 1920."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

That's a good article, seriously..... But you posting the article in defense of your hatred for anything 'religious' still doesn't explain your bigoted disdain for ID.

Why it's hard for you to accept the fact that no known mechanism for the origin of DNA can be produced? Or that the information it contains is far more complicated than can be fathomed? And yet as mounting evidence for the complexity of life's most important molecule is uncovered you still want to believe it was created from a chance process. Even when those calculated odds are zero.

I don't care if you think ID is stupid. Its premises still question the fundamental validity of the emergence of evolution. Without the pre-existence of the most basic genetic molecules, evolution can't even begin. Simple as that. Complexity can't be dismissed just on the grounds that possibly, maybe, something or someone beyond our 'physical world' comprehension got it going. And that's exactly what you do every time you link it to the object of your deepest hatred; GOD.

Recall that evolutionary concepts were set in motion well before the discovery of DNA was even made. And that the fields of Molecular biology and Genetics reveal far more information than the evolutionary conclusions that are always drawn from them. The original article in this thread is a good example of that. Notice how it never pointed out the significance of discovering that the location of the 'non-coding' regions were just as important as the information contained in the segments of the coding ones... this in regards to multiple deleterious mutations which could supposedly be harbored and absorbed by said regions without causing problems. And according to that theory -- that eventually the segment containing these stored mutations would end up in the coded region and cause a phenotypical mutation that natural selection would 'judge' as beneficial or not. Well, if these regions are just as important to the functionality of the overall genome, none of these mutations would be able to be harbored by the non-coded regions as previously thought. But did the article even mention this... no.

[Phenomanul]

Einstein believed in intelligent design!



Thanks for posting something I never wrote. But to your credit, Einstein did end up believing in the existence of GOD.

[sabar]

The origin of DNA? It's looking more and more like prions, which could easily be spontaneously produced in some mineral mixture given the enormous timespan of a few million years. Take note that life could not have evolved with DNA from the get-go, DNA as we know it is a very recent thing. The first life forms would have had a very basic system that is able to replicate (like a prion) and mutate, not DNA. The chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously forming is miniscule. But a simple deformed protein? Much more likely and much more simple.

Where's the proof? It will never be found. The first life was created so long ago that it has been long destroyed and recycled. The young earth was too violent for geological strata to form. Not to mention that the chances of any early life being preserved for this long is tiny.

It's often misquoted that genetic information can only be passed through DNA. RNA, non-coding RNA, and Prions are all capable of self-replication. Any copying process is bound to have flaws and will created mutations.

Note that prion to prion information flow has been observed in different generations of fungi, hence, it can be used as a more primitave "replicator" than DNA.

[boutons_]

"your bigoted disdain for ID."

A faith-based religious extremist and Bible literalist who thinks God created humans filled with faked DNA 98% idential to ape DNA out of a pile of clay calls me "bigoted" for supporting science against evidence-free ID/creationsim/Genesis cosmology? GMAFB

You fucking people flatter yourself with your BS "science" that finds a few anomalies, unresolved questions and that you can totally overthrow the 100+ years of hard and ever-mounting evidence supporting the theory of evolution (theory is NOT pejorative in my mouth) with its continually strenghtened powers of prediction and explanation.

Your basic position is: "look here, we got an anomaly, something we don't understand yet, a mystery over there, too, so now we totally ignore and refute all the evidence compiled by 1000s of scientists around the world over over many decades"

Your basic agenda is
1) God exists (no proof),

2) he created the universe in 6 days (which is cosmologically instanteous) (again no proof)

3) we'll pervert, subvert, and attack all of science to prove it's all bullshit, leaving God and his 6-days as the only possible explanation.

Builidng your own museums with man and dinosaurs co-existing is equivalent to a position that the Flintstone and "One Million Years BC" were documentaries. :lol

[Phenomanul]

"your bigoted disdain for ID."

A faith-based religious extremist and Bible literalist who thinks God created humans filled with faked DNA 98% idential to ape DNA out of a pile of clay calls me "bigoted" for supporting science against evidence-free ID/creationsim/Genesis cosmology? GMAFB

You fucking people flatter yourself with your BS "science" that finds a few anomalies, unresolved questions and that you can totally overthrow the 100+ years of hard and ever-mounting evidence supporting the theory of evolution (theory is NOT pejorative in my mouth) with its continually strenghtened powers of prediction and explanation.

Your basic position is: "look here, we got an anomaly, something we don't understand yet, a mystery over there, too, so now we totally ignore and refute all the evidence compiled by 1000s of scientists around the world over over many decades"

I'll ignore your typical rant above. Particulary becuase you don't personally partake in any of the scientific investigation that is currently taking place. You talk all high and mighty like you understand it --- when you really don't... but that's your perogative too.




Your basic agenda is
1) God exists (no proof),
True Christians are living proof of GOD's existence. He dwells within us. You would never believe that attribute anyways.... so why bother. At this rate, by the time you 'believe'.... it will have been too late... that decision however is still in your hands today.




2) he created the universe in 6 days (which is cosmologically instanteous) (again no proof)
Our time is not GOD's time. I'm inclined to believe a literal 6 day creation. But I've always said if more data sways me to believe earth has been around for 4 billion years I'll accept it, admit my error, and move on. Somehow you always miss the fact that I'm not hinging my beliefs on a 'literal 6-day' creation model.

BTW the 'Big-Bang' sounds alot like Day number 1. :smokin



3) we'll pervert, subvert, and attack all of science to prove it's all bullshit, leaving God and his 6-days as the only possible explanation.
Read above. Your stance is far more inflexible than mine.



Builidng your own museums with man and dinosaurs co-existing is equivalent to a position that the Flintstone and "One Million Years BC" were documentaries. :lol
Yeah... you always seem to unearth stories of extreme behavior to try and explain the beliefs of the whole. You then use it to stereotype the entire 'Christian' community. Ultimately, that portrays you as a highly bitter individual who is unable to discern reality from extremes. Sounds like the problem is solely yours, since it appears to bother you so much.

[Phenomanul]

The origin of DNA? It's looking more and more like prions, which could easily be spontaneously produced in some mineral mixture given the enormous timespan of a few million years. Take note that life could not have evolved with DNA from the get-go, DNA as we know it is a very recent thing. The first life forms would have had a very basic system that is able to replicate (like a prion) and mutate, not DNA. The chances of a strand of DNA spontaneously forming is miniscule. But a simple deformed protein? Much more likely and much more simple.

Where's the proof? It will never be found. The first life was created so long ago that it has been long destroyed and recycled. The young earth was too violent for geological strata to form. Not to mention that the chances of any early life being preserved for this long is tiny.

It's often misquoted that genetic information can only be passed through DNA. RNA, non-coding RNA, and Prions are all capable of self-replication. Any copying process is bound to have flaws and will created mutations.

Note that prion to prion information flow has been observed in different generations of fungi, hence, it can be used as a more primitave "replicator" than DNA.

You realize how big a prion is?

The smallest amount of self replicating 'genetic' material is still on the order 300 peptide bonded amino-acids. And their sequential order is highly essential to their function just as it is for DNA/RNA. Seeing how the smallest DNA/RNA sequence that could code for said protein / or be reversely coded from the protein prion is still over 900 bases long. That line of thinking is fools gold. Even the simplest of prions is still immensely complex. It's entropic order is greater or comparable to a 50-base, double-helical, DNA strand. Which as I've mentioned before on several occations has literally a 'zero' percent probability of having been created by a random process.

BTW primitive single cell organisms were found in small water pockets that were trapped within some salt formations in the great salt flats of Utah. These new species, though the oldest ever to be cultured, highly resembled modern day protozoans. They weren't any less complex than their successors. They weren't any more primitive. They weren't less advanced. So for a billion years in the protozoan-run world. We have essentially unchaged organisms that supposedly in the blink of an eye made the jump to multicellular organisms and subsequently on to fungi etc... The story gets more interesting by the day.

[RandomGuy]

You realize how big a prion is?

The smallest amount of self replicating 'genetic' material is still on the order 300 peptide bonded amino-acids. And their sequential order is highly essential to their function just as it is for DNA/RNA. Seeing how the smallest DNA/RNA sequence that could code for said protein / or be reversely coded from the protein prion is still over 900 bases long. That line of thinking is fools gold. Even the simplest of prions is still immensely complex. It's entropic order is greater or comparable to a 50-base, double-helical, DNA strand. Which as I've mentioned before on several occations has literally a 'zero' percent probability of having been created by a random process.

BTW primitive single cell organisms were found in small water pockets that were trapped within some salt formations in the great salt flats of Utah. These new species, though the oldest ever to be cultured, highly resembled modern day protozoans. They weren't any less complex than their successors. They weren't any more primitive. They weren't less advanced. So for a billion years in the protozoan-run world. We have essentially unchaged organisms that supposedly in the blink of an eye made the jump to multicellular organisms and subsequently on to fungi etc... The story gets more interesting by the day.

Prions don't need RNA/DNA to reproduce. Why would the lenth of DNA needed to create them be relevant when talking about how complicated they are?

[Phenomanul]

Prions don't need RNA/DNA to reproduce. Why would the lenth of DNA needed to create them be relevant when talking about how complicated they are?


Becuase they are amino-acid based proteins as well. And the ability to self-replicate is an inherent trait of sequencial complexity. In this case, the amino acids themselves are the 'code.' I likened them to DNA/RNA just to point out the fact that just because they are smaller doesn't make them any less complex. Not to mention the fact, that just like DNA/RNA --- every amino-acid making up the prion structure has 'left-handed' chirality. Statistically speaking that only worsens the premise that prions too, could be the causality of a chance process.

[Phenomanul]

I'll read this later on... gotta get back to work. :D

[RandomGuy]

Large amounts of warm water (figure the amount of water on the earth is a LOT of molecules) with even a small amount of organic compounds floating around, after a couple of billion years you will get some forms of simple protein. All it takes is one protein capable of replication, and BAM!! off to the races.

The entropic factor is irrelevant because a constant stream of energy hits the earth from our star. As long as any new adaptation's advantages outweigh the extra entropy created by increased complexity, that adaptation will succeed.

The advantage of cooperation among cells is a good example. Specialization allows for an adaptive advantage at all levels of complexity.

I was struck once by an article about a scientist who was studying neural networks.

He had a bunch of programable chips put together, each with 1,000 or so switches.

The simple task he would try to solve would be to distinguish between two tones. That's it.

The best that human programmers could come up with required something on the order of 800 or 900 or so of those switches.

So he set about to use evolution to solve the problem.

He randomly set up the chips and let them "solve" the problem. The first "generation" of chips yielded results of little better than what could be gotten by chance. He then took the best 20 or so of the designs, and made those the basis for the next generation. He would divide up his chips into 20 groups, each based roughly on the pattern of switches of those best 20.

He then repeated the process and in fewer than 100 generations had chips that performed near 100% accurately and only used 200 switches or so.

Some of these setups were extremely sensitive and when the environment changed, say it got slightly hotter or cooler, the chipsets would not function well.

He started with a random set of stuff, did a form of natural selection, and lo and behold, got something that is a very good analogy for biological evolution.

To say that we could only have come from something intelligently-designed or that our evolution MUST have been guided by some higher power, ignores simple, observable processes that we see all the time.

[Spurminator]

WTF is a "bigoted disdain for ID" anyway?

Is that when we make ID use a different water fountain?

[RandomGuy]

Becuase they are amino-acid based proteins as well. And the ability to self-replicate is an inherent trait of sequencial complexity. In this case, the amino acids themselves are the 'code.' I likened them to DNA/RNA just to point out the fact that just because they are smaller doesn't make them any less complex. Not to mention the fact, that just like DNA/RNA --- every amino-acid making up the prion structure has 'left-handed' chirality. Statistically speaking that only worsens the premise that prions too, could be the causality of a chance process.

No, it doesn't.

Researchers who have been studying "left-hand" and "right-hand" proteins have noticed that if you take an equally mixed puddle that contained 50% of lefties and 50% of righties, invariably the puddle would become either left- or right-handed.
All life on the earth consists of "lefty" protein, just as one would expect from bodies of water on our young earth. Eventually one or the other will get some miniscule upper hand that cascades until there is only one kind of protein or another, kind of like a coin that must land on either heads or tails.

[RandomGuy]

I was saying that some of the more bizzare looking hominid fossils could in fact be those of angel hybrids. In which case more physical evidence is attained. Can it be proven? Probably not. That would first require that the person believe in Angels in the first place.

Did you even read that part of the thread? I discussed the whole hominid fossil controversy in full...

So basically, for "angel hybrids" you have to fall back on "God did it."

Can't argue much with that. Assume magic and you can trump any argument, I guess.

I read through it but don't remember all the details. I will go back and do it, but will simply say that Hominids developed with the same pattern as any other species.

You got a successful adaptation, i.e. walking upright, that spawned a host of variants, none of which had any traces of wings, and then our ancestors went from there. Walking upright seemed to allow for more tool usage, and the tool usage adaptation was an extremely good one, selecting for the populations/individuals that were better and better tool users, or tool users that added a new adaptation like language, until you get homo sapiens.

Every other good adaptation follows the same pattern. Get a good adaptation, and you get a sucessful population that grows and over time differentiates, leading to a "branching" effect.

This whole process can be explained without angels.

[ChumpDumper]

I was saying that some of the more bizzare looking hominid fossils could in fact be those of angel hybrids.Any links to these?

[RandomGuy]

The odds are not statistically certain... if anything, the odds would tell us that a genetically relevant DNA strand could never arise from nothing at all -- and that its 'random' construction would require far more time than the universe is old.

A new and different version of the "tornado-airplane" thing, in which the posit that "the odds are the same as if a tornado blew through a scrap yard and left a fully formed 747 in its wake".

Chemistry deals with very large numbers.

A mole is a number of atoms/molecules with a 6 followed by 23 zeros. For water, this amount is something like 10 grams of water. Extend this out a bit.
1 liter/10grams per mole of water=100
100 moles of water in one liter. 6 with 25 zeros.

How many liters in all the worlds oceans?

Easy to double the number of zeros there, say 6 followed by 50 zeros of molucules of water on the earth.

If a tiny fraction of that volume contains extra dissolved organic chemicals, you still have a HUGE number of organic molecules bumping around.

If you throw 200 coins long enough, you WILL get 200 heads or 200 tails.

The big numbers of molecules involved and the billions of years involved only have to succeed ONCE in creating a self replicating simple protien.

The metaphor is more like trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of tornados blow through a scrap yard over billions of years and just ONCE arrange parts that spell out the words "to be or not to be".

[RandomGuy]

God doesn't have to guide evolution at all for it to happen. Just create a large enough universe, and evolution will take care of itself.

Somehow, somewhere, life WILL emerge.

[RandomGuy]

For that matter, extend out the number of molecules in all the oceans on all the planets in the universe since the beginning of time.

That would add a *few* more zeros to the number of molecules bumping around. Like I said, a statistical certainty that you will have to provide a bit more countervailing proof to poo-poo out of existence than you have so far.

[smeagol]

God doesn't have to guide evolution at all for it to happen. Just create a large enough universe, and evolution will take care of itself.

Somehow, somewhere, life WILL emerge.
As much as you want to pass this a definite truth, it is not. And neither you nor anybody else can prove it.

[RandomGuy]

Um, I'm pretty sure life exists... :lol

If you want proof, maybe I can dump a cup of water on yer head. Or maybe have an angel-hybrid do it... j/k

[Phenomanul]

No, it doesn't.

Researchers who have been studying "left-hand" and "right-hand" proteins have noticed that if you take an equally mixed puddle that contained 50% of lefties and 50% of righties, invariably the puddle would become either left- or right-handed.All life on the earth consists of "lefty" protein, just as one would expect from bodies of water on our young earth. Eventually one or the other will get some miniscule upper hand that cascades until there is only one kind of protein or another, kind of like a coin that must land on either heads or tails.


NOT true at all. No such purification process exists that doesn't rely on extra work done by enzymes or catalysts. That's like hoping for a mixed puddle of 1000 black marbles and 1000 white marbles to split up accordingly without any help. I'm taking you misread that article.

[Phenomanul]

Any links to these?


Are you expecting to find wings? Not all angels have wings you know.

Some of the fossils already found and identified as homo sapien precursors do not necesarily have to be that --- precursors. That's why I mentioned the 'hybrids' in the first place...

Of course you all choose to harp on this simply because Angelic references invariably point to GOD.... oh no... not that.

In doing so, you all were missing the point of the comment.



Again without the aid of written history, am I supposed to assume that Mayas were a different species.
Chinese women and their little feet also constituted a different species.
That Polynesian 'shrunken heads' or
African 'long necks'
or people that suffered from Gigantism... like the guy who's picture you always find in Guiness World Book of Records --- were all different species???

No. And that's exactly what anthropologists are doing. The worse part is that they are drawing these conclusions from hundreds of incomplete fossil sets.

Why do I feel like I have to re-type my posts everytime someone hasn't read a previous incarnation of the same post.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do I feel like I have to re-type my posts everytime someone hasn't read a previous incarnation of the same post.Because you can't give me a link, apparently.

[Phenomanul]

A new and different version of the "tornado-airplane" thing, in which the posit that "the odds are the same as if a tornado blew through a scrap yard and left a fully formed 747 in its wake".

Chemistry deals with very large numbers.

A mole is a number of atoms/molecules with a 6 followed by 23 zeros. For water, this amount is something like 10 grams of water. Extend this out a bit.
1 liter/10grams per mole of water=100
100 moles of water in one liter. 6 with 25 zeros.

How many liters in all the worlds oceans?

Easy to double the number of zeros there, say 6 followed by 50 zeros of molucules of water on the earth.

If a tiny fraction of that volume contains extra dissolved organic chemicals, you still have a HUGE number of organic molecules bumping around.

If you throw 200 coins long enough, you WILL get 200 heads or 200 tails.

The big numbers of molecules involved and the billions of years involved only have to succeed ONCE in creating a self replicating simple protien.

The metaphor is more like trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of tornados blow through a scrap yard over billions of years and just ONCE arrange parts that spell out the words "to be or not to be".



Try a number as large as 3.87x10^-121. or 1/(4^200) for building a codified segment of DNA 200 bases long (using one of 4 possible bases).

In the case of a protein unaided by the transcription process, that would be worse; since there are 20 possible amino acids intead of only 4 bases.

Now one of the models out there for the age of the universe is at around 30 billion years old. This roughly 1.6x10^16 seconds.

Do you see the problem.


BTW entropic problems with molecules this size are an issue due to flux limitations that limit the amount of order (dS/A) that can be relayed or extracted to/from such a small source.

[Phenomanul]

Because you can't give me a link, apparently.

Two can play stubborn.

Where's the dark matter I asked you to get me?

Besides that comment wasn't even directed at you even though I quoted you for a reference earlier.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you're the one who cares about angel-human hybrids.

I couldn't care less about dark matter, though I'm sure I could at least google you an article.

If angel-human hybrids are a such a big deal, someone has surely written about them.

[Phenomanul]

Again, you're the one who cares about angel-human hybrids.

I couldn't care less about dark matter, though I'm sure I could at least google you an article.

If angel-human hybrids are a such a big deal, someone has surely written about them.


That's my point... that they're not. SO instead of considering other explanations anthropologists go with the hum-ho, evolutionary choice. "This must be another homo sapien precursor." And really aren't open to the possibility that other explanations exist.

I couldn't care any more about them than you.

[ChumpDumper]

That's my point... that they're not.Why not?

I cared enough to ask for a link. I'm curious. This isn't disingenous as your asking me about something you already know about and believe in.

[Phenomanul]

Why not?

I cared enough to ask for a link. I'm curious. This isn't disingenous as your asking me about something you already know about and believe in.

I made the reference trying to make the point about the possibility of other explanations....

How would one go about proving that one of the various hominid fossils we already have is really an angel/human hybrid anyway... Would you know what to look for?

Random Guy was the one that resurrected the topic after I had already addressed it. And then you came in thinking I'd never let go of the subject to begin with. That comment earlier was addressed to him.

With reference to the dark matter... I believe you asked me to get you an angel fossil first. Which is why I made the unrealistic request to begin with. Besides the 'proof' we have for dark matter is all theoretical, based on observation only, and not finite... The Pauli exclusion princinple actually would negate the ability to claim with absolute certainty that dark matter was in fact dark matter. So how can we make that assessment from so far away.... Based on Gravity and other secondary data -- but not first hand data. Anyway...

[smeagol]

Um, I'm pretty sure life exists... :lol

If you want proof, maybe I can dump a cup of water on yer head. Or maybe have an angel-hybrid do it... j/k
The question is how did human life came to exist. I don't think your conclusion is whithout huge wholes.

[RandomGuy]

NOT true at all. No such purification process exists that doesn't rely on extra work done by enzymes or catalysts. That's like hoping for a mixed puddle of 1000 black marbles and 1000 white marbles to split up accordingly without any help. I'm taking you misread that article.

No I didn't misread the article. It was something I heard on the news.

The researchers said very specifically that eventually the little buggers all sorted it out themselves leaving the mixtures either entirely righty or entirely lefty.

[RandomGuy]

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=old/key_step.htm

here is an older article from 2001.

The study I heard about, and the researcher I heard interviewed (a female if memory serves) were within the last 6 months.

[Phenomanul]

No I didn't misread the article. It was something I heard on the news.

The researchers said very specifically that eventually the little buggers all sorted it out themselves leaving the mixtures either entirely righty or entirely lefty.


NOT POSSIBLE.... You wanted magic??? They bluffed you big time.

[Phenomanul]

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=old/key_step.htm

here is an older article from 2001.

The study I heard about, and the researcher I heard interviewed (a female if memory serves) were within the last 6 months.


The researcher after going through all the trouble of explaining his theory forgot chemistry 101. Calcite is a basic mineral.... most amino acids are acidic. Pair the two and you have an organic salt. If dissolved in water one would never have obtained a protein chain to begin with.

Geesh... this guy is basically trying to add up at least 3 different mechanisms that don't work well together. The primordial soup conditions were either acidic, basic (both being electrolytic solutions) or inorganic... but not all three at the same time....

I guess its a step in the right direction though.... I still want to know how he managed to proclaim that a unichiral chain of amino acids was 'self-replicating'. That would have been one of the biggest molecular biology finds of the century.

[RandomGuy]

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=old/homochiral.htm
had another bit.

[RandomGuy]

The researcher after going through all the trouble of explaining his theory forgot chemistry 101. Calcite is a basic mineral.... most amino acids are acidic. Pair the two and you have an organic salt. If dissolved in water one would never have obtained a protein chain to begin with.

Geesh... this guy is basically trying to add up at least 3 different mechanisms that don't work well together. The primordial soup conditions were either acidic, basic (both being electrolytic solutions) or inorganic... but not all three at the same time....

I guess its a step in the right direction though.... I still want to know how he managed to proclaim that a unichiral chain of amino acids was 'self-replicating'. That would have been one of the biggest molecular biology finds of the century.

He wasn't explaining a hypothetical.

He was describing something he had done, and the further studies that he was going to do.

Sheesh. Talk about a hurry to dismiss something...

[RandomGuy]

"I can imagine cycles of wetting and drying in a tidal pool," says Hazen. "Each time the calcite crystals are exposed to the amino-acid-rich ocean, they adsorb D and L amino acids selectively. Each time the crystal dries out, the amino acids link up to form homochiral polymers. Eventually, one of these polymers is autocatalytic - it makes copies of itself. This idea closely parallels similar scenarios that have employed clay minerals, which don't perform the chiral selection trick."

[Phenomanul]

He wasn't explaining a hypothetical.

He was describing something he had done, and the further studies that he was going to do.

Sheesh. Talk about a hurry to dismiss something...


I just pointed out the obvious.

[Phenomanul]

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?article=old/homochiral.htm
had another bit.

How were the amino acids themselves formed? We can't even manage to make them unless we control all conditions; which in and of itself is instrusive to the subjectmatter at hand...

Step at a time. Step at a time....

Good articles by the way.

I'll try some of those experiments next time I go to my cousins genetics lab in Mexico, or back to a lab at MIT.

[RandomGuy]

NOT POSSIBLE.... You wanted magic??? They bluffed you big time.

Do you say "not possible" so quickly simply becuase it didn't jibe exactly with your beliefs, or because you don't want to admit that maybe somebody had discovered something new and that maybe you should do some research?

[Phenomanul]

Do you say "not possible" so quickly simply becuase it didn't jibe exactly with your beliefs, or because you don't want to admit that maybe somebody had discovered something new and that maybe you should do some research?


Read up above.

Edit: Notice that the amino acids didn't do anything by themselves.... they were aided by a calcite catalytic substrate. Ergo, stating that the amino-acid polymers were self-catalyzing is still misleading. The first step is catalyzed by the calcite.

Hmmm I wonder what all that free ammonia was doing at the time. It essentially forms weak buffer links with the amino acids and allows them to form peptide bonds with each other... despite their chirality. But if they didn't include free ammonia in their experiment (i.e ammonium ions) how are the amino acids going to 'swim around' in the first place? Unless buffered, or in high concentrations, amino acids will revert to smaller constituent species, faster than what it took you to read this phrase. Hmm all interesting questions.

[RandomGuy]

I just pointed out the obvious.

No. You pointed out that something OBVIOUSLY was wrong, instead of reading the whole thing, or considering the science.

[Phenomanul]

No. You pointed out that something OBVIOUSLY was wrong, instead of reading the whole thing, or considering the science.

Did you even read what I questioned? Everytime someone publishes an article doesn't mean it is error free you know.

[RandomGuy]

RG needs sleep and is grumpier than he normally would be.

That and the near-death experience of some dumbass in an SUV that ran a stop-sign and almost killed him.

Sigh.

Pardon my snippiness.

[Phenomanul]

RG needs sleep and is grumpier than he normally would be.

That and the near-death experience of some dumbass in an SUV that ran a stop-sign and almost killed him.

Sigh.

Pardon my snippiness.


Well at least you made it out alive and not having to spend your night in jail or in a hospital.

I'm going to bed as well.

[RandomGuy]

Try a number as large as 3.87x10^-121. or 1/(4^200) for building a codified segment of DNA 200 bases long (using one of 4 possible bases).

In the case of a protein unaided by the transcription process, that would be worse; since there are 20 possible amino acids intead of only 4 bases.

Now one of the models out there for the age of the universe is at around 30 billion years old. This roughly 1.6x10^16 seconds.

Do you see the problem.


BTW entropic problems with molecules this size are an issue due to flux limitations that limit the amount of order (dS/A) that can be relayed or extracted to/from such a small source.

No I don't see a problem. Lets take your number to start with. 3.87x10^-121

-121+63=-58. (one mole =63)

Now we take -58 and add (okay, multiply) out the number of moles of water on ONE planet, Earth. Based on the calculation of just the amount of ice in the greenland icesheets (2.5M km3 multiplied by the number of moles of water contained, multiplied by an arbitrary 10000 to get a very rough estimate as to the amount of water on earth) given in another thread, there are at least 2.5x10^19 moles of water on the earth.

-58+19=-39

You failed to address the tens of billions of planets worth of water in just our galaxy.

Muliply tens of billions of planets by tens of billions of galaxies and you get yeat another very big number, here goes another 20 zeroes...

-39+20=-19

add in the number of seconds by your own admission

-19+16=-3

Halve the complexity (logorythmically) of the protein from 121 to 60 and you start getting positive numbers with 50+ zeros behind them. Even assuming fewer planets, fewer stars, fewer galaxies, and a younger universe, you still get billions of billions of self replicating proteins.

Since your argument was based on just the earth, and a somewhat complex protein, where does your argument go when the whole universe and a slightly smaller, self-replicating protein is considered?

A universe's worth of molecules on liquid water planets bumping up against each other for a long time, can easily produce the statistical certainty that sooner or later a self replicating protein can be created.

[johnsmith]

No I don't see a problem. Lets take your number to start with. 3.87x10^-121

-121+63=-58. (one mole =63)

Now we take -58 and add (okay, multiply) out the number of moles of water on ONE planet, Earth. Based on the calculation of just the amount of ice in the greenland icesheets (2.5M km3 multiplied by the number of moles of water contained, multiplied by an arbitrary 10000 to get a very rough estimate as to the amount of water on earth) given in another thread, there are at least 2.5x10^19 moles of water on the earth.

-58+19=-39

You failed to address the tens of billions of planets worth of water in just our galaxy.

Muliply tens of billions of planets by tens of billions of galaxies and you get yeat another very big number, here goes another 20 zeroes...

-39+20=-19

add in the number of seconds by your own admission

-19+16=-3

Halve the complexity (logorythmically) of the protein from 121 to 60 and you start getting positive numbers with 50+ zeros behind them. Even assuming fewer planets, fewer stars, fewer galaxies, and a younger universe, you still get billions of billions of self replicating proteins.

Since your argument was based on just the earth, and a somewhat complex protein, where does your argument go when the whole universe and a slightly smaller, self-replicating protein is considered?

A universe's worth of molecules on liquid water planets bumping up against each other for a long time, can easily produce the statistical certainty that sooner or later a self replicating protein can be created.

Nerd

[boutons_]

Source: Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
Date: August 2, 2006

Genetic Research Reinforces Theory Of Evolution

Scientists led by a Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh geneticist have found new evidence that a category of genes known as pseudogenes serve no function, an important finding that bolsters the theory of evolution.

There are approximately 20,000 pseudogenes in the human and other mammalian genomes. In recent years, there has been growing discussion about the nature of these pseudogenes. The issue centers on whether pseudogenes are functional or merely evolutionary relics with no function. It was long believed by geneticists that they were relics, until basic science research published in 2003 found a mouse pseudogene located within the Makorin family of genes that did have a function, namely to cause polycystic kidney disease and a bone disease known as osteogenesis imperfecta.

This finding, discovered in a mouse model, was hailed by proponents of “Intelligent Design” (ID). According to the Intelligent Design Network, the premise of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a disagreement with the core scientific basis of evolutionary theory.

However, researchers at Children’s and the Wadsworth Center in New York, including first author Todd A. Gray, PhD, have found scientific evidence that contradicts this finding. The pseudogene in question – Mkrn1-p1 – indeed is not the cause of those diseases, according to senior author Robert D. Nicholls, DPhil, director of the Birth Defects Laboratories at Children’s. Instead, according to Dr. Nicholls, it merely is an inactive copy of a gene, an evolutionary relic as previously believed.

Results of this study are published in the Aug. 8 print issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Discussion over evolution and Intelligent Design really has centered on whether pseudogenes, sometimes called ‘junk DNA,’ have a function or not. The suggestion is that an Intelligent Designer would not make junk DNA, so if a pseudogene does have a function, this is claimed to support the idea of an Intelligent Designer,” Dr. Nicholls said. “But there is no evidence that any of the 20,000 pseudogenes are functional. Our research proves this Makorin pseudogene does not have a function. It has continued to mutate over its short life of a few million years, a fact that supports evolution, and eventually will be discarded from the mouse genome.”

But the most important implication of this research from a patient perspective is that scientists now must go back to the beginning in terms of discovering the genetic mechanism that causes polycystic kidney disease and osteogenesis imperfecta in the mouse model, according to Dr. Nicholls.

[RandomGuy]

But now that you have read all that and started trying to break down the assumptions to make that probability more remote, here is the nuke in the tea cup:

Quantum physics predicts an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously.

Out of all those universes, NOW what is the statistical probability that, by simple random chance, a self replicating protein will occur by a few molecules randomly bumping up against each other?

[RandomGuy]

Nerd

(takes JS off ignore)
Guilty as charged.

[DarkReign]

But now that you have read all that and started trying to break down the assumptions to make that probability more remote, here is the nuke in the tea cup:

Quantum physics predicts an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously.

Out of all those universes, NOW what is the statistical probability that, by simple random chance, a self replicating protein will occur by a few molecules randomly bumping up against each other?

Trick question. Infinite.

[RandomGuy]

Trick question. Infinite.

bingo.


finite*infinite=infinite


even if you assume that self replicating proteins have an infinitesmally small chance of occuring:

(1/infinite)*infininte=1=100% chance of occurance.

So the second you acknowledge even a 3.45 in 10^-123, or for that matter 1 in 10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Chance, you still end up with an infinite chance of life occuring without God specifically assembling anything.

[Extra Stout]

Quantum physics predicts an infinite number of universes existing simultaneously.
Nice thought experiment, but the assertion I quoted above is not scientific, any more so than asserting "quantum physics predicts an intelligent creator" would be.

[Phenomanul]

bingo.


finite*infinite=infinite


even if you assume that self replicating proteins have an infinitesmally small chance of occuring:

(1/infinite)*infininte=1=100% chance of occurance.

So the second you acknowledge even a 3.45 in 10^-123, or for that matter 1 in 10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Chance, you still end up with an infinite chance of life occuring without God specifically assembling anything.


Nice try... but that would be tantamount to you having placed your faith in a multi-universe model. Good luck with that.

[RandomGuy]

Nice try... but that would be tantamount to you having placed your faith in a multi-universe model. Good luck with that.

Even without a multi-universe model, the odds for self-replicating proteins coming into being without God's help are greater than you have admitted so far.

[RandomGuy]

One interesting thing about the prions from what I have read is that their coding is almost entirely composed of 2 out of 4 of the nucleotides.
I would think that this would imply their structure is a bit more simple than you let on, also making the odds of random generation a bit higher.

[RandomGuy]

Nice thought experiment, but the assertion I quoted above is not scientific, any more so than asserting "quantum physics predicts an intelligent creator" would be.

Quantum physics is not scientific?

Huh?

[Phenomanul]

One interesting thing about the prions from what I have read is that their coding is almost entirely composed of 2 out of 4 of the nucleotides.
I would think that this would imply their structure is a bit more simple than you let on, also making the odds of random generation a bit higher.


Not really... cause at some point the code incorporates all 4. And those of prions today have been reverse-coded from transcriptase... A protein which in turn was coded with by ribonucleic genetic material... not prions or proteins.

Did you even realize that prions borrow many proteins from the DNA/RNA pathway to even subsist? If you were to stick them in a solution of water they would sit there and do nothing. They only replicate only after interacting with cells/tissues/nuclei of DNA/RNA-based organisms -- because they have to borrow what they can't produce. They are incumbent parasites.

Which beckons the question? Is it even logical to believe that protein based organisms like prions existed before DNA/RNA based organisms did? I don't believe so.

[RandomGuy]

Not really... cause at some point the code incorporates all 4. And those of prions today have been reverse-coded from transcriptase... A protein which in turn was coded with by ribonucleic genetic material... not prions or proteins.

Did you even realize that prions borrow many proteins from the DNA/RNA pathway to even subsist? If you were to stick them in a solution of water they would sit there and do nothing. They only replicate only after interacting with cells/tissues/nuclei of DNA/RNA-based organisms -- because they have to borrow what they can't produce. They are incumbent parasites.

Which beckons the question? Is it even logical to believe that protein based organisms like prions existed before DNA/RNA based organisms did? I don't believe so.

Which further beckons the question whether the first self replicating proteins were prions. Something simpler and more likely to be randomly thrown together in a tidal pool?

You say prions are so complicated that they couldn't be randomly generated. Ok.

I am no bio-chemist, but how complicated does a protein, or whatever, need to be in order for self-replication?

[Extra Stout]

Quantum physics is not scientific?

Huh?
Quantum physics is scientific. But it does not "predict" an infinite number of universes. That is one hypothesis which attempts to explain some of the incongruities in the quantum model. It is scientifically unfalsifiable, unless and until somebody comes up with a way to detect multiple universes.

[RandomGuy]

Nice try... but that would be tantamount to you having placed your faith in a multi-universe model. Good luck with that.

I have placed my faith in replicatable science, yes.

I have faith that the scientific method will describe observable phenomena in ways that offer more valid and probable explanations than "God did it this way, because the bible said so.

The same science that debunked christian doctrine about the earth being the center of the universe, that describes the laws of physics that the bible, or any holy book for that matter, somehow neglect to mention.

Quantum physics describes the universe and the things in it better than the theories that come before it. In that I have faith, because it is reproducible and capable of being validated independently.

As much as you might like to ignore logic and turn any debate towards the one thing that no one can disprove, as you just did, that does not make the empiric method go away.

[RandomGuy]

Quantum physics is scientific. But it does not "predict" an infinite number of universes. That is one hypothesis which attempts to explain some of the incongruities in the quantum model. It is scientifically unfalsifiable, unless and until somebody comes up with a way to detect multiple universes.

Correct.

The implications that hypothesis has on this argument are still relevant.

IF the there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of life, and putting a massively small number on the probability of self-replicating proteins arising is irrelevant.

If there aren't, I think the numbers still point to a MUCH stronger possibility than hemagoal (sp?) has admitted so far.

[Phenomanul]

I have placed my faith in replicatable science, yes.

I have faith that the scientific method will describe observable phenomena in ways that offer more valid and probable explanations than "God did it this way, because the bible said so.

The same science that debunked christian doctrine about the earth being the center of the universe, that describes the laws of physics that the bible, or any holy book for that matter, somehow neglect to mention.

Quantum physics describes the universe and the things in it better than the theories that come before it. In that I have faith, because it is reproducible and capable of being validated independently.

As much as you might like to ignore logic and turn any debate towards the one thing that no one can disprove, as you just did, that does not make the empiric method go away.

For one, the Bible was never meant to convey scientific information. Those references you 'rebuked' are contained in a book of 'poetry' -- hardly a book of scientific merit.

And yes I believe in supernatural phenomena that can't be measured or explained by any naturalistic processes. But that conviction is supported by several of my life's experiences and from having placed my faith in GOD... I'm not ashamed to admit it. That is what I believe.

Now, the scientist in me does want answers. But should I throw away all of my belief system if GOD does not reveal the mysteries of the universe to me? No. The world doesn't always work in absolutes. You should know that.