Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:

1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)

2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)

3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)

4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.

5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.

6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry.

You still have the cart before the horse. You are still presupposing that evolutionary process has occurred without first establishing (i.e. proving) it. Second, you are assuming that fusion has occurred in human DNA without substantiating that it was not already fused (originally). Hence, your points are useless.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What ample proof? Ample proof that something existed? Those fossils do not prove that any organism evolved from a lower state to a more advanced one. Question: can you prove that any fossil ever reproduced? Your fossil record is incomplete because no two organisms are identical (barring identical twins of the human kind), but discrete entities. You don't have all the connections because there are none (they don't exist).

God (according to the Bible) created all life. It is plausible that many organisms share similar characteristics by mere coincidence or as a deliberate act of God's creative design. The only common ancestry I observe among organisms is that all life share a common God.

The biggest flaw in your logic is that you're trying to explain matters of faith scientifically. By definition, to have faith in something is to believe in something for which their is no proof. So why are you trying to find a logical explanation for something that can't be proven.

In my opinion, I think you try to provide this "scientific proof" because, whether you want to admit it or not, you yourself question your faith, and thus must find an empirical way to justify it, since faith alone doesn't seem to be good enough.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You still have the cart before the horse. You are still presupposing that evolutionary process has occurred without first establishing (i.e. proving) it. Second, you are assuming that fusion has occurred in human DNA without substantiating that it was not already fused (originally). Hence, your points are useless.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392

So then the uncanny resemblence between those fused chromosomes and the chimp chromosomes is just pure coincidence?

Edit: I noticed the article you posted doesn't even mention the similarites with chimp chromosomes. Sounds like biased journalism to me.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
okay you are really starting to piss me off with your halve ass circular logic... this thread should have been closed a long time ago you have nothing to add to your thread..

having said that lets start again with what ppl have repeatedly told you already...
evolution is not a complete fact. it is an evolutionary theory, their is a major difference.

you want absolute proof but lets start with your religion where is your proof. i can and many other ppl who have study theology can point out a lot of flaws and inconsistencies with the bible and it accuracy.

you also use selective parts of science to some how support your believe in your religion while ignoring the full stufy and research.. somehow claiming that it was religion that somehow discovered inconsistencies in the darwins theory...when the simplist truth is that he was an 18th century person making nothing more then observations with the limited knowledge at hand. it was scientist not religion that has pointed out his flaws in his belief system and observation not the church or religion. before you go trolling your own thread and qouting the bible and using circular logic that you blatantly admitted to pick up a biology book or take some college courses before you run your mouth. or should i say fingers.

there are other scientific forums that you can post your videos and questions.. maybe you should try going to one of them and see what they have to say to some of your comments and videos. notice i said comment because you do not even debate or make an intellegent
argument.

The believer and the atheist function or operate on two separate planes as it were so I don't know why you want to compare the two. One is by faith and the other is by something else. You cannot hold me to the same standard that I hold you to because you stand or fall through what you can or cannot prove using the scientific method. This is not the case with me and I have indicated this from the outset. I cannot prove that God did anything, nor did I ever say that I could.

I believe that you are getting upset because you know deep down inside that evolutionary theory can never be proven, and that you have nothing else (no other viable theories) to help you account for life's origin except God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B][COLOR=darkblue]The believer and the atheist function or operate on two separate planes as it were so I don't know why you want to compare the two. One is by faith and the other is by something else. You cannot hold me to the same standard that I hold you to because you stand or fall through what you can or cannot prove using the scientific method as your method. This is not the case with me and I have indicated this from the outset. I cannot prove that God did anything, nor did I ever say that I could.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
The biggest flaw in your logic is that you're trying to explain matters of faith scientifically. By definition, to have faith in something is to believe in something for which their is no proof. So why are you trying to find a logical explanation for something that can't be proven.

In my opinion, I think you try to provide this "scientific proof" because, whether you want to admit it or not, you yourself question your faith, and thus must find an empirical way to justify it, since faith alone doesn't seem to be good enough.

So then the uncanny resemblence between those fused chromosomes and the chimp chromosomes is just pure coincidence?

What uncanny resemblance? To you something similar might appear as uncanny but not to me.

How am I trying to explain matters of faith scientifically? I stand flat-footed and sure, and say without one iota of doubt that I know in Whom I have believed. I have not deviated nor retreated from my original stance on anything.

ftw

Originally posted by AngryManatee
ftw

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The believer and the atheist function or operate on two separate planes as it were so I don't know why you want to compare the two. One is by faith and the other is by something else. You cannot hold me to the same standard that I hold you to because you stand or fall through what you can or cannot prove using the scientific method as your method. This is not the case with me and I have indicated this from the outset. I cannot prove that God did anything, nor did I ever say that I could.

I believe that you are getting upset because you know deep down inside that evolutionary theory can never be proven, and that you have nothing else (no other viable theories) to help you account for life's origin except God.

i am getting annoyed that you are ignoring certain scientific facts that ppl have showed you and you using stupid clips that has bn in explained in my classes both in high school and in college..restating the same questions saying we havent proven anything...the whole chromosome and animal plant comparison has bn taught in biology classes yrs ago and has bn explained.. somehow somehow you dig up an old clip and point it as evidence it like comparing your scientific understanding to chimp and an astronaut.

you want proof of evolution it is very easy to point out one simple observation that we see today..

viruses and bacteria all become resistent to certain vaccinations, anti bodies and medications.. look at aids how many strains have bn discovered from the original virus it has evolved or mutated becoming more resistent to many medications. it simple as that.

the cambrain study has already bn explained over a decade ago yet some how your religious website of creationism still uses it to somehow question evolution. scientist have already found fossils that show similarities and possible link the some of the cambrian fossils.. not only that it has already been explained that many of the rocks and and fossils record past the cambrian period have not survived and are extremely rare to find them.. do you really belief that rocks dont break down over 500 millions yrs? did you even bother reading the article i posted or do you believe national geographic is some how bias and inaccurrate compared to your religious website?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
The biggest flaw in your logic is that you're trying to explain matters of faith scientifically. By definition, to have faith in something is to believe in something for which their is no proof. So why are you trying to find a logical explanation for something that can't be proven.

In my opinion, I think you try to provide this "scientific proof" because, whether you want to admit it or not, you yourself question your faith, and thus must find an empirical way to justify it, since faith alone doesn't seem to be good enough.

So then the uncanny resemblence between those fused chromosomes and the chimp chromosomes is just pure coincidence?

Edit: I noticed the article you posted doesn't even mention the similarites with chimp chromosomes. Sounds like biased journalism to me.

They don't mention them (perhaps) because they do not presuppose that evolutionary process has occurred. They don't start with that premise as do the evolutionist proponent. Besides, similarites are irrelevant. Just because one box of cereal looks like another box of cereal that does not mean that they have the same manufacturer. There are such things as generic brands that look and almost taste like the original.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What uncanny resemblance? To you something similar might appear as uncanny but not to me.

How am I trying to explain matters of faith scientifically? I stand flat-footed and sure, and say without one iota of doubt that I know in Whom I have believed. I have not deviated nor retreated from my original stance on anything.

Concerning your first statement:
The dedicated individuals who have mapped both human and chimpanzee genomes and identified these similarites at a genetic level would feel differently.

Second:
A fool can stand flat-footed and sure on what he claims to know. Whether you have deviated from your stance is not the issue.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
They don't mention them (perhaps) because they do not presuppose that evolutionary process has occurred. They don't start with that premise as do the evolutionist proponent. Besides, similarites are irrelevant. Just because one box of cereal looks like another box of cereal that does not mean that they have the same manufacturer. There are such things as generic brands that look and almost taste like the original.

Concerning the chimp stuff, read above statement.

Concerning cereal, cereal is delicious, but it is not DNA. Using it as an analogy just shows how little you're understanding of the subject is, yet you continue to argue it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What ample proof? Ample proof that something existed? Those fossils do not prove that any organism evolved from a lower state to a more advanced one. Question: can you prove that any fossil ever reproduced? Your fossil record is incomplete because no two organisms are identical (barring identical twins of the human kind), but discrete entities. You don't have all the connections because there are none (they don't exist).

God (according to the Bible) created all life. It is plausible that many organisms share similar characteristics by mere coincidence or as a deliberate act of God's creative design. The only common ancestry I observe among organisms is that all life share a common God.

It gets tiring and I suspect this is your troll-tactic, any proof people post will be dismissed, you won't respond, you'll post like the proof was never posted or you'll fall back on the "I have faith" as your escape.

Prove that the God of the Bible exist and prove that God did create all life in the fashion the Bible describes? As it's possible there is a God but God didn't go about things the way the Bible tells, eg maybe God created Evolution, maybe God created woman first, maybe God farted and it caused the Big Bang etc.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
and what, praytell, is that?

A Velociraptor. A dromeosaurid.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
A Velociraptor. A dromeosaurid.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
A Velociraptor. A dromeosaurid.

Don't you know that ancient men (well, men from 4-6 thousand years ago) used to keep those as pets.

Here's the proof!
YouTube video

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i am getting annoyed that you are ignoring certain scientific facts that ppl have showed you and you using stupid clips that has bn in explained in my classes both in high school and in college..restating the same questions saying we havent proven anything...the whole chromosome and animal plant comparison has bn taught in biology classes yrs ago and has bn explained.. somehow somehow you dig up an old clip and point it as evidence it like comparing your scientific understanding to chimp and an astronaut.

you want proof of evolution it is very easy to point out one simple observation that we see today..

viruses and bacteria all become resistent to certain vaccinations, anti bodies and medications.. look at aids how many strains have bn discovered from the original virus it has evolved or mutated becoming more resistent to many medications. it simple as that.

the cambrain study has already bn explained over a decade ago yet some how your religious website of creationism still uses it to somehow question evolution. scientist have already found fossils that show similarities and possible link the some of the cambrian fossils.. not only that it has already been explained that many of the rocks and and fossils record past the cambrian period have not survived and are extremely rare to find them.. do you really belief that rocks dont break down over 500 millions yrs? did you even bother reading the article i posted or do you believe national geographic is some how bias and inaccurrate compared to your religious website?

Using your rationale, human organisms are many times more advanced than bacteria how come we are not yet resistant to death, disease, sickness, and old age? Why do we still need to eat? Shouldn't we be resistant to these inferior, lower-level dependencies? Shouldn't we be getting better with age instead of closer to the cemetary if evolutionary process is true?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions19.html

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
let me guess, once again, an artist's interpretation?

While the small details may be wrong, ie eye color, skin color, feather color, skin texture etc may be incorrect interpretations, the structure of the body and feathers are correct, unless you think the fossil remains which that drawing was based are fakes placed in the ground by someone to trick us.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
let me guess, once again, an artist's interpretation?

Aside from the unscientific aspect of choosing what colors to make it, it was an update to normal renditions with no feathers, after they discovered some very well preserved specimens that had quill knobs on the bones, indicating that they indeed had feathers on their bodies.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your rationale, human organisms are many times more advanced than bacteria how come we are not yet resistant to death, disease, sickness, and old age? Why do we still need to eat? Shouldn't we be resistant to these inferior, lower-level dependencies? Shouldn't we be getting better with age instead of closer to the cemetary if evolutionary process is true?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions19.html

That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard you say, I'm so F'n glad that you put me on your ignore list. 😄

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your rationale, human organisms are many times more advanced than bacteria how come we are not yet resistant to death, disease, sickness, and old age? Why do we still need to eat? Shouldn't we be resistant to these inferior, lower-level dependencies? Shouldn't we be getting better with age instead of closer to the cemetary if evolutionary process is true?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions19.html

I'm going to ignore the ''immortal" and "need to eat" questions, as they're utterly retarded. You also have no idea what Evolution Theory is, maybe read up on it before you try and counter it?

Bacteria and viruses change and adapt too. EG Becoming immune to one virus, doesn't make you immune to all viruses. HIV is a perfect example, it's ever mutating state is a major reason why a cure is not to be found, at least yet.

Edit: Why did people in the Bible live to be hundreds of years old, but now we only live to an average of 77 (os so)? Why has our life expectancy increased in the last 300, 200, 100 years? Why does God do this 'up and own' thing with our life expectancies?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your rationale, human organisms are many times more advanced than bacteria how come we are not yet resistant to death, disease, sickness, and old age? Why do we still need to eat? Shouldn't we be resistant to these inferior, lower-level dependencies? Shouldn't we be getting better with age instead of closer to the cemetary if evolutionary process is true?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions19.html

Using your rationale, humans beings are the only things that are evolving and changing.