patrick.net

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.

109

Dan8267 2012 Jan 21, 7:18am

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%.

110

Dan8267 2012 Jan 21, 7:21am

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?

111

Dan8267 2012 Jan 22, 1:46am

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Three years after all legislation passed by religious people have been revoked.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.

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?".

112

Bap33 2012 Jan 22, 5:51am

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

113

Dan8267 2012 Jan 22, 9:17am

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.

114

Dan8267 2012 Jan 22, 1:55pm

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

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/SF2N2lbb3dk

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

115

Dan8267 2012 Jan 23, 12:57am

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.

116

Bap33 2012 Jan 23, 2:32am

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.

117

leo707 2012 Jan 23, 2:54am

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.

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.

118

leo707 2012 Jan 23, 2:59am

[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.

119

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Jan 23, 3:00am

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).

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.

120

Dan8267 2012 Jan 23, 3:17am

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.

121

Bap33 2012 Jan 23, 2:41pm

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.

Leo, that would be fine if the base DNA host was no longer walking around. Since the DNA host that you point to is still walking around, in the exact same time and environments as the new improved DNA host, then there is a little problem with your assumption. Change does not happen just for no reason. And that time line needed by evolutionists keeps changing and, worse yet, has a HUGE varience. In my opinion.

122

leo707 2012 Jan 24, 2:47am

Leo, that would be fine if the base DNA host was no longer walking around. Since the DNA host that you point to is still walking around, in the exact same time and environments as the new improved DNA host, then there is a little problem with your assumption.

I am not sure what example you are citing here, but evolution has no conflict with two populations, one with "original" DNA and another with an "evolved" DNA, existing at the same time. In fact it probably happens that way more often that an entire population evolving all at once.

Change does not happen just for no reason.

No it does not, I think uomo summed it up nicely:
uomo_senza_nome says

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

And that time line needed by evolutionists keeps changing...

Sure, that is the way science works. As additional data comes in viewpoints are changed to accept the new data. Yes, new data over the years has revised the way evolution is viewed, but new data has only strengthened the underlying assumptions of evolution. If new data were to disprove it, evolution as a theory would be abandon.

Intelligent design -- not being a science -- holds to its views regardless of new data coming in. That is fine if people want to believe in it, but it makes it not science.

Also, intelligent design would be much more believable to me if the design was... well... more intelligent. Humans -- you see -- are rather poorly designed. If the iPhone 5 has the same level of design flaws as humans there would be an outcry, a recall, and probably destroy the company.

Well... maybe not destroy the company... there would still be a fanatical loyal following claiming that there are no "real" problems with the phone and insisting that it was intelligently designed.

123

Bap33 2012 Jan 24, 11:03am

I am not sure what example you are citing here, but evolution has no conflict with two populations, one with "original" DNA and another with an "evolved" DNA, existing at the same time. In fact it probably happens that way more often that an entire population evolving all at once.

it sure does have a conflict. The reason for the mutation and it's survival stand in contrast to the original host continuing unchanged while shareing the exact same habitat. The fused DNA would only happen with cause. That cause requires the host, with the unfused DNA, to be placed on the endangered list. Right?

The old earth stuff is bogus. There is just as much chance that the new fused DNA came out perfect and all new lifes that were born to Fused DNA came out with the fused DNA of the lone parent. There is no proof that the mutation required any more than two generations to split away completely from the host.

intel design: Your body carries the same percentage of basic elements as the entire universe. Same percentage of carbon, ect ect. Dr. ND Tyson showed me that. Pretty cool huh?

124

Bap33 2012 Jan 24, 11:04am

If new data were to disprove it, evolution as a theory would be abandon.

maybe. But, after watching what happened with man-made global warming, I just don't think science works like you suggest.

125

Dan8267 2012 Jan 25, 12:15am

The creationist writings in this thread are a perfect example of why children should not be exposed to religion. Notice how creationists simply discard all facts and replace them with false conjectures rather than even attempting to offer counter-evidence?

Creationists continually discard all knowledge that contradicts their mythology while still treating the Bible as an accurate historical record even the downright silly parts like a flaming sword guarding the garden of Eden or Adam living a thousand years and his kids having incestual relationships to produce our whole species.

This utter insistence to force a delusional view of history onto the world is a form of insanity no different than believing oneself to be Napoleon. And as such, it should be considered a form of mental retardation and those who are so delusional should not be allowed to vote.

126

Dan8267 2012 Jan 25, 1:06am

You got it goin' on, Adolph ...

Adolph was a Christian.

And in the United States, people with delusions and other mental illnesses cannot vote on the basis that they are not mentally capable of understanding what they are voting on. That's the law. If you don't like it, get the politicians to change it.

I don't see why we should violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against some delusions and discriminating for others. The content of the delusion shouldn't matter. The fact that the person has no grasp on reality should.

But believing in equality under law and in particular the equal protection clause makes me equivalent to Hitler, a person who committed genocide for religious reasons and said that in doing so he was "fighting for the Lord's work". Yep, Hitler and I, an atheist, are essentially the same person. Good analysis.

127

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Jan 25, 2:57am

Some of these are the study of astronomy and the magnificent precision that permeates the heavens, such as the fact that galaxies are in orbit and not haphazardly strewn across the universe.

Exhibit 1:

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image: The deepest known image of the universe, looking back at billyuns and billyuns of years (as Carl Sagan would say).

Does that look perfectly strewn or haphazard? :)

128

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Jan 25, 3:12am

Or how about the internal harmony of the Bible. How about Bible prophecy, historical accuracy and the fact that it dovetails with archaeological endeavors.

Those are very vague statements trying to assert something, but really just dispersing random thoughts.

I'm not really sure (and so are others here who are arguing against religion) how such statements really advance our knowledge of the world.

History shows that blind belief in anything takes us backward or keeps us stuck.

Here's Galileo (one of my favorite scientists):

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.

129

Dan8267 2012 Jan 25, 11:13am

http://www.youtube.com/embed/x56O4G8VsiA

perfectly haphazard, Blondie

uomo_senza_nome showed a picture of the distribution of galaxies in the universe. Your picture is of a single galaxy. A galaxy is, by definition, a collection of stars gravitationally bound and as such those stars will always follow elliptical orbits in accordance to Kepler's laws. The structure of a galaxy is explained by the Theory of Gravity, not a god.

130

Dan8267 2012 Jan 25, 11:22am

After two months, pretty much everything has been said on this thread. The intelligent, rational people have shown extensive evidence that explains why we know the Earth is old and our species is descendant from apes, monkeys, and other small mammals. Meanwhile, the creationists have resorted to quoting their nonsense Bible. Time for this thread to die.

131

Bap33 2012 Jan 25, 2:45pm

Dan8267 says

Adolph was a Christian.

nope. Adolph did not follow Christ's teachings. Plus, he did not follow God's teachings. 0 for 2.

132

Dan8267 2012 Jan 25, 10:41pm

Adolph did not follow Christ's teachings. Plus, he did not follow God's teachings. 0 for 2.

What "Christian" does?

133

leo707 2012 Jan 26, 1:38am

Dan8267 says

Adolph was a Christian.

nope. Adolph did not follow Christ's teachings. Plus, he did not follow God's teachings. 0 for 2.

Bap! We had this discussion a while back. If you remember correctly you were unable to come-up with any actions taken by Hitler that were incompatible with god's law.

If I get more time today I will look for the thread and post a link for your reference.

While everything Hitler did was justifiable through god's law, and the teachings of christ, I think we agreed that he was probably not actually a believing christian. He was a big supporter of christianity and endorsed it -- hell, he even encouraged (required?) his followers to go to christian churches. Remember that picture I posed of a catholic mass filled entirely by Hitler's brown-shirts?

134

Bap33 2012 Jan 26, 1:40am

catholic is not christian ... for the ten billionth time.

135

Bap33 2012 Jan 26, 1:42am

Dan8267 says

What "Christian" does?

That's a judgement for God to make. The plan for us living folks is to be Christian enough to be convicted of it in court - for example.

136

leo707 2012 Jan 26, 2:00am

thunderlips11 says

Liv, I'm glad you're accepting that the Firmament is from the noun form...

You make a good point about why people got these wrong ideas . Reason should always triumph over dogmatism, on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, reason should triumph, and that is the problem you are having. Your religious faith -- any religious belief -- is unreasonable yet you keep trying to use reason to understand it.

You keep "adding epicycles" in order to justify your beliefs, then when faced with ridiculous levels of irrefutable evidence -- thank god you are not a flat earther -- all the suddenly things become metaphor.

Having faith/belief/spirituality is fine and an large part of the human condition, but don't be fooled into thinking that any 100+ year old religious text is going to be a good guide for understanding the natural world.

I understand the need for reason and see that you are by nature a reasonable person. That need for reason is driving you to add all those epicycles, but forcing your religion to try and conform with reason makes you look unreasonable, and... well.. silly...

You are just going to have to let that go, and embrace your faith on a different level. If you need evidence to justify your faith, well then your faith is weak. Faith by definition exists in the absence of proof. Once something can be proven faith is no longer required.

137

leo707 2012 Jan 26, 2:04am

catholic is not christian ... for the ten billionth time.

Has it been ten billion already? Hmmm.. OK...

I am not sure if the Vatican has gotten the news yet though. When they get the news can they alter their dogma then petition you to become officially approved christians?

Anyway, catholicism was not the only christian based belief system endorsed by Hitler.

138

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Jan 26, 2:53am

Once something can be proven faith is no longer required.

+1. Well said.

Don't get me wrong: but the problem with liv4ever's posts are that they are large and extremely digressive. They don't end up making any point and are rather vague, tiring.

Just copying some biblical ramblings and trying to 'fit the prose to science' is a stupid approach to prove religion works. If that's the best a religion can come up with, then the religion is a waste of time

The purpose of the whole thread was to show that there's beauty in science that is unmatched by any faith whatsoever. I highly doubt that this purpose is achieved at all after these tedious nonsensical posts.

139

Bap33 2012 Jan 26, 6:50am

proof? Who's proof? Proof is in the eyes of the beholder. That's why OJ got off the first time.

140

leo707 2012 Jan 26, 7:52am

wrong... blind faith is credulity.

I think that this is something that you and Dan can agree on.

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Hebrews 11:1 NWT

Ohhhkaaayyy...

Faith is what assures and demonstrates "things hoped for" and "realities though not beheld" i.e. things/realities that have no evidence, faith does not have proof i.e. actually independently verifiable evidence.

I don't see how the passage changes anything I said related to faith and its relationship to verifiable evidence.

Gather every religion in the world and have them present their "evidence" -- and I use the word lightly here -- to an unbiased person, someone incapable of feeling true spiritual belief (yes, just as there are those able to feel profound belief, there are those than are unable to feel any spirituality what-so-ever i.e. probably like Dan). There is yet to be a religion that can present any proof more valid that any other religion's proof.

Perhaps your faith is blind and requires you to attempt to justify it with physical evidence. Perhaps you do not have that faith of a true believer, one who can feel god(s)/spirits with the core of there being and know they exist. One who as they pray/chant/meditate feels the power of the spirit world envelop them. These feelings can never be "proven" to another, but they create the faith that supports things hoped for and belief in a reality not beheld.

Belief without this internal knowledge is truly blind faith.

I wish you luck in your struggle.

Justify your belief with faith from within... Let go of your expectations of external "proof"... And of course don't worry so much about what others think.

141

leo707 2012 Jan 26, 8:14am

The purpose of the whole thread was to show that there's beauty in science that is unmatched by any faith whatsoever. I highly doubt that this purpose is achieved at all after these tedious nonsensical posts.

Ugg... yes tedious for sure...

What I find beautiful about science is that it is truth for all, regardless of religion. In that way it certainly is unmatched by any faith.

Religion and science do not have to be incompatible. Only certain dogmas make themselves incompatible with science.

I don't think we will ever "get rid of religion". It is too ingrained within our psyche. We must learn how to live with that part of who we are as humans. As our scientific knowledge grows -- and it will -- more and more literal interpretations of religion will become metaphor. We are probably generations away from it, but one day religions will cease in their attempts to explain our physical world and will become purely internal pursuits, without needing to try and justify its self to the rest of the world.

142

uomo_senza_nome 2012 Jan 26, 9:24am

Ugg... yes tedious for sure...

LOL, I did not mean all posts are nonsensical. Some of them really are, I can't even read them.

Religion and science do not have to be incompatible. Only certain dogmas make themselves incompatible with science.

Depends on how much you are affected by your religion. You see, some religions are *only* dogmas. And there are numerous examples Dan has shown that these religions have had a direct harmful impact on mankind.

I don't think we will ever "get rid of religion". It is too ingrained within our psyche.

I disagree. That's like saying you need faith to survive. No you don't. Science doesn't ask for your faith, it asks for your curiosity.
Imagine how many brighter minds we could have if everyone was curious and were not satisfied with fairies in the sky!

We must learn how to live with that part of who we are as humans.

We can be metaphorical, explore arts and music as much as we explore science without any religion. The universe is wondrous by itself.

religions will cease in their attempts to explain our physical world and will become purely internal pursuits, without needing to try and justify its self to the rest of the world.

Internal pursuits can be done without attributing to religion. You don't need to be religious to be introspective. I don't see a need for it at all.

143

Dan8267 2012 Jan 26, 11:11am

Dan8267 says

Unicorns ? (in the drawing) Numbers 23:22

not so, fast Dan the Man ...

And that is what you got out from the cartoon? The point is that the so called Christian was willing to accept the most ridiculous things in the Bible as the literal truth except the one important thing: giving up all of your possessions and giving all your money to the poor. You know, stuff that would actually be a sacrifice.

144

Dan8267 2012 Jan 27, 12:33am

By the way, no one is asking to give up your stuff to the poor, most of us are getting poorer by the day, as the American standard of living continues to rapidly decline. These comments were directed at "a rich young ruler".

You forget, I know this shit. The comment about giving up your worldly possessions to follow god is repeated many times in the Bible and by Jesus. It is directed towards everyone. That's why Christian philosophy is incompatible with capitalism. You can't follow Jesus and Gordon Gecko at the same time, but that is exactly what the Christian right thinks you should do.

145

freak80 2012 Jan 27, 2:22am

chapter and verse please?

Liv,

You've never seen those passages??? Do you ever consider reading the Gospels rather than trying to make predictions based on the Old Testament?

146

leo707 2012 Jan 27, 2:22am

Depends on how much you are affected by your religion. You see, some religions are *only* dogmas. And there are numerous examples Dan has shown that these religions have had a direct harmful impact on mankind.

You get no disagreement with me there.

I disagree. That's like saying you need faith to survive. No you don't. Science doesn't ask for your faith, it asks for your curiosity.
Imagine how many brighter minds we could have if everyone was curious and were not satisfied with fairies in the sky!

Hmm... let me clarify a bit...

Yes, individuals don't need faith to survive. However, as a species a majority of us seem compelled by a feeling of the supernatural. I don't think that all the reason in the world will make this go away.

Even people who can feel the faeries existence can be compelled by other curiosities, but some seem to have a great difficulty reconciling science with their religion. I think that as dogmas evolve this cognitive dissonance will be reduced and the harmful effects of religions (yes, today they are significant) will be mitigated.

We can be metaphorical, explore arts and music as much as we explore science without any religion. The universe is wondrous by itself.

I totally agree... but... when I say "who we are as humans" I mean everybody. Those that have "true faith" will always be around, and if not in a majority probably close. While I understand that the universe in itself can be wondrous without the need for anything supernatural, what is to be done all those people who know in their bones that the supernatural world exists?