patrick.net

PersainCAT says

to continue on correcting u Dan since your science is routinely wrong (or at least what i was taught as i got degrees in physics and astronomy)

Please provide citations to support your statements. I'll gladly correct any incorrect fact if scientific literature contradicts what I have said. However, I am not going to take the word of anyone on the Internet.

So please provide references. And don't use Wikipedia unless you want to make me laugh.

PersainCAT says

started only SHORTLY before Earth finished accumulating mass.

It seems strange to me that an astrophysicist would say anything like this. Clearly, the Earth is still accumulating mass as debris is always falling onto it. There is not point in the timeline of history where the Earth stopped accumulating mass. This should be obvious to someone with a degree in both physics and astronomy.

Also, is it just me, or does it seem like everybody on the Internet just happens to have advanced degrees in whatever subject they happen to be debating at the time. If we're talking about fire, suddenly everybody is a full fledged NYC fire fighter.

PersainCAT says

the next simplest reference is always Wikipedia

As I said, don't bother quoting Wikipedia unless you want me to laugh. No serious scientist would quote that source. For a proposition to be accepted by the science community, it must go through extensive peer review. Wikipedia is the opposite of science. As such, even mentioning Wikipedia as the basis for scientific fact is completely antithetical to the foundation of science and should be repugnant to anyone who takes science seriously.

PersainCAT says

Like
Jovain planet formation times
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004IAUS..202..167W
discussion of blowing solar wind pre-nuclear fusion
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&ARv...1..291A
and lead u all the wa

I asked for a citation to uphold your statements including "Leading theories would be what u call your Earth Mark I formed BEFORE nuclear synthesis began." I did not ask for random links to articles returned from a Google search of "planetary formation theory".

PersainCAT says

Discussions of modeling formation slide 16 gives basic time line
(U Texas Austin)
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring09/scalo/secure/301Sp09.LectCh15Pt1.pdf

This is the only link relevant to the discussion of whether or not the Earth formed before or after the sun started shining. And it fully supports what I said. Take a look at the following slides (the third is the slide 16 you referenced). Notice that each slide confirms that nuclear synthesis took place before the Earth Mark I formed and is in fact the very reason that the inner planets are rocky. Point, match, game.

But why stop there? Here's a video of a BBC documentary in which Bill Hartmann, the man who came up with the now accepted moon formation theory, describes the theory in detail. Notice that everything I said is confirmed by this video, straight from the horse's mouth. Can I get any more authoritative? Of course, someone who relies on Wikipedia wouldn't understand what a real reference is.

Compare what the video says to what I wrote and you'll see I'm pretty fucking accurate in my details. Perhaps you shouldn't call someone's bluff when they aren't bluffing.

Also, notice that big shinning sun in the background of the video rendering the formation of Earth Mark II? Yeah, the sun came first.

But what about Earth Mark I? Here's a another wonderful video showing the formation of Earth Mark I from the BBC documentary The Power of the Planet. Notice again, nice shiny sun in background. That sunlight comes from nuclear fusion.

So both your references and mine confirm everything I said.

PersainCAT says

FYI Dan i know its off topic, but tidal locking doesn't cause (and isn't caused by) the "dense" side of the Moon to point towards the earth. In fact the heavier side of the Moon actually points AWAY from the earth. Tidal locking is caused by the torque induced in the systems as the gravitational bulge changes during orbit.

Agreed. For more, see Why Doesn't the Moon Rotate? However, getting this one detail wrong hardly invalidates everything else I said. What is does show is that I'm willing to admit to error when one is pointed out. Good find.

I still stand by everything else I have said.

PersainCAT says

wikipedia can show u that or do u need real journal articles becasue wiki summarizes them to simply for u?

I need "real journal articles" because Wikipedia is full of lies and deliberately misleading information. That's the problem with a pseudo-populist source controlled by corporations, governments, and other organizations with a self-interest in controlling popular opinion for their own gains. Only fools trust Wikipedia.

Dan8267 says

he did address your points just not to enough of your liking becasue each statement isn't sourced with research. you do the same thing but its aparently valid, see

Marcus makes conjectures that have no evidence to support them. I make statements that are well supported and almost always reference them. If I'm explaining an entire subject matter, I don't reference every single sentence. But if I say anything that is contested, even by a fool like Marcus, I back it up with support. That's the difference.

And as I have just shown with the above video links, even when I give background information on a subject matter without copy-n-pasting from a source, I'm pretty damn accurate.

Dan8267 says

While we're discussing the issue of time, I might as well go over the 24-hour day. The ancients looked up in the night sky and divided it into twelve parts -- holy fuck, 12 is another holy number, gee, I wonder why? -- identified by 12 constellations called the 12 signs of the zodiac. Since these constellations appear to move as the Earth rotates, they divided the night into 12 units of time.

Forgot to mention... This is also the reason why there were 12 tribes of Israel and why Jesus had 12 apostles. Yep, if there had been 13 zodiac signs, Jesus would have had 13 apostles.

PersainCAT says

You know the nice thing about Wikipedia is they link u to journal articles, the only thing is u need to be able to read and understand to put them into context of what wiki says. Thats y its a nice source, becasue u have the articles handed to u.

The references used on Wikipedia are also designed to point you in one direction only. If an article is controlled by special interest, you can't trust the references to fair and balanced.

liv4ever says

that is not the point either. The earth was enshrouded with a watery canopy that light could not penetrate .

If you actually believe that the Bible is an accurate account of the formation of the Earth, the solar system, and/or the universe, you should give that fictitious physics degree back. Only a complete idiot would think that an ancient Bronze Age creation myth written by primitive men is an accurate account of the history of the universe.

liv4ever says

This "absurd hypothesis" is found in legends of antiquity coming from 6 continents as well as islands of the sea.

All primitive societies have myths about floods, fires, lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. You know, shit that happens that the primitive societies can't explain.

Are you saying the Biblical flood was real and Noah's arc was real, and it contained two of every animal? Go ahead, discredit yourself.

liv4ever says

The point is the earth is millions if not billions years old not 6000 years old according to the Bible and empirical scientific evidence.

So, you're going on the record as stating that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Dan8267 says

liv4ever says

The point is the earth is millions if not billions years old not 6000 years old according to the Bible and empirical scientific evidence.

LOL, this thread had come a full circle. ;)

uomo_senza_nome says

LOL, this thread had come a full circle. ;)

It sure has, and in the process has shown just how irrational and unyielding to evidence and reason the faithful are. This is exactly why it should be illegal to expose children to religion. It's more dangerous than drugs and alcohol and damages the brain even more.

If mystics (priests, rabbis, etc.) weren't able to brainwash kids, few adults would accept anything as looney as everything said in this thread by the faithful.

Hopefully, it was at least entertaining to read.

liv4ever says

Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space (77 freight train cars)—ample for the passenger list

There are an estimated 5,490 species of mammals in the world today. They didn't all evolve over the past few thousand years. The fossil record shows an extensive and long history of evolution.

The Arc myth is ridiculous even by fundamentalist standards. But you can't admit it's just a made up story. And part of that story is god creating the first rainbow during man's history. That seems like an awfully big change in the laws of physics. You'd think it leave some kind of effect we could observe like the big bang did with cosmic background radiation.

liv4ever says

i never said i had a degree ???

Sorry, you and PersainCAT are both so batshit crazy I confused the two of you.

thunderlips11 says

Contrast this with the assertion that believers should be able to drink poison to no effect.

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:18

Yes, Jesus was very clear in how to test someone to see if they were a true believer.

Rather than wine (or water for mormons) christians should require the members of their congregations to drink a pint of Drano at each service. Not only would the survival of the true believers help to prove the truth of jesus's word, it would also have the benefit of weeding out the fakers.

liv4ever says

thunderlips11 says

Contrast this with the assertion that believers should be able to drink poison to no effect.

"They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:18

The King James Version and other older translations present those verses as if they were part of the original text. The New Revised Standard Version, The New American Standard Bible, and The New King James Version note that those verses do not appear in most of the oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel.

So... you are saying someone has been manipulating the word of god!

I don't believe it! God would strike them down!

Even it that was the case in this incidence, I am sure everything else is true!

liv4ever says

you have a valid argument but what are the facts ?

A study of the Isaiah text from the dead sea scrolls proved that this book had remained practically unchanged over a period of 1,000 years of hand copying.

"practically unchanged" being the pertinent observation here.

OK, sarcasm aside...

My argument:
"God" does not prevent the bible -- or his word -- from being altered by man. This being the case how can one trust the bible as being the "true" word of god.

Facts:
The bible can be mistakenly manipulated by those that wish to preserve the original text. Evidenced by the Isaiah text from the dead sea scrolls, there are many small differences between the dead sea scrolls and modern text. However, I think that we can agree that even with the small changes the message is "practically unchanged".

The bible can be purposely/maliciously manipulated in order to satisfy the desires of man. Evidenced by Mark 16:18 as per liv4ever's claims. Also, christian additions to the book of Job are good examples as well.

Well... there is my argument and the facts, and given the evidence that god is unable or unwilling to prevent changes to the bible we can't even be sure that the dead sea scroll of Isaiah was not manipulated before being sealed in the cave.

There is hope! There are many organizations our there that will help you to identify what in the bible is the true word and what is not. Also, they help you to understand the differences between what is meant to be taken literally and what should be taken as metaphor. There are payment plans to meet any budget. Many groups accept either a subscription or will even take bulk payments in exchange for this service!

WARNING!!! This is what happens when you choose not to believe in God...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iCQ4QLFl01g

liv4ever says

Out of curiosity I just googled "evolution fraud" and got 33,000,000 results.

This is your worst argument yet. I hope you don't seriously view this as any kind of evidence one way or another.

Also, I went ahead and Googled "evolution fraud" and only got 30,700,000 results. Searching just "evolution" gives 604,000,000 results. So, about 5% of the results have some mention of fraud.

Performing the same searches in regards to "intelligent design" gives 2,430,000 with "fraud" and 13,900,000 without. So, about 17% of results mention fraud.

Hmmm... very... very... interesting... or not really. I think we can agree that these results mean absolutely nothing.

liv4ever says

Schools , on the other hand treat evolution theory as fact as well as t.v. and mainstream media when the issue clearly has not been settled ... why?

Because the preponderance of evidence supports evolution over intelligent design. Also, intelligent design is not science it is theology. They are totally different disciplines.

The only people who feel that the issue has not be settled -- actually they think the issue has been settled -- are those that want their theology to dictate what scientific research is available to others.

liv4ever says

either that or life got here by creation not evolution as the Bible said over 3500 years ago on page 1.

I know that you like to pick the version of the bible that best suites your views, but I am curious what version says life was put on this planet 3500 years ago?

liv4ever says

Evolution directly contradicts the basic theme of the whole Bible which says that all that God created was "very good".

Agreed.

liv4ever says

"Punctuated equilibrium" attempts to explain away the fact that the overwhelming majority of fossils indicate no transitional life forms.

Comments like these are one of the fundamental reasons why it is clear that people who adhere to intelligent design do not understand evolution. They seem to be always looking for the half-shark half-rabbit.

All life is a transitional life form. YOU are a transitional life form.

Also, belief in the bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Many christians are able to reconcile evolution with their faith. You seem like a person who enjoys intellectual stimulation. You would probably really enjoy gaining a better understanding of what evolution is really about and the evidence that supports it.

liv4ever says

oh really? then why are all the missing links still missing? Let me ask you this? If a pile of rubble was left lying on the ground, would you expect to come to come back Any amount of time later, no matter how long, and find a castle ? Evolution requires a greater leap of faith than the Bible's account.

The fossil record is full of transitional species both in the hominoid lines and the non-hominoid lines. If you want to find every single transitional species in Earth's history we need to take away all the money that goes to religion and use it to fund paleontology. Paleontologists make very little money and must constantly beg for research grants to fund their excavations. The fact that paleontologists have gathered so much evidence with such miniscule funding is a testament to how wonderful, dedicated, and hard-working they are.

But even without any fossil evidence, the genetic evidence is overwhelming. And if you disagree then organize protests to petition government to release all the people convicted of rape or murder using DNA evidence. We put people to death and exonerate people from crimes based on the science of genetics.

Evolution requires no leap of faith. The statement is even more ridiculous when you learn that corporations are now using applied evolution to develop new products like biological batteries by manipulating the genome of bacteria using evolution. To state that evolution is fake, or even possibly so, is akin to stating the laws of physics we use to keep satellites in orbit is complete bullshit. Funny how multi-billion dollar communication arrays can stay in orbit using only bullshit.

liv4ever says

Evolution theory remains after 100 years just that - theory.

No scientist would say anything so ignorant. A theory is not a guess. A theory is a conceptual framework which makes testable predictions. Once a theory is proven, it is still a theory because it can still be tested and retested. Once a theory, always a theory.

Theory does not mean guess, and a theory can be verified as true. Newton's theory of gravity is still a theory and always will be. It is also true beyond all doubt reasonable or otherwise.

No scientist would make the mistake of thinking that a theory is an unproven conjecture. There is no way you have a degree in physics or mathematics.

What's really sad it that I've already explained what a theory is several times on patrick.net. And you still get it wrong. This isn't a minor mistake. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.

liv4ever says

Only now, most evolutionists reject Darwin's original assumptions and have very little agreement about anything.

Evolutionist? That's a new one to me. A cursory Google search shows that evolutionist is a derogatory term that creationist use to refer to those who accept the theory of evolution. Of course, every biologist accepts the theory of evolution. So the purpose of creationist coining and using the term evolutionist is to give the deliberately false impression that there is an actual debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution is the correct theory for explaining the development and history of life.

There is no debate. The entire scientific community accepts evolution as the correct theory. It is widely said that nothing in biology makes sense except in terms of evolution.

To even use this term suggests that you are resorting to deliberate deception to support your myths.

PersainCAT says

you just disagree with them and say that journal articles arent a valid source now becasue wikipedia uses them

I would never say that. It is quite possible, and inevitable, that some Wikipedia articles will reference legitimate and respectable resources. What I have said is that you can't rely on Wikipedia references because the special interest groups controlling the article will cherry pick references that support the message they want the public to hear and will revert any reference that distracts from that message.

As such, Wikipedia does not even offer the benefit of pointing people to good sources of information. So people should just stick to Google search results. They aren't perfect by a long shot, but they are incalculably better than Wikipedia. And my quote in your response says exactly this.

thunderlips11 says

Also, as Dan stated above, the Judeo-Christian mythos has a lot in common with those "Wicked" Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. No doubt the ancient Canaanites borrowed "Magic" Numbers, Astrology, and basic myths from their neighbors.

Yep, this happens more so than most people are willing to acknowledge. All the myths of Judaism and Christianity are either blended with pagan myths or outright stolen from them.

Ever wonder why 666 is the mark of the beast? 6 is one less than 7, the holy number that came from 7 visible celestial bodies. And it is written three times because three is another one of those holy numbers. If there were 8 visible celestial bodies in our solar system, the mark of the beast would have been 777.

The entire Jesus myth was stolen from Horus. This was well stated in the clip from the movie Religulous.

liv4ever says

Darwin predicted that missing links would be found. He even said that his theory must be abandoned if no links were found.

That's the great difference between science and religion. Science accepts abandoning incorrect ideas. Religion does not because doing so would eliminate all of its power.

And the fact that you say there are no missing link files completely destroys your credibility.

liv4ever says

so you are confident that given enough time a pile of rubble will become a castle all by itself ? that is a long walk.

Perhaps if castles were made of organic molecules instead of rocks... That you would even make such an argument shows you speak from a position of ignorance, especially when you live in a time where almost all of man's knowledge is but a Google search away.

What you are talking about is abiogenesis, which is a separate subject from The Theory of Evolution. Evolution does not address the question of abiogenesis, however, chemistry does. And if you were a real physicist, you'd have no problem with The Chemical Theory of Abiogenesis.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/U6QYDdgP9eg

liv4ever says

thunderlips11 says

Most humans that live next to large bodies of water have flood legends:

your contentions support the biblical account.

Hardly. The Bible account says that a mere two animals makes a breeding population. Maybe that goes in your family, but it does not work in nature.

liv4ever says

how much would you bet on that mistaken notion.

Pascal's wager is a suckers bet.

liv4ever says

Plenty of scientists believe in creation.

Sure, apparently about 5% of scientists believe in creation. With the 10's or 100's of thousands of scientists 5% is plenty of people.

liv4ever says

the majority is not always correct, even if it is composed of scientists.

True, the trick though is to try and understand why the 95% believe what they do. What evidence is given to support an idea.

...and, how reliable is the theory...

liv4ever says

1. yes DNA works for crime investigation . However it works against the theory of evolution.

See... here is where your credibility starts to breakdown...

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

Evolution requires no leap of faith. The statement is even more ridiculous when you learn that corporations are now using applied evolution to develop new products like biological batteries by manipulating the genome of bacteria using evolution.

That is way off, Dan. Do you work for Monsanto?Get ready to reap the whirlwind of that flawed scheme.

And, even more so here. Not much research is required to see that Dan is totally correct in that applied evolution is extensively used in both academic and corporate settings today. It is like you are telling shipping companies that their crazy spherical earth "theory" is all wrong and the bible indicates that the world is flat (which it does, BTW). All the while ship captains continue to use their "round earth theory" to great effect.

I know it is long, but here is a podcast -- of a great show, BTW -- that has a segment on how researchers reliable have used the evolution of the DNA in HIV to better understand the virus.

http://www.radiolab.org/2011/nov/14/

Another interesting note is that an understanding of evolution was required for 47 of the last 50 breakthroughs in medicine or physiology that lead to a Nobel Prize.

http://ncse.com/rncse/25/3-4/evolution-is-winner-breakthroughs-prizes

liv4ever says

Or are you not aware that there is very little agreement on your side, except that life had evolve because if it didn't that would mean that God must have created the universe, a thought they desperately avoid.

No, even assuming that evolution was totally wrong the logical conclusion does not have to be that god created the universe.
- Perhaps the universe popped into existence just as it is with no god involved at all.
- Or perhaps the universe has always existed just as it is today and there was no creation moment

Baring the above scenarios, if there was an intelligent designer(s) the designer may not be a "god", or may not be the christian god. This brings us back to Pascal's wager...

...if you believe in intelligent design, perhaps you better hedge your bets and start praying to as many gods as possible.

liv4ever says

The Question of how life got here is one of the most important questions.

I agree. While that question is never going to be resolved in an internet forum it is an important question.

Not only that, but I feel it is important to have civil contact/discussion with people who do not believe the same as yourself.

Also, I hate to nit-pick here, but...

GameOver says

humans are PRIMATES. Glorified MONKEYS who have lost our tails and most of our bodily hair.

Homosapiens did not lose the tails. The great apes lost the tails before they spawned us.

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

Paleontologists make very little money

science is big business, college man. Welcome to the real world.

Paleontologists doing scientific research make a measly $40k/yr. Paleontologists working for oil companies looking for places to drill make around $140k/yr. Oil companies hire them for their knowledge of geology.

So, working for big oil would make a paleontologist over three times as much income as working on science. Working on science is a labor of love.

I will admit that I do confuse PerCat and liv4ever. Evidently all stupidity looks alike to me.

How one could possibly make the argument that genetic science contradicts evolution is beyond me, but it does prove a point that some irrational people want the benefits of science (curing diseases, high tech weapons, locking up rapist and murderers) but don't want to acknowledge that science is right. So they have to make up strange fantasy worlds to resolve the inherit conflict.

P is for Pendetta

Made it.

Old software. Basically, it's Photoshop light for non-artist folks.

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

to resolve the inherit conflict.

INHERENT not inherit... (your welcome in advance)
and you call me stupid?

Yes, especially when the worst counterargument you can come up with is a typo miscorrected by Firefox's lousy spellchecker. That's really reaching for straws.

liv4ever says

which diseases have they cured

http://bit.ly/xaCQN1

liv4ever says

high tech weapons

nuclear warhead, intercontinental ballistic missiles, supersonic aircraft, stealth bombers, C4, det cord, robotic mine sweepers, smart bombs, laser guided rockets, gps, satellite imaging, radar

Are you really that stupid?

liv4ever says

It was already agreed that DNA is beneficial for crime-solving.

It is pure hypocrisy to use DNA and genetic science for convicting people of crimes and then not accept the conclusion that man is descended from monkeys as proven by that very same genetic science. It's like saying nuclear physics is OK for making bombs, but not explaining how the sun works.

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

nuclear warhead, intercontinental ballistic missiles, supersonic aircraft, stealth bombers, C4, det cord, robotic mine sweepers, smart bombs, laser guided rockets, gps, satellite imaging, radar

Are you really that stupid?

Are you saying these terrible things have benefited mankind? or do you mean that "christians" use them and simultaneously reject evolution ?

Is a century long global plague of iatrogenic disease BENEFICIAL ? And you call me dangerous ?

No you dumb ass, I'm not. You asked what for examples of high tech weapons that the pro-war Christian right loves to use against our so-called enemies and I gave you examples.

As I have stated many times, if it were up to me, our "defense" budget would be reduced by at least 90%.

liv4ever says

If you could change a dog into a porpoise or anything else into anything else.

Take a fertilize dog egg, and replace the genetic code with porpoise DNA and plant it into a purpose womb and it would probably work if done right. But that's irrelevant to the fact that the very science used to convict people with DNA evidence is the exact same science to perform paternity test and is the exact same science that proves man is descendant from monkeys.

So, are you really going to go on the record as stating that man is not descendant from monkeys?

liv4ever says

When will it be delivered ?

Three years after all legislation passed by religious people have been revoked. Businesses aren't going to supply that demand unless they are confident that their business isn't going to be shut down by legislation passed because of religious lobbying. That's also why we don't have human cloning yet even though it could save millions of lives a year by ending waiting lists for transplants.

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

So, are you really going to go on the record as stating that man is not descendant from monkeys?

You already know the answer. this thread is too long by the way. can we at least agree on that ? 180 comments is taxing my commodore 64 to the limit . you can have the last word.

The most probable answer in my head is "No, you ware not going to go on the record as stating that man is not descendant from monkeys because you know that will make you look really stupid and no one will respect your opinion. However, that is what you actually believe or it is what you want others to believe so that your religion can still control them.".

However, I am more than willing to let you replace this answer with one that reflects more positively on yourself. In fact, I'm even willing to let you have the last word as long as that word is either "yes" or "no" and it addresses the question, "Is man descendant from monkey?".

so, "man" did come last? Just like Moses said? cool.

Bap33 says

so, "man" did come last? Just like Moses said? cool.

Last? You mean our species is the youngest and final species to come into existence? No. HIV is younger.

liv4ever says

you are always welcome to have the last word, sir.

in answer to your question "Is man descendant from monkey?" the answer is No.

Very well, then for the last word I'll bring this thread full circle once more and address how we know you are wrong about the descent of man.

As I've said before, you can't accept the existence of genes and DNA evidence without accepting the common descent of man. The genetic evidence for evolution and the descent of man is overwhelming.

The following video shows such genetic evidence. And if you don't believe the video's content, well there are ample resources on the Internet that back up the video. Resources such as academic papers, publications of scientific literature, and online courses in genetics.

But of course, no amount of evidence will convince a creationist that he is wrong. For the creationist does not care about truth. He only cares that other people fall in line under his religion as obedient slaves. For all those reading this thread, think about which person you trust more: someone who denies the truth regardless of the evidence, or someone who advocates rational thought and a respect for the truth whatever it is. Man can only be free when he has removed the shackles of faith in Bronze Age myths.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/p1R8w_QEvEU

http://www.youtube.com/embed/SF2N2lbb3dk

http://www.youtube.com/embed/nIsWZCSMSSs

liv4ever says

For example, the genetic makeup of chimpanzees differs from that of humans by only 1 percent. Still, that gap is ten times wider than the differences between the DNA of any two humans.

Mixing truth and lies is the epitome of deception. Bonobo chimps and humans differ by 1.2% of their DNA. Common chimp DNA differs from us slightly more. Two human beings differ from each other by less than 0.1%. The video does not contradict any of these facts.

Part 1 of the video shows how the Theory of Evolution correctly predicted a very particular fusion of two chromosomes in our ancestors and how that led to our species having 46 chromosomes. These facts are easily verified as are all the facts in the above video.

gold and lead have pretty close Atomic numbers.

Did Gold come from Lead, or did Lead come from Gold?

I know, I know, but it's the same arguement. Just being close and having commonality does not mean X came from Y.

All matter is made of atoms. So, all matter has commonality.
All living bio on earth is carbon based with DNA structure. So they not only share atoms and matter, but also share elements. Having a DNA string "suggest" a commonaltiy is not a big deal. Suggesting that some magic evolutionary malfunction fused some chromesomes that were working just fine aleady in their host ... and are still working just fine in their host .... and that somehow the malfunction found other hosts to carry on ... and the malfunction has never happened before of since in any other host group ...... geeese man, that is a HUGE leap of FAITH!! lmao.

On the other hand, God is not real specific about how he created man ... other than the formed from the dust of the earth part. So, if God created all the atoms to make all the matter to make all the elements to make all the bio and then made monkeys and then used a monkey base to get humanoids and used humanoids to get Adam and then used Adam to get Noah ... and then Abraham ... and then Isreal ... and then Moses ... and then You. Ok, on that we can agree.

Bap33 says

gold and lead have pretty close Atomic numbers.

Did Gold come from Lead, or did Lead come from Gold?

I know, I know, but it's the same arguement.

No it is not the same argument. The analogy fails; you are comparing apples to oranges -- or rather apples to bronze castings of an orange.

Fixed atomic numbers are not the same as DNA which has been shown to have variation in a species and change with time. The DNA of viruses has been shown to "evolve" over time into new novel viruses very different from an ancestor (see the link I posed above to the radio show). Scientists use this knowledge extensively, and effectively, when researching disease.

Bap33 says

Just being close and having commonality does not mean X came from Y.

Right, but evaluation of the evidence can lead to a reasonable conclusion that X came from Y. Especially when the conclusion that X came from Y is accurately used to predict future results of other experiments.

Bap33 says

[I]f God created all the atoms to make all the matter to make all the elements to make all the bio and then made monkeys and then used a monkey base to get humanoids and used humanoids to get Adam and then used Adam to get Noah ... and then Abraham ... and then Isreal ... and then Moses ... and then You. Ok, on that we can agree.

This is similar to the reasoning many religious people use to believe in evolution. Basically god(s) placed all the ingredients together and let nature take its course.

Bap33 says

Suggesting that some magic evolutionary malfunction fused some chromesomes that were working just fine aleady in their host ... and are still working just fine in their host .... and that somehow the malfunction found other hosts to carry on ... and the malfunction has never happened before of since in any other host group ...... geeese man, that is a HUGE leap of FAITH!! lmao.

There is NOTHING magical about non-random survival of randomly varying genes through geological time.

And moreover, there is no huge leap of faith when evolution sits on a mountain of scientific evidence.

Creationists cannot comprehend geological time (which is awfully long).

Bap33 says

God is not real specific about how he created man ... other than the formed from the dust of the earth part. So, if God created all the atoms to make all the matter to make all the elements to make all the bio and then made monkeys and then used a monkey base to get humanoids and used humanoids to get Adam and then used Adam to get Noah ... and then Abraham ... and then Isreal ... and then Moses ... and then You. Ok, on that we can agree.

LOL, the amount of assumptions you've made without any proof whatsoever is gigantic. Let's break it down.

1. Old father figure in the sky.
2. Old father figure in the sky created all atoms, matter, elements required for living beings
3. Old father figure in the sky used what he created in step #2 to make monkey bases
4. Old father figure in the sky used monkey bases to create humanoids
5. Old father figure in the sky transformed humanoids to humans

Hmm, let's see here.

On one hand, I have what you give: Mountains of assumptions with no proof.

On the other hand, I have a scientific theory that assumes very little and explains gigantic variety of life.

Tough choice indeed ;), but I have to pick the scientific theory because it actually stands closest to the truth.

Bap33 says

Did Gold come from Lead, or did Lead come from Gold?

Neither. Gold and lead both came from stardust, or less romantically, nuclear waste from exploding stars. Same for every element beyond Lithium in the periodic table up to Uranium.