“A 34-nation study found Americans less likely to believe in evolution than citizens of any of the countries polled except Turkey,†columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote. He argues that this is one example of the anti-intellectualism that is hurting our ability to solve serious problems and could harm our competitiveness as a nation in coming decades.
“There’s no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level,†he wrote. “And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the past seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement.â€
Is Kristof correct, or is this just another case of a liberal accusing those who disagree with him of being dumb?
605 Comments
Kristoff is correct (although there is plenty of anti-intellectualism in the Left as well-particularly in the “we protest anything” set).
Well there certainly IS a bent toward stupidity in this country.
Duh!
I don”t see a problem;
http://www.cmt.com/shows/dyn/my-big-redneck-wedding/series.jhtml
Loved the cake, annie. thanks for the giggles.
Really, though, they all looked comfy. Am kinda curious how many had their 12 guages handy, though.
Keeping people ignorant is a way to keep control of the them…look how well it works for Dubya’s fans.
America has the most prolific freedom of press and expression in the world. What is wrong with American evolutionists if they can not use that media (such as the WEblog) to convince the people of evolution’s scientific merit?
Perhaps, it is the American evolutionists who are the intellectually challenged bunch for failing in the regard.
John Collins
Posted April 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm | \l “comment-325244″
DEFEAT OSAMA, OBAMA AND CHELSEA’S MAMA
writerdog
Posted April 4, 2008 at 6:16 am | \l “comment-325455″
JOHN COLLINS, I never have looked at it that way! Your words, so eloquent and inspiring in their delivery. Simply yet carrying so much power and meaning in so few words! I am prompted to go beyond this room, run into the streets and shout them to my brethren. Repeating them to everyone I see so that they too shall be awestruck by them.
Forget all those flowery pundits, charts and graphs, forget all those speeches and ideals, history, voting records, alliances and policy speeches! No heed the words of JOHN COLLINS for he is surely the greatest oracle of these troubled times. With these words, I no longer need to even think for the way is now clear!
I can now rest quietly in my darken hobbit, spending hours in mindless folly, staring blankly at senseless dribble. For mine mind has been cleared of thought of the real world and I can now set drooling while watching a raving lunatic spouting details not weighted by facts or truth and understand the true value of his words. For now mine mind has been cleared by your simple words, there is no longer a need for anything but your simple words! In just 6 simple, understandable words you have taken away the need for paying attention in this election year!
I can now go on to talk of meaningful things, such as what color is the sky, I like hard candy and if Pluto is a dog, and Donald is a duck, why does Goofy wear pants and talks… yet he too appears to be a dog! So what is he? And the ultimate question in who answer would give mean to the vary existence of man.
HOW MANY LICKS DOES IT TAKE TO GET TO THE CENTER OF A TOOTSIE POP?
THANK YOU John Collins, from the vary fiber of my being for saying these words. I now am free to use this computer to do meaningful searches… like internet porn !
If there is someone that can not figure out why I posted that on this topic and why it is relent. I can explain it to you…..
Anyone have any knuckle cream? Mine are all scraped up from dragging them…got a banana – hungry…
wwoooo- chimp sounds—aaaaheeeeaaaa–
Glad you enjoyed it ghotiphaze. You should catch the show sometime it’s hilarious.
rfl you can lead a horse to water……
annie moose,
lead me to water. You have all day and this thread as a sounding board to provide your best evidence in support of evolution.
I’ll be checking back in later.
Nicholas Kristof’s article bemoans the effect of “anti-intellectualism” on America. He illustrates it by citing studies showing only to 30 to 40% of Americans believe in evolution. Which means that 60 to 70% do not.
It’s important to note that “evolution” is an elastic word that can take on a variety of meanings. Its meaning can range from changes in drug resistance of certain bacteria, to the theory of common descent(Darwinism). Such a word is very useful if you intend to pull the wool over the eyes of your readers.
I am going to assume that when he says “evolution” Mr. Kristof means the theory of common descent, or Darwinism. I say this because I think that most folks in the 60 to 70% mentioned do not question evolution that can be demonstrated; that being micro-evolution, or small changes in existing species. They do question that which cannot be demonstrated, Darwinian theory. It is no secret that most of these folks believe in a Creator. Thus, the real elephant in the room is religious faith.
So, the apparent genesis of anti-intellectualism in Mr. Kristof’s mind is religion and the proof is lack of belief in “evolution”. He denigrates people’s thinking skills based on disagreement with his beliefs and conclusions. Adding the sum of disagreement with NYT style liberal orthodoxy to belief in God, Mr. Kristof gets “anti-intellectualism”.
Our forefathers were people of faith. One of the main reasons that they established this country was so that they could be free to worship as they wished. Now we are being told by a writer at one of this country’s, until late, most esteemed newspapers, that it is people of faith that are hurting this country. Though he tried to soften it with weasel words, Kristof’s insults were directed at the backbone of America.
And the NYT wonders why they are losing money.
O boy, here we go again . . . again!
I think the last 2 presidential elections lend credence to the notion some of us are experiencing reverse evolution!
annie moose,
lead me to water
RFL: take a few courses in geology, anthropology, and physics for some knowlege of radioactive decay of isotopes and resultant daughter isotopes and come back in a few years.
Gster,
How dare you denigrate the lower rungs of evolution by placing the current leadershipesness in their midst! Why, if I were a monkey, I would be filing lawsuits, if I could write without an opposable thumb.
There is a Kansas teacher who uses that old idiom, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” as motivation in her teaching. She decided she would SALT THE HAY to further interest the horse in drinking the water.
I admire her attitude and her students are the lucky ones.
I wonder if she has encountered those unwilling to quench their thirst.
Kristof is correct.
Keeping people ignorant is a way to keep control of the them…look how well it works for Dubya’s fans.
Or for Dubya, himself.
The election of bush was the epitome of anti-intellectualism. Only surprise was we didn’t have the social cleansing/purge of intellectuals as was done in China. Maybe next time.
One of the main reasons that they established this country was so that they could be free to worship as they wished.
I think you actually mean for everyone to worship ONLY as they wish.
Ever hear of Mary Dyer?
rfl,
It makes little difference to me what you believe or don’t. If you find no value in the theory of evolution why do you wish to debate it.
There is a long history of anti-intellectualism in this country, starting with the Know Nothing party in the late 1800s. We are free to believe anything. As they say in Texas, go ahead and do it your own damned fool way.
George Will wrote: There is a universal duty to be as intelligent as possible.
Obviously a lot of people didn’t get the word.
It is unnecessary to put the theory of common descent in opposition to religious faith as Mr. outlander apparently insists upon doing. There is an abundance of evidence supporting the theory of common descent – contrary to Mr. outlander’s assertion.
The genetic evidence on plants suggest that all plants have a common plant ancestor. The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.
The facts are inconvenient for the Intelligence Design folk, but they exist, regardless.
The funny thing is dogs turn out to be smarter than monkeys. Heck, if we were descended from dogs, we wouldn’t have a bush in charge. In fact there would probably be many legs lifted to that fact. I’m not too sure about walking around sniffing peoples butts though:-)
The funny thing is dogs turn out to be smarter than monkeys.
I think that’s somewhat debatable…Depends in what ways. I agree with the point, somewhat, but chimps, bonobos and gorillas excell in many ways dogs can’t. then again, without hands, dogs don’t quite have the vocabulary as the listed primates. And who knows about the cetaceans.
“It makes little difference to me what you believe or don’t. If you find no value in the theory of evolution why do you wish to debate it.”
annie moose
so are you telling me reasons why I don’t wish to debate evolution? Aren’t you the intellectual with all the intellectual tools to smash my logic into oblivion to end this debate one and for all?
Instead you reveal your own insecurity in your ability to debate a theory that is purported to be unequivocally supported by facts, observations and evidence?
Hiding from debate is no way for an intellectual to act. hmmm Annie?
Instead you reveal your own insecurity in your ability to debate a theory that is purported to be unequivocally supported by facts, observations and evidence?
Ok, from your point of view, prove to me God created the world and filled it with life in exactly the way it is now. I’ll take Earth II between the orbit of Earth I and Mars.
RD
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Keeping people ignorant is a way to keep control of the them…look how well it works for Dubya’s fans.
Or for Dubya, himself.
Dubya isn’t so dumb. He’s used the Presidency to enrich himself and his handlers at the expense of the working poor.
Jesus didn’t weep…he’s getting ready to scream and crack his whip at the Republican money-changers.
rfl,
How could I possibly debate such a superior individual? My ego couldn’t possibly tolerate the setbacks from you not believing in evolution.
Does this mean you won’t invite me to your big redneck wedding?
The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.
Actually, it doesn’t.
Morphology is not the end all answer to evolution.
One crystal may look like another crystal, but it’s constituent parts are entirely different in function and purpose.
“The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.”
Really? A transitional life form is half one form and part another. What form(s) are you referring to?
“The genetic evidence on plants suggest that all plants have a common plant ancestor.”
The structural analysis of automobiles reveals that all cars on the road today are made of steel, therefore following the same line of thinking as that which Steven Davis is using, we can assume that all cars evolved from a singular automobile made out of steel. Right?
rfl, with your logic, you’re saying ‘man is god’
annie,
Good for you to avoid debating something you do not have a firm grasp of. But as a result of your predictable digression, I guess we can expect the controversy to continue on and on.
Still waiting for your proof rfl. My telescope is all fired up (it’s steam powered).
I’ll make it easy on you, just pray me the enlightenment.
Still waiting.
Why is it the anti-evolutionists say show me the evidence, then say I don’t believe it so you’re wrong, yet they can never show any proof of their side other than this book says so, or they were divinely inspired?
rfl,
Seriously if you have faith good for you.I don’t nothing you can say will change my mind and I’m sure the same applies to you. So why bother?
“Transistional” Form #1
All About Archaeopteryx
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
Somebody read this article from a pro evolutionary website, and tell me what is the differences in each of the 8 none specimans of Archaeopteryx (A)?
If A is a transitional form, each of 8 specimens can be expected to be found in differring stages of change as the form would be in transistion from a reptile to a bird.
After you read the article, take note of the author’s conclusion at the bottom:
“Conclusions:
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers.
Seems like a fully formed species to me that has interesting characteristics differeing from modern day birds but nevertheless still a bird.
“8 none specimans” should be “8 known specimens”
Seems like a fully formed species to me that has interesting characteristics differeing from modern day birds but nevertheless still a bird.
Show me one now. If you can’t show me a living specimen, god made a flawed creation.
Actually, since the mid 90s, there’ve been a lot better examples of “missing links”.
If A is a transitional form, each of 8 specimens can be expected to be found in differring stages of change as the form would be in transistion from a reptile to a bird.
Not every animal that dies fossilizes or we’d be up to the moon in fossils.
Actually, since the mid 90s, there’ve been a lot better examples of “missing links”.
————————
Name them. :)
annie,
Because I am an intellectual and I know my opponent and I smell blood. Asking me why I would choose debate something as boneheaded as evolution is like asking a fish why it bothers to swim.
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:57 am | Permalink
The funny thing is dogs turn out to be smarter than monkeys.
I think that’s somewhat debatable…Depends in what ways. I agree with the point, somewhat, but chimps, bonobos and gorillas excell in many ways dogs can’t. then again, without hands, dogs don’t quite have the vocabulary as the listed primates. And who knows about the cetaceans.
So, does that mean sniffing butts is out?
I am aware of a few links I wish were missing:-)
Of course it hurts us. The only question is, how badly does it hurt us?
Check out this blog for evidence…
The fossil record clearly indicate trasitional life forms.
“Actually, it doesn’t.
“Morphology is not the end all answer to evolution.
“One crystal may look like another crystal, but it’s constituent parts are entirely different in function and purpose.”
I will refer all interested [and, I accept that would mean relatively few here] to this document which covers in great detail the scientific evidence for common descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Anti-intellectualism is hurting America. Unfortunately, some here [read Regular] are half-way smart enough to confuse the issues.
A fully detailed critique of http://www.talkorigins.org
is found in this link:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Read both.
Anti-intellectualism is hurting America. Unfortunately, some here [read Regular] are half-way smart enough to confuse the issues.
Actually, I’m smart enough to challenge because I know the science.
The only thing the Libs do is make statements they can’t back up intellectually and when challenged on a fact, the fold like a house of cards.
And Ghotiphaze, where is that list of missing links? :)
Assiduously avoiding the Evolution controversy, should not there be a better understanding of the function of DNA and radiation, the ignorance of which among the populace is staggering, according to the linked Kristof article? Should there not be a better understanding of the difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis, again as suggested?
Yep, kfg, of course it hurts us. The answer to your question is, IMHO, very, very badly.
It isn’t just evolution. In a way, I’m sorry Kristof chose that “hot button,” as it obscures the greater issue.
I’m still sipping my first coffee and got work to do, so I’ll leave it at this: the modern anti-intellectualsm confuses simplicity with simple-minded. Issues are reduced to parodies of their reality, and the attendant complexities and ambiguities are reduced to competing slogans.
Think George Orwell’s newspeak.
This, IMHO, is due largely to a concerted effort by powerful conservatives to destroy public education and independent journalism since the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They didn’t completely succeed, but it’s been close enough.
P.S. As Ksag points out, there is plenty of unthinking dogmatism among the “Left.” But you will find those kinds of views marginalized, usually on well-aged clips on public-acccess TV, (yes, we get that here)–if even there. The most vapid and shameless right-wing propaganda can be found almost nonstop on Fox.
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/Dinobirds.html
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Caudipteryx.shtml
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Protarchaeopteryx.shtml
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Sinosauropteryx.shtml
enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/Archaeopteryx.shtml
actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
Pain in the butt. Wouldn’t let me post all the h t t ps. had to re-google. Is your google broke?
asking a fish why it bothers to swim.
because i swim quite well.
So, does that mean sniffing butts is out?
My wife likes it
*ducks*
it is hurting America. We had elected a president who sent us to war based on whether or not we could drink a beer with him, and because he supported religious views.
Our economy is in the tank, because we believed God annointed Bush our leader.
Ok, I don’t believe that, but a lot of you out there do.
We had a big huge thread yesterday about the bible, and where were half of you who are willing to stand here and defend it and your beliefs?
You didn’t want to talk about it yesterday, but you expect us to create American policy based from it.
Check out this blog for evidence…
Case in point: I kept scrolling back and forth looking for the link to the blog KFG was citing.
Steven, I stayed away from the talkorigin sites as they were implying they didn’t believe them anyway.
I frankly think is futile to argue with people convinced that they already have the answer. I think choosing to not beat one’s head against a wall of determined anti-intellectualism is not the same as “folding like a house of cards.” It is just wise use of one’s energy.
I would point out, too, that evolution and the theory of common descent have been the victim of dirty tricks by creationists for some time. The most recent version of this is the ID movement. Here is a copy of their strategic plan, AKA the Wedge Memo:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Favorite Bumper Sticker:
Kansas: Where Evolution is Outlawed and the Monkeys are in Charge.
rfl boldly states,
Because I am an intellectual [by your own definition]
and I know my opponent and I smell blood.
[your making an assumption such as Bush and Iraq] Asking me why I would choose debate something as boneheaded as evolution [in your worldview]is like asking a fish why it bothers to swim.[I'm curious what was the answer]
“The only thing the Libs do is make statements they can’t back up intellectually and when challenged on a fact, they fold like a house of cards.”
Very True, Regular. Which is why their arguments are not rooted in intellectual thought. They are following someone else’s reccomendations and therefore lack the ability to back anything up with reason and civility.
Its a sad state of voluntary ignorance.
still waiting for your proof, rfl.
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 9:55 am | Permalink
So, does that mean sniffing butts is out?
My wife likes it
*ducks*
Beyatch
*leaves country*
I’d settle for a reasonably dubious evasion.
I frankly think is futile to argue with people convinced that they already have the answer.
When it comes to science, it often boils down to destroying misconceptions–things they “know,” because their mindmasters have drilled it into their heads a million times (my favorite: the ever-popular “it’s only a theory”). It’s not just ignorance of science facts ; it’s ignorance of scientific process .
Unfortunately, the well-heeled dogmatists at the Discovery Institute aren’t particularly stupid. George Gilder is the perfect “poster boy” for them: shrewd, tech-savvy, right-wing fanatic to the core. Of course, he knew was always right–too bad all those people who invested in Global Crossing believed him.
#
rfl
Posted April 4, 2008 at 10:05 am | Permalink
“The only thing the Libs do is make statements they can’t back up intellectually and when challenged on a fact, they fold like a house of cards.”
Very True, Regular. Which is why their arguments are not rooted in intellectual thought. They are following someone else’s reccomendations and therefore lack the ability to back anything up with reason and civility.
Its a sad state of voluntary ignorance.
Man, if that ain’t a crock I don’t know what is.
It seems there have been facts laid out here concerning intellectualism in multiple threads going back a few years, but the RR doesn’t deal in facts: They got da bible.
fish,
the talkorigin website attempts to show evidence of common descent. It clearly states that it makes no attempt to provide the mechanism for such a process to take place (such as the Darwinistic ideal of the “Survival of the Fittest”). Nor does it explain where the first organism came from or how it was formed.
Lacking an explanation of the mechanism of why organisms were encouraged to diverge, is just one of the reasons why the attempt by talkorigins is shallow.
“Dr. Theobald (from talkorigins.org) does not address the origin of the first living thing or the mechanism by which that first organism diverged into every life form that has ever existed. His thesis is expressly restricted to the affirmation of universal common ancestry. In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified, one can still be certain that all living things descended from the same ancestor.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
define intellect
The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
2. A person of great intellectual ability.
Truthiness is a word that U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert popularized in 2005 as a satirical term to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1] Colbert popularized this definition of the word during the inaugural (pilot) episode (October 17, 2005) of his satirical television program The Colbert Report, as the subject of a segment called “The Wørd”. It was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.[2][3]
By using the term as part of his routine, Colbert sought to satirize the use of appeal to emotion and the “gut feeling” as a rhetorical device in contemporary socio-political discourse.[4] He particularly applied it to U.S. President George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.[5] Colbert later ascribed truthiness to other institutions and organizations, such as Wikipedia.[6]
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=24039
And the Headlines said that God Was Dead…
So far, I have yet to see any science offered up by Libs proving their points.
Just a bunch of lip flapping, which is par for the course.
Let’s rock and roll on the science if you’re capable. If not, why bothering making a fool of yourselves making claims you can’t back up because you don’t understand what the scientists are really saying?
In other words, he argues that, without knowing anything about how the first life arose or how it diversified, one can still be certain that all living things descended from the same ancestor.”
Funny, I have no problem with that. Over the last 40 years (I’m 51) I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that this is true.
Personally, I just find it more mentally economical to believe this, than to self-debate the issue of whether God is so inept he had to create such a Rube Goldbergish universe.
Ok, still waiting on more evidence on your part, but I must admit, that was a reasonably dubious evasion like I requested.
Reg, we can fall back on the “because the science books say so…”
fish,
I forget, what have you provided to this thread so far the way of reasoning, facts, substance?
Furthermore, what exactly are you asking me to prove? I can not prove anything regarding creation. I was not there in the beginning. Where you?
Unfortunately, I am the only one so far that is brought up any “evidence”.
I am not an avowed evolutionist so what am I missing? I need an evolutionist to assist me in providing information as to why his/her theory is the only possible explanation.
Come on people we need to fight this anti-intellectualism today! It is hurting our country right? Well its time to rise up and give us your intellect!
What started evolution?
Reg, we can fall back on the “because the science books say so…”
-fish
Hmmm…fish is sounding more and more like a intellectual to me. NOT!
The Church told Copernicus that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Let’s see, did Copernicus accept “because the church said so” as fact? Or did he do his own due diligence and determine different?
What would an intellectual do in this situation?
Unfortunately, I am the only one so far that is brought up any “evidence”.
untrue. Evidence has been put forth. I must’ve missed your evidence part. I noticed you cited an article saying because the author couldn’t explain a part of his belief system, the whole concept was suspect. I’m only asking for SOME evidence supporting you position.
Or did he do his own due diligence and determine different?
And he did the smart thing for his day and time…waited until he was on his deathbed to publish and then his publisher bushwacked him and said in the preface that although sun centered explains many things there was no reason to actually believe it was true. His publisher never saw the stake. Unlike Bruno. Galileo just got house arrest (which was probably a kindness as he was blind from observing sunspots).
If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.
All organisms have one or more traits in common.
Is this evidence of common ancestry? IF this were evidence of evolution, the the opposite observation would refute evolution.
If evolution happened once, how could it have NOT happened twice, three times, and so on making multiple strains of life having traits diametrically different from each other?
“First, evolution does not predict that life would arise precisely once on this planet. If there were two or more unrelated systems of life, then evolutionary theory would effortlessly accommodate that situation.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
Therefore this is not evidence since the opposite observation would not refute evolution but simply be folded into the theory.
Really, if I were a ID person I’d come up with better arguments. Bats are the best example of a dearth in transitional species. I’m personally not aware of any nucleotide correlation to other families. Doesn’t mean there is none, I’m just not aware of it.
Science:
http://www.si.edu/Encyclopedia_SI/nmnh/origin.htm
Recent discoveries in New World archeology along with new scientific methods for analyzing data have led to new ideas regarding the origin of the first peoples of the Americas and their time of arrival.
The traditional theory held that the first Americans crossed the land bridge from Siberia to Alaska around 11,500 years ago and followed an “ice-free corridor” between two large Canadian ice sheets (the Laurentide and Cordilleran) to reach unglaciated lands to the south. These first inhabitants, whose archaeological sites are scattered across North and South America, were called the Clovis people, named after the town in New Mexico where their fluted spear points used for hunting mammoth were first found in 1932.
There is now convincing evidence of human habitation sites that date earlier than the Clovis culture including sites located in South America. Monte Verde, a well-studied site located along a river near southern central Chile, dates 12,500 years ago. This site contains the buried remnants of dwellings, stone tools including large bifacial projectile points, and preserved medicinal and edible plants. How did people manage to settle this far south at such an early date? A coastal migration route is now gaining more acceptance, rather than the older view of small bands moving on foot across the middle of the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and into the continents. Emerging evidence suggests that people with boats moved along the Pacific coast into Alaska and northwestern Canada and eventually south to Peru and Chile by 12,500 years ago—and perhaps much earlier. Archaeological evidence in Australia, Melanesia, and Japan indicate boats were in use as far back as 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. Sea routes would have provided abundant food resources and easier and faster movement than land routes. Many coastal areas were unglaciated at this time, providing opportunities for landfall along the way. Several early sites along the coast of Canada, California, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile date between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago. Many potential coastal sites are now submerged, making investigation difficult.
If the Clovis people were not here first, then who was? Clovis points are found in many sites in North and Central America with a significant early cluster in the southeastern United States. Points similar to Clovis but without fluting and dating more than 12,000 years ago have been found in stratified archaeological sites in the eastern United States, such the Cactus Hill, Virginia. These finds have occurred because archaeologists are no longer halting their digging at the bottom of the Clovis level.
Seems to me that science has the evidence to prove man is over 12,000 years old, at the very least. Kind of shoots the people who demand we believe the biblical version in the foot, doesn’t it?
As I stated many times: The bible, while being the word of God, was written by man, for man, to reflect the knowledge of the people at that time. Had it been written today, I’m sure it would reflect on the creation of the universe in terms understood by today’s scientists.
The findings do address intellectualism; they just don’t do so to appease the creationists. That’s pretty much impossible.
Unfortunately, if new life (say silicon based, non-dna, whatever)did arise, in order to even survive one generation it would have to have many advantages. But if God decides to create a 100 foot tall super carnosaur made of rock, I’ll be first to concede you were right.
Reasoning \Rea”son*ing\, n.
1. The act or process of adducing a reason or reasons; manner of presenting one’s reasons.
2. That which is offered in argument; proofs or reasons when arranged and developed; course of argument.
His reasoning was sufficiently profound. –Macaulay.
Syn: Argumentation; argument.
things that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
http://www.iclasses.org/assets/literature/literary_glossary.cfmthings that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happenen
Quit screwing around people prove the existence of GOD
Pmom, I agree with Steven.
My way of saying it? Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it only annoys the pig.
“If evolution happened once, how could it have NOT happened twice, three times, and so on making multiple strains of life having traits diametrically different from each other?”
Evolution is still happening and will continue to despite your inability to recognize it. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X
On the other hand, forget about it … believe what you want to – an instruction, I believe you can follow.
fish,
You believe that bats a transitional form from what to what?
Whales and bats both have very simliar echolocation abilities unlike another other species. Birds do not have echolocation but they fly like bats. Fish do not have echolocation but they swim like whales. Whales have lungs like bears but bears do not have any semblance of echolocation.
In your opinion, which species is related to which?
You know, God planted Lucy and all the other neanderthals in the ground so that we’d be all thrown off. It’s a test of faith (eyeroll).
Isn’t it ironic that this thread appears a couple below a thread about Todd Tiahrt denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?
“On the other hand, forget about it … believe what you want to – an instruction, I believe you can follow.”
No thanks Steven, I prefer to read and understand the evidence and make judgements accordingly. You have certainly shown the ability to follow your own advice however.
Morphology when applied to biology is different than that applied to chemistry. You were comparing apples to oranges and being smug about it to boot. :) LMAO
“You believe that bats a transitional form from what to what?
In your opinion, which species is related to which?”
All species are transitional species. All species are related because we all share the same nucleotides in our DNA. The evidence for evolution is in our DNA. ‘Nuff said.
You believe that bats a transitional form from what to what?
read the post. I said if I WAS AN ID PROPONENT, I’d come up with better examples than cited here, such as the bat. There are no transitional forms that I’m aware of for the bat.
Even trying to give you ammunition for your cause to make this more fair seems to elude you.
Of course, knowing a bit about bat physiology, and the process of fossil creation makes this none too surprising.
God planted Lucy
I thought Shroeder got caught doing that
Rifle,
Please don’t pretend that you are interested in finding out anything. Such a contention is untrue on its face and patently offensive.
Heard on the radio this morning that the guy in Ft Riley who sued for his treatment for being an atheist has now overheard his superiors talking about how they’d like to beat him up.
“Heard on the radio this morning that the guy in Ft Riley who sued for his treatment for being an atheist has now overheard his superiors talking about how they’d like to beat him up.”
That’s not surprising, fundies are violent. A couple years ago some fundies beat up an Atheist professor in Kansas.
What started evolution?
Questions like this tend to prove Steven right.
One could charitably re-interpret it as “what caused the first random mutations?” or some other sensible question but that, of course, is not what was meant. It’s all about the Prime Mover (ain’t it?), i.e. God. Never mind that it has zero relevance to understanding or explaining evolution.
Since evolution–like osmosis, convection, and numerous other scientific concepts–doesn’t actually require a deity to work, it’s therefore evil and must be crushed. End of the debate.
I can’t understand his reasoning of the whales/bats-echolocation rant. Is there a lick of logic in any of that?
Reading his posts I get the impression he’s convinced that we’re proposing that given enough time and generations a shrew will end up being a homo sapien.
All the evolutionists here know how deficient their theory is of unequivocal evidence. That has been repeatedly shown by the predictable attempt to sidestep a discussion of the facts to hide their own blatant lack of intellectual prowess.
“How could I possibly debate such a superior individual? My ego couldn’t possibly tolerate the setbacks from you not believing in evolution.”
-annie
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it only annoys the pig.”
-KFG
“On the other hand, forget about it … believe what you want to – an instruction, I believe you can follow.”
-Steven
I’ll be looking forward to the next thread which will no doubt offer similar statments. Note these statemants are nothing but base insults.
Meanwhile the so called “anti-intellectuals” continue reading and understanding the fallacy of evolution while the pseudo-intellectuals are content to sleep.
Wake up people!
Reading his posts I get the impression he’s convinced that we’re proposing that given enough time and generations a shrew will end up being a homo sapien.
. . or a fern will turn into a dog. Another common misconception: Evolution is a magical machine that can turn anything into anything. Not so.
rfl, google “Wichita” “WE blog” “evolution,” or simply browse thru the archives. This issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed.
I don’t blame some people for getting weary of debunking the same old predictable crap, over and over.
Well let me say the unsayable,
Invite god to a weblog meetup I will convert the moose household over to any religion Yahweh suggests I’ll even sacrifice a goat in his honor. Sorry kids if we have to prove ever molecule of our arguement you guys need to do the same.
Sorry to offend you, Steven. I’ll try to avoid intellectually stimulating material in the future to avoid setting off your sensitivity in that area.
All the evolutionists here know how deficient their theory is of unequivocal evidence
actually, evolutionists are the 1st to admit the deficiencies in their hypothesiseseses (damn plural on that word, anyway). And we’re also all to knowing on the total lack of evidence in the creation you better believe or else (don’t even call it a theory!)
rfl,
I guess they needed you at the Dover trial. None of the creationists would swear under oath and defend their position. Meanwhile, the scientists presented scientific fact after scientific fact under oath.
For instance, have you wondered why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24? If you look it up you’ll find the undeniable scientific evidence that our species are related.
“don’t blame some people for getting weary of debunking the same old predictable crap, over and over.”
Rage, don’t you have work to do? why are you posting on this thread than if you are so weary? Watch, this thread be the highest posted thread of the week!
Rage, don’t you have work to do?
Yes, I do, actually. Good point (first one you’ve made).
Later!
rfl, you’d prove your point if you’d practiced what you preach. All you’re doing is saying we’re wrong, you don’t believe any evidence we provide, and you provide no evidence supporting your position. You never even tried. You just cry because we’re not rushing to side with you.
“For instance, have you wondered why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24?”
Doug,
Since Apes and humans have similar number of chromosones, and that to you proves evolution, does the stark differences between apes and humans refute it?
Have you ever wondered why apes walk on all fours and humans are bi-pods?
Have you ever wondered why apes have a different bone structure than humans suitable for their own functionality?
Have you ever wondered why humans and apes have existed in the same region for thousands of years experiencing the exact same environment and food supply availability yet are distinctly different?
Have you ever wonder why apes do not have an opposable thumb and humans do?
rfl,
Your answer is in the DNA. I’m assuming by your response you’ll avoid looking into the chromosome issue since it will absolutely disprove creationism. If you like it was presented on the PBS documentary about the Dover trial. Creationists from the Discovery Institute like Behe couldn’t refute the evidence so I doubt you could either.
fish,
what exactly do you want me to prove? Feel free to tell my HOW I am wrong.
My assertion is that evolution is wrong. For you to show me that I am wrong you have to show that evolution is right. Does that make sense?
Here you go rfl,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
I suggest looking in Chapter six for some of the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Doug,
How does the “chromosome issue” dispove creation or prove evolution?
Can you explain in your own words how the chromosome issue accomplishes either of those two claims?
rfl,
It proves common ancestry.
Doug,
I have already addressed this.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/is-anti-intellectualism-hurting-america/#comment-325644
I’m taking a break guys and gals
Keep reading and studying. I’ll be doing the same!
thanks
For instance, have you wondered why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24?
No, what really gets me wondering why the Aulacantha (protozoa) has 1600 (not paired from parents)[highest].
rfl,
So your claim is that evidence for evolution is not evidence for evolution. That’s quite the illogical claim.
All hominids also share the broken gene that codes for vitamin C production proving, on a genetic level, that we all share a common ancestor.
There is a lot more evidence for evolution and absolutely none for creationism. That’s why there is no debate, only one side presents evidence and the other produces excuses.
I find the hoatzin curious.
amphioxis is a giggle.
the trunicate is downright goofy.
balanoglossus having both CP and AP for muscle contration is just redundant.
And just why the hell do lobsters have blue blood?
“this is not a pipe”. Sorry for the inside joke.
I have two words for the athiest guy at Ft. Riley.
Barry Winchell.
The military doesnt like athiests any more than they like straight guys who date transexuals. Or gays.
I’d sleep with one eye open if I were him.
#
rfl
Posted April 4, 2008 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Sorry to offend you, Steven. I’ll try to avoid intellectually stimulating material in the future to avoid setting off your sensitivity in that area.
Obviously, with your denying any and all intelligent discourse by slamming anyone who does provided any kind of proof, intellectually stimulating material is beyond your ability, so I don’t think Steven has anything to worry about.
99.999% of all anti-evolutionists will agree that GOD is Omnipotent and Omnipresent and Omniscient….
Can ANY anti-evolutionist prove in ANY WAY that GOD, in all power, all presence, and all knowledge, did NOT use evolution as a part of the Creation process?? After all, one must remember that evolution does not involve CREATION… but only that which follows from the EIGHTH DAY of Creation forward!! ALSO, please notice the ORDER of Created Beings/Things, in Genesis Ch. 1….
Remember God is all powerful… all knowning… and all present!! Be very careful how you deal with this!!
“ghotiphaze” –
I suspect, in the original Japanese, that qualifies as a haiku.
Or, with proper banjo in the background, a bluegrass classic.
Got me to thinking about a segment on NPR this morning.
Bobby Kennedy was campaigning for president. On the airplane into Indianapolis he got the news that Martin Luther King had been assassinated.
The crowd at Indianapolis had a large contingent of African Americans and NPR had a snippet of Bobby Kennedy asking someone if the crowd had hear the news. “No,” he was told. And the guy who’d been hired as RFK’s personal security guy refused to go on stage with Bobby.
One of the people in the crowd talked specifically about how Bobby didn’t once refer to the paper he held in his hand. He didn’t speak from his notes, but from his heart.
And, without referring to notes, Bobby broke the news and talked about his “favorite poet.”
If we’re talking about anti-intellectualism, let’s start with a candidate in this day and age talking about their “favorite poet!”
And, from his heart, that night 40 years ago, Bobby Kennedy recited:
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart
Until in our own despair, against our will
Comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.
I hate that I sometimes get wrapped up in What-ifs? and If-onlys.
But Bobby Kennedy as President of the United States in 1969 would have changed so many things about this nation. This world.
Quoting Aechylus! To a crowd of people from Indianapolis!! Like any of them had ever heard of Aeschylus, much less considered him their “favorite poet.”
So Martin King and Bobby Kennedy get shot and George WMD Bush gets to be president.
Tell me again that “God loves me.”
He’s got a funny way of showing it.
Dan Bern sings a song about aliens xing the monkey. He got it wrong. Most likely, the monkey xed the aliens.
“My assertion is that evolution is wrong. For you to show me that I am wrong you have to show that evolution is right. Does that make sense?”
======================================
Actually, rfl — I dont have to show that evolution is right to show you wrong… That is perhaps your greatest error… It is a fallacy!!
I have only to show you wrong to prove you wrong!! I need show nothing about evolution at all!!
The problem with using DNA is a dilution factor.
Descendants of Thomas Jefferson cannot be proved, they can only be proved that descendants have common characteristics with a Male member of the Jefferson family, i.e. Thomas Jefferson’s brother.
Even with Mitochondrial DNA (mitochondrial Eve) no direct links can be proven because of dilution, branches are broken, different races intermix, disease distortions.
So if Humans can’t even prove their own ancestry, how can evolutionary scientist prove a common ancestry to some chimp or chimp like ancestor.
The simple answer is, they can’t and will never be able to as there are no specimens of ancient hominids to sample from.
it is purely speculation and no proof.
Regular — the other half of the fallacy is quite simple… Belief in GOD is also not provable… It is purely speculation!! MY belief in GOD is speculation!! Because there is NO PROOF… I have for many years held that IF someone finds a proof for the existence of God, they have, in reality, found a proof for their personal speculation!
The anti-intellectual RIGHT is till trying to prove that Obama is hiding his “true” identity! Ya just cant make this stuff up!!
** till = still
I suspect, in the original Japanese, that qualifies as a haiku.
wasn’t meaning to wax poetic. Just idle ramblings flittin’ through my brain through the course of theis thread.
James, I have seen some posts regarding the comparison of chromosomes… not too many on DNA… not sure where you are trying to spin this by bringing in DNA!! DNA even from long dead bones, can still be used to identify the deceased… providing they have DNA from living ancestors… happens every day in forensic labs all over the country!!
I won’t argue evolution. Been there done that. I will however observe that anti-intellectualism” being blamed on evolution and believing or not is a cop out for an education system that can’t even turn out 5000 graduates capable of holding a customer service job. See recent ATT news.
Darwinistic evolution does not predict a singular strain of DNA nor does it forbid multiple strains.
Therefore, the fact that there is a singular strain of DNA in all life forms is not an evidence of evolution. If there were multiple strains of DNA in all life forms on earth (the opposite of current observation), evolution, as is currently defined, can easily accomodate.
Therefore, if an observation that is used as evidence of evolution, would not refute evolution if the opposite were true, it is not an evidence of evolution.
Does that make any sense Doug?
Chas.
Posted April 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
Regular — the other half of the fallacy is quite simple… Belief in GOD is also not provable… It is purely speculation!! MY belief in GOD is speculation!! Because there is NO PROOF…
Chas I think that is what several posters have told you. Good for you for finally admitting it. Don’t you feel better now that you have been honest?
Chas, have I missed something? I don’t rightly recall your denial of a faith in god. If’n I remember a’rightly, you’ve been a believer, but I may have missed something.
Justwondering, rfl, it isn’t that I have no faith in a God. However, believing in God does not require me to suspend all judgment.
5000 graduates capable of holding a customer service job.
I’m sure 5,000 mean stupid assholes can be found somewhere.
LOL, doorking, they’re all living in my hometown. About 1/2 the population.
Maybe the division is between people who think they have all the answers and people who think they have all the questions.
Fundamentallists think they have all the answers. Whether it’s an invisible guy in the sky that answers all the questions or a philosophy that picks and chooses evidence for prejudices… they’re certain of the answers and no evidence will budge them.
We Liberals tend to think we’re asking the right questions and that every answer that comes isn’t THE answer but “an” answer that might lead to further questions.
It’s more complicated being a Liberal.
It’s much easier (albeit, a bit lazy) to automatically assume you know the answers based on faith, or scripture, or personal experience (however limited), or myth, or prejudice…
There’s no real division; just points on a bell curve. But it seems that some people like rules more than others, that’s for sure.
Jeez, this “debate” is getting old – the anti-science, pro-creationism folks will use any convoluted logic to deny evolution, despite overwhelming scientific evidence.
They claim that they have “evidence” of creationism, yet never produce anything other than backasswards attacks on evolution.
Where is the evidence – excluding Genesis – that “proves” creationism?
Where is it?
The Bible is not a science book. The writers of Genesis were not scientists. The ancient Israelites did not have a clue about science and the mysteries of the universe, yet the creationists would give greater credibility to someone that lived 5,000 years ago than they would to modern scientists.
Yes, anti-intellectualism is alive and well in America.
It’s too bad that so many seem to be really proud of that fact.
it’s really simple Evolutionists.
WHERE
ARE
THE
MISSING
LINKS?
List them and show your proof, genetically.
WS citing that evolution is proven is really lazy intellectalizing. I said it is so and that is it!! Just like my momma use to do.
it’s simple, creationists
show your continuing creation and provide physical proof.
We keep showing ours, but i guess if you ain’t got one, ya can’t show one.
no, no, no, no, no, just wondering. That’s what you’re doing!
WSClark,
Why are you talking about the Bible when we have “overwhelming evidence” on planet earth to discuss regarding the authenticity of material evolution. Let’s keep religion out of this okay?
Who started this talk about the Bible on this thread?
Answer: Liberals who can not defend the scientific merit of Evolution.
Is this “debate” going to descend to a philosophical one even though we have “overwhelming evidence” at our disposal to discuss?
This same anti-intellectual bent is what got us into Iraq. The facts and reasonable logic didn’t seem to matter to so many. Given……………
Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States, seeing that he could not even defeat a third rate power like Iran WITH WMD, supplied by the US.
Saddam Hussein didn’t even control all of his own country.
Saddam Hussein was hated by al Qaeda and radical Muslims that wanted to see his regime overthrown.
Saddam Hussein was going to be proven to be a fraud, if the UN Inspectors had just another month to finish their work.
The anti-intellectuals bought that story and now we are all paying for that lack of intellectual interest or curiosity.
That is what anti-intellectualism get you.
“Let’s keep religion out of this okay?”
Great, let’s keep it out of the public square, also.
“Liberals who can not defend the scientific merit of Evolution.”
Name the scientific evidence for creationism or that opposes evolution, okay?
““overwhelming evidence” at our disposal”
Great, provide your evidence for creationism.
Thanks.
Creation can not be proven, therefore evolution must be fact? Is that the best your intellectual prowess can produce as far as evidence is concerned, fish?
I wonder what the Evolutionary Biologists think about the fact that their theory is proven NOT from facts and observations but from the simple verity that creation can not be proven.
Great one fish.
Science:
http://www.cameraontheroad.com/family/all-dna-traces-back-to-original-african-black-man-and-woman/
When you haven’t got an offense you can always fake to the left. Who keeps bringing the bible into this? I thought it was a discussion on merit.
Yeah Clark,
You win. Your theory is fact because Creation can not be proven. Congratulations intellectual champ!!
my post of 12:01 is an example, though it was really put out as being whimsical. You have to connect a few dots, but those are just a few things to cause you to wonder enough to actually research.
Sorry, you’re asking for tons (in actuality!!!) of literature, by a plethora of credible (operating word here) scientists, in a vast array of precise disciplines coupled with years of cognitive assimilation to be condensed into a hundred word post.
WS are you trying to take freedom of religion away?
WSClark
Posted April 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm | Permalink
“Let’s keep religion out of this okay?”
Great, let’s keep it out of the public square, also.
You libs just try to take, take take.
Great one fish.
Actually, I was just using your own tactics in the same way you were using them. I find it strange you complain about it.
Ghot words have meaning. If you don’t have any to argue intellectually your position then just say so.
JMWalker, on a slightly tangential note:
http://www.personalgenomes.org/
“WS are you trying to take freedom of religion away?”
I was asked to leave religion out of the discussion. How is that taking away freedom of religion?
“You win. Your theory is fact because Creation can not be proven.”
I just asked for your scientific proof of creationism – where is it?
If you want to debate, provide some FACTS, okay?
Kristof mentions Susan Jacoby’s contention that a deficient intellectual climate can be seen as the precursor for shortsighted adventures such as the invasion of Iraq.
In his book, “Daydream Believers: How A Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power,” the Slate.com war columnist Fred Kaplan points out that America had been sliding down the wrong slope for a while. He argues that after the Cold War, too many foreign policy experts invested too heavily in the idea that America was the last remaining superpower.
Kaplan writes that during the Cold War, “As long as there were two superpowers, the countries in between often felt compelled to pay fealty to their protector’s interests, even when those interests collided with their own. Now, in a world with just one superpower, there was no fulcrum of pressure, no common looming enemy, to keep the bloc in line. Many of America’s allies remained allied, whether out of inertia, shared values, shared interests, or a continuing desire for security. But they were also free to go their own way, pursue their own interests, form their own alliances of convenience, without much regard to Washington’s thoughts on the matter.” Page 2.
In response to this reality, according to Kaplan, there were two ways to preserve American influence. The first mirrors the neocon doctrine of donning the “mantle of explicit empire: build up vast armies, deploy them worldwide, and not hesitate to unleash them when necessary.” Page 2. Kaplan adds, of course, that even America lacks money and manpower for a truly imperial army, and he asserts that the American people don’t have the stomach for “brutal, distant wars.” Page 2.
Those who would argue against this point would have to concede, for example, that up to now, at least, Americans have not been receptive to the concept of a wide-ranging military draft.
Kaplan then writes: “The other course was to revitalize alliances, renovating the old ones, cultivating new ones, forging as many links around as many issues and interests as possible. A president could have taken this course for purely pragmatic reasons. Powerful nations, expecially powerful democracies, have always needed allies, if not to get a job done, then to get it done with shared burdens and legitimacy–to get it done and keep it done. And in a world with no opposing superpower to cement its alliances by default, the United States would need allies more than ever and would have to work harder at diplomacy to lure–and keep–them on board.” Pages 2 and 3.
Kaplan observes that, “Few in high office recognized this paradox of power.” Page 3.
Well, considering our predicament in Iraq and by extension, in the eyes of the world, Kaplan’s case is worthy of debate. In the march to war, as I remember it, the discussion was largely focused on Saddam and his “weapons.” That was about as far as it went. It all came down to those inspections and the need to deal with everything at once. Viewing the matter as only part of a larger world relations picture was unheard of and out of fashion. The lone remaining superpower wine was the only room temperature beverage being served.
***********************************
It’s possible to take this in any number of directions, but during the march to war five years ago, in the context of the aforementioned intellectually deficient consideration of foreign policy realities, I remember my fellow male associates at the office as being especially gung ho for war. Women? Not so much.
I don’t have any numbers in front of me, but it’s clear that women now outnumber men in college by growing margins. The reasons for this are debatable, but American culture definitely puts a premium on sports, especially for boys. When I went to high school in the eighties, we had a couple of intellectually gifted boys in the class, and they were almost viewed as borderline nerds. Truth is, they should have been treated with more respect. I’d argue, without a shred of data in front of me, that maleness in American culture trends toward anti-intellectualism.
Now, it’s undoubtedly an oversimplification to somehow hang the Iraq war solely on the shoulders of men and the American male culture of anti-intellectualism, but Kristof does argue that education is the place to start. I’m a college football and basketball junkie myself, so I’m not knocking sports, but it does seem hard to deny that education is not quite enough of a priority for men right now in this country.
Come on Libs, show everyone those missing links to prove evolution and common descent.
Everyone is waiting.
We want definitive scientific proof.
SHOW THOSE MISSING LINKS!
Okay, I’ll take your word for it fish. There is a compendium of data stored in deep vaults which archive all pertinent information proving that evolution is beyond all doubt the only way life came into existence.
I’m glad that information is safe in those somewhere. Don’t want to stretch our intellectual muscles too much to actually understanding basics to convince all the “anti-intellectuals” of their error on a Blog.
You Got more important things to do, like demand creationists for proof. None supplied? Whew! Sigh of relief. Okay so know we have need to understand the “overwheliming evidence” or “tons of literature”.
Great work intellectuals! Kudos to you for such a scholarly approach to that which you hold most dear.
The hoax of darwinistic evolution.
Whew rfl I am glad that is settled. Now what are the credentials of the idiot who started this argument.
“You Got more important things to do, like demand creationists for proof.”
Jeez, the damn thread is about creationism v. evolution – what the Hell else did you expect?
LOOK at the post of 12:01 reg. There’s a few there. How many more do you need. And all those examples are contemporary, not even extinct.
Next whine, please!
“SHOW THOSE MISSING LINKS!”
McCluer is obviously one of the missing links – a sub-human form that has yet to evolve physically, mentally or emotionally into a true human.
Proof provided – next question?
Okay, I’ll take your word for it fish
Sorry your google finger got broken. They’re not hidden in deep, dark vaults. It’s free information for anyone WILLING to look for it.
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
LOOK at the post of 12:01 reg. There’s a few there. How many more do you need. And all those examples are contemporary, not even extinct.
Next whine, please!
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
I find the hoatzin curious.
amphioxis is a giggle.
the trunicate is downright goofy.
balanoglossus having both CP and AP for muscle contration is just redundant.
And just why the hell do lobsters have blue blood?
—————————–
Okay I’m looking at it.
Want to translate that into English?
Sorry, I only speak and write in American english. I can’t teach you how to read.
I believe I’m beginning to see the problem here. Anything having more than 3 syllables is ignored.
Fish, you got to be kidding. What your wrote is gibberish.
Did you had that kind of work in when you were in school?
Did you had
should read
Did you hand…
Thanks, Reg, but I really don’t need your help proving my point.
I mean the basic biology textbooks describe the amphioxus as a simple notocord. What is your point about the amphioxus? I learned this in High School Biology Class decades ago.
What was your point about the amphioxus, other than it being a “giggle.”
Tell me that writing out nonsense statements is all you have.
ahhhh, you see, it starts out as a chordate, but through it’s life it loses the notochord (no longer a chordate?)
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
ahhhh, you see, it starts out as a chordate, but through it’s life it loses the notochord (no longer a chordate?)
———————
And your point is?
Where is the transition to an evolved life form?
Some call the Lancelets food, still today.
They still exist you know.
Where’s that missing link of the amphioxus to another life form. Let’s see some fossil and DNA proof for the missing link on this species.
As stated before, morphology is not proof of common descent.
What on Earth does not believing in Evolution have to do with being an anti-intellectual?
There are many very smart and intelligent people who do not believe in Evolution.
Evolution is only one small part of “science” and there are many people who can live and operate in the scientific world just fine with not believing in Evolution.
We are doomed intellectually because we are willing to spend the money on building a fancy football field, placing computers up the wazoo in school, using fancy electronic blackboards, and meanwhile we have people who graduate from High School who can barely read or write.
I suppose as long as they know how to Recycle, Reduce, and Reuse, so that they can close the loop… place a condom on properly… they will be the perfect little government trained drones.
Thats what you liberals wanted isn’t it?
It’s free information for anyone WILLING to look for it.
Hmmm, just to voluminous to explain in a blog. How long have you been bloggin today already?
damn, phone.
sorry, my description was actually the tunicate. amphioxus, just really primitive–nerve chord , lno brain, no skeleton.
see if you can figure the others. I gotta head.
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
Chas, have I missed something? I don’t rightly recall your denial of a faith in god. If’n I remember a’rightly, you’ve been a believer, but I may have missed something.
=============================
Fish, I stated very clearly that I believe in God… The anti-intellectuals are going to set themselves on fire for lying and flaming!! It’s normal for them!!
yeah…
earth worms have a linear nervous system as well and no skeleton.
I’m not going to even attempt to try to make sense out of your gibberish.
If you can’t portray your thoughts into complete sentences that establish a point ending a conclusion, then why bother to post?
“You Got more important things to do, like demand creationists for proof.”
Jeez, the damn thread is about creationism v. evolution – what the Hell else did you expect?
What I expected is for evidence for material evolution to be supplied by those who voraciously defend it. The theory promulgated in public schools as the only posssible way life formed on planet earth, should be supported by evidence that even the intellectuals can explain.
Unless they are not up such a intellectualy rigourous task of course.
Reg Fish might have an anti-intellectual problem! We’ll just let that drop since he had ‘to head’.
Chas,
You believe in some “god” but surely not the Christian one.
this thread is a perfect example of the cause of anti-intellectualism. If someone doesn’t do the research for you, doesn’t do the thinking for you, and cram the knowlege in your mind through osmosis, then it’s false, and they’re wrong.
It isn’t the schools, like nathan says. It’s the attitude of the students. And reg, the missing links you’re so adamant to see just may not be there because from an earlier post you’d know that not all dead animals become fossils. Not everyone is a paleontologist digging up every inch of ground. Back to the not willing to research/think again. And as to “have an anti-intellectual problem! We’ll just let that drop since he had ‘to head’”, we’re back to knowlege not appearing in my brain, so I’ll act ignorant and blame everyone else.
I don’t know about Chas, but no, I don’t believe in the malicious, capricious, petty, vindictive, misanthropic Christian god. I don’t create god in MY image. My god takes offense of you sullying his good name.
And so we see, is graphic proportions, what makes America anti-intellectual.
At some point people tend to stop asking questions and decide they know all the answers.
They are ripe candidates to become fundamentalist with their religion, conservative in their politics, and convoluted in their logic.
It’s the old, “Don’t confuse me with facts, I know what I believe,” argument.
The very fact that science hasn’t come up with all the answers is what makes it *science.*
That someone thinks they’ve somehow come up with *THE* answer is what makes it “religion.”
In college I wrote a paper about how “Moby Dick” works even if there’s no symbolism attached to what is, at its essence, a fish story. I think I got a D on it. Whatever. I appealed and the guy gave me a B after our session.
Thing is. Political bias isn’t always based on logic or rational analysis or facts.
And conservative politics lately has depended upon fringe issues that go far afield of the core.
Dukakis looked silly in that helmet in that tank.
So what?
More than four thousand Americans have died in Iraq and 80% of Americans oppose George WMD Bush’s war policies in Iraq.
As Dick Cheney says, “So what?”
Like most conserrvatives, fundamentalists, and stupid people, they decide to stop asking questions and assume they have all the answers.
“More than four thousand Americans have died in Iraq and 80% of Americans oppose George WMD Bush’s war policies in Iraq.”
If that 80% number was true, it would make the inept democrat congress look even worse than they already do. How do you explain that?
And how bad does that make the instigater of said war?
Pitiful, just pitiful
My god takes offense of you sullying his good name.
BTW, I have church tonight.
Ironic, ain’t it?
So Ghotiphaze,
List those missing links and show CLEARLY where they came from, where they went to and the scientific proof using genetics that they are indeed linked.
Don’t just make statements and then not back it up, proof is required.
“And reg, the missing links you’re so adamant to see just may not be there because from an earlier post you’d know that not all dead animals become fossils. Not everyone is a paleontologist digging up every inch of ground.”
Actually, there are plenty of transitional fossils (fossils that have features consistent with fossils of creatures earlier in the record while also having features consistent with fossils of similar creatures later in the fossil record or modern creatures), about what would be expected when one considers that fossilization is rare. However, there are two issues.
1) Fossils are like unlabeled pictures from a family album after a fire. You can tell that some of the pictures are of people related to you, but you can’t tell whether they are actually great great grandma or great great grandpa. There are plenty of fossils of hominids that have a combination of features common to chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas but not humans, and other features common to humans but not chimpanzees, bonobos, or gorillas. But that doesn’t tell you that the hominid is a direct ancestor of humans. The remains might belong to a hominid that lived in east Africa while our ancestor was cavorting around in west Africa or north Africa. Or, the fossils might belong to our ancestor after all. Either way, however, the fossil is a transitional fossil.
2) Creationist/denialists have a very simple trick when it comes to transitionals. Have a transitional between earlier form A and later form C (B) and they simply demand to see the forms between A and B and B and C. And if you find those, well, rinse and repeat the strategy.
3) And then there is the trick that anyone can employ when actual, reality based information contradicts the strongly held beliefs of a lot of people. Simply assert what you want to believe. Make enough noise, there will be people who don’t know what to believe as well as those who want to believe you. Thus, the often repeated (and completely false) canard that there are no transitional fossils.
Some people have a God that is all wrapped up in a little box marked religion…. And they get him out and play with him a few times every week, and then box him back up again… And of course they are in TOTAL CONTROL of what their God does, or doesnt do…. And if you dont believe in that God in a box, then of course, you are a terrible, godless heathen!! Sorry Nathan, your little box God is just WAY too small for me… and for millions of others as well!!
I have stated my belief in the same God you would like to believe in… But, then you have to go and prove me wrong, by your stupid, narrow minded judgmental attitudes… In your world, there is no room for variety of opinion… Thats just gotta SUCK big time!!
Wrong Agnostic.
Transition of morphology is adaptation not evolution. It is NOT proof that the evolutionary process translate that we all come out of the same slug.
Chas,
In your world there is no reason to believe in God at all and everyone is saved regardless of what they believe.
That is not Christian at all.
Regular
Posted April 4, 2008 at 12:07 am | Permalink
Chas,
Evidently you didn’t pay attention in the many evolution threads we have had here. I had to speak out against that retired PhD college professor who was using the Texas River (footprints and dinosaur paws) in the same rock. I saw them, it’s not even close to looking like a human print.
I don’t believe in literal translation of the Bible, especially the old testament. I believe that God is the creator and many events happened before what we know now as earth and its current occupants.
Nathan, you have a right to your opinion… That does not make your opinion right!! LOL
Nathan, Does your idea of being a Christian allow you to LIE about those with whom you disagree???
“In your world there is no reason to believe in God at all and everyone is saved regardless of what they believe.”
CAN YOU SHOW ANY PLACE WHERE I HAVE SAID THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN GOD??? THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS, “NO YOU CANT!” BUT DO TRY… OTHERS WILL GET A HUGE LAUGH!!
Is anti-intellectualism hurting America?
Chas’s comments answers this question.
Well Chas, posting across from another thread is a typical Lib tactic. What was your point you were trying to prove?
Unlike you, even though Nathan and I disagree on basic premise of how to interpret the Bible, his points are no less valid than mine.
Neither one of us can prove or disprove the other.
Nathan is entitled to his opinion and I’m entitled to mine.
It’s the Lib that try to squash free speech via opinion and start name calling and branding those they disagree with as anti-intellectual.
And, that is the plain honest truth, even though you and other Libs won’t admit to it.
fleettwood
Posted April 4, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
“More than four thousand Americans have died in Iraq and 80% of Americans oppose George WMD Bush’s war policies in Iraq.”
If that 80% number was true, it would make the inept democrat congress look even worse than they already do. How do you explain that?
=================================================
That’s a great point Fleetwood. A majority Democrat Congress and 80% disapproval and the Democrats still keep funding the war!
Since the Dems took over Congress:
*Notice how the price of gasoline has gone up!
*Notice how foreclosures have gone up!
*Notice how unemployment is going up!
*Notice how the dollar is going down!
ALL since the Dems took control of Congress!
Chas,
You should try to read my comments again before you call me a liar.
Yep Max, the Congress holds the purse strings of the Nation per design of our founding fathers.
Evidently, the Dems in Congress have clipped a hole in the purse and it is bleeding out.
OK Nathan — HERE is your statement…
“In your world there is no reason to believe in God at all and everyone is saved regardless of what they believe.”
SHOW ANY PLACE WHERE I HAVE SAID I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD… IF YOU CANT, THEN YOU ARE LYING… DOES YOUR CHRISTIAN FAITH ALLOW YOU TO LIE ABOUT THOSE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE?
Nathan, you are disturbing the moran again.
He’s already disturbed enough, dontcha think?
Chas,
Once again, you can’t read. Setting up a strawman argument to prove me a liar doesn’t do anything for your argument.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/l_071_01.html
About Lucy, one of the missing links. And she was found.
Now, nobody said that evolution was linear, that ape turned to man, but rather, certain people evolved…jjust like Lobsters on teh deepest ocean floors are white and have interesting new ways of surviving in that environment. Adapt or die.
SO of course, if apes in one area found no need to adapt, why would they?
Thus, we have one group who adapted and one that did not. And then from that sect, some adapted and some did not…and then from the other….
and then some of those died out.
I like the lobster claw family as an example. It’s a mutation, one that might have been useful for someone, if only. But it isnt, and they’re not reproducing. But if they did, and in 10,000 years we needed that lobster claw for something useful, we’d likely all look like that now and be dying out if we didnt have it.
and chas is also right, there is no evidence that GOD didn’t created us just to evolve this very way.
So I don’t understand why fundies can’t accept that. They already said that some stories and parables in the bible are not literal, so why demand the creation story be literal as well? Especially when the versions are backward.
Besides, the creation story is moot past Noah anyhow.
What part of that URL you provided PMOM, provides definitive proof that Lucy is a missing link that connects Man to Lucy (DNA Genetics, Cell characteristics, there is only partial morphology comparative anatomy) Just where is the solid proof that Lucy is ancestor of common descent of humans?
I don’t see any. I just saw descriptions that could pretty much describe a modern day chimp more than a human.
nATHAN,
Strawman?? What strawman?? I posted YOUR quote where you said I didnt believe in Go!! THAT sounds olike the only strw man here…
YOU CANNOT SHOW ANY PLACE WHERRE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD!! THEREFORE, YOU ARE A LIAR!! DOES YOUR SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN FAITH ALLOW FOR THAT?? LYING ABOUT SOMEONE WITH WHOM YOU DISAGREE??
YOUR STRAW MAN IDEA IS BLOWING SMOKE, BOY!!
This will offend, but just for information sake…
People who believe literally the creation story from the bible. Noah and the parting of the Red Sea, and all that?
I frankly see them as borderline retarded. Only in their case, the retardation is voluntary, embraced, and even extolled as some sort of virtue.
It makes me worry about the country we live in if it were not for the fact that such folks are increasingly being sent to the margins where they belong.
Chas,
I never said that you didn’t believe in God. Those were your words not mine. Hence the strawman argument…
I did say that you don’t believe in the Christian God though.
Do you want to argue that one with me? It will involve asnwering those pesky questions about Jesus I am always asking you and you are always refusing to answer.
Political_moma you have a real hang up about fundies and conservatives.The last two days you have thrown the bible and religion up over and over again. What is your problem? Can’t get any action at home so try to pick fights on the blog?
nATHAN — YOU LUBNATIC — THESE RE YOUR WORDS!! NOT MINE!! READ SLOWLY!!
“In your world there is no reason to believe in God at all and everyone is saved regardless of what they believe.”
Now — My Question is still the same — Can you show any place where I said I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD??
IF NOT, THEN YOUR WORDS HERE ARE LIES!!
I mean, I DO live in the world!! These are YOUR WORDS and now you are trying to weasel out of it!!
Okay J R,
How about that religion that males will be getting 40 virgins if you blow yourself along with others with bomb strapped around your chest?
How about Scientologists who have a strong belief in that we were visited by Aliens and the Aliens are the progenitors of all things human?
How about the schmo that goes in debt buying a new car and house hoping that his new image will get him chicks and success?
How about the guy who blames society for his status in life, but won’t get education to further himself and wants others to buy his health care for him?
Jr that would make me real worried if I didn’t see who it came from. An unemployed dad who has time to blog all day but can’t afford to insure his family and is waiting for Hillary to do it for him.
Sure don’t mean to offend.
Well gosh there James, seems YOU’RE the one with the time to blog all day.
Why don’t you ask “God” to heal you and get off the public’s money?
Chas,
Can you show me any place where I said you don’t believe in God?
You can’t read. Nothing I said in that sentence says you (Chas) don’t believe in God.
Talkin aabout Reg. again, Just?? LOL
Oooops my bad — Reg. isnt a dad!! :roll:
Chas.
Posted April 4, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
Regular — the other half of the fallacy is quite simple… Belief in GOD is also not provable… It is purely speculation!! MY belief in GOD is speculation!! Because there is NO PROOF…
Well Chas you did say there was no proof that you believed in God.
I see J R is still jealous of my military retirement of which I worked to earn.
Come with me to McConnell AFB, J R. I want you to tell every Military Retiree they didn’t earn their retirement to their face.
Better yet, we’ll go to Fort Riley and you can tell the Military Retirees there.
Reg take him down to the VA hospital and let him talk in front of real heros. See how brave he is when not behind the keyboard.
I don’t necessarily believe you ARE retired military there James.
You lie about everything else.
I wouldn’t care about anti intellectual religious nuts if they weren’t always trying not just to spread ignorance but actively trying to use it to tell people how do live.
But like I say, things are changing. Their time runs out.
Nathan
Posted April 4, 2008 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
Chas,
In your world there is no reason to believe in God at all and everyone is saved regardless of what they believe.
That is not Christian at all.
======================================
tHERE IS YOUR ENTIRE POST, YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS FLAMING FUNDY…. YOU ADDRESSED ME IN THAT POST… DIRECTLY…. BY NAME…. YOU ARE STATING THAT IN IN MY WORLD THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN GOT AT ALL…. WHAT THE HELL MORE DO YOU WANT??? NOW YOU SAY YOU DIDNT SAY IT???
get a brain marine boy!! or did you lose that over in Iraq??? YOU said I dont believe in GOD…. I didnt say that!!
I said the exact OPPOSITE!!
NOW you got called to show where I ever said I didnt believe in GOD and — since I never said that, YOU, TROLL JR, cant FIND ANY PLACE!!
NOW WHEN YOU CAN GROW UP AND BE AN ADULT ABOUT YOUR FAITH, AND THE FAITH OF OTHERS WHO DONT AGREE WITH YOUR LITTLE MESSED UP RELIGIOUS WORLD, THEN COME BACK HERE AND TRY TO TAKE PART IN HONEST DISCUSSION!!!
I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOUR SO-CALLED CHRISTIANITY!! IF YOURS IS CHRISTIANITY, THEN, NATHAN, BOY, I DONT WANT IT!!! BECAUSE IT IS FALSE, AND PHONY!!! GET IT??? YOU ARE A PHONY ONE TRICK PONY FAKE BELIEVER!!! YOU PROVE IT EVERY DAY!!
YOU AND YOUR STUPID JESUS QUESTIONS!!!
That’s J R’s answer to everything, if he doesn’t want to believe, he just calls people liars.
How convenient and typical of trailer trash mentality.
bY USING my name IN ADDRESSING ME — YOU are putting me in that little phony world you created, where people dont believe in God at all!!! There is nothing more to be said for your LYING CRAP!!! Have a nice evening!!
So Chas,
Are you a Scientologist?
Are you one of those thousands of Volunteer Ministers they have floating about?
Chas words have meaning. When you say something shouldn’t you stand behind it. It sounds like Nathan believes in one God. Why do you have a problem with that?
You’re a pretty confusing preacher man.
Chas,
I didn’t say that the people in your world didn’t believe in God either.
You really can’t read can you?
I have given you several chances now.
Let me highlight the words you seem to be unable to read:
“In your world THERE IS NO REASON TO BELEIVE in God at all and everyone is saved regardless of what they believe.”
I clearly said that there is not any reason to believe in God, not that you don’t.
Just – TROLL I also believe in God!! Ask Nathan what HIS problem is!! I dont have one!!
Chas,
I hate to break it to you, you don’t have any Christianity so don’t worry about not wanting any of it.
It looks like we could have had an interesting conversation about education, whether we are keeping up and globally competitive, what are our strengths and where do we need to improve, how do we affect changes that help those areas, etc.
Instead one example the author gave became the point of argument.
Maybe acknowledging that some believe something others don’t and after countless “discussions” no one has changed their opinions, no one has convinced anyone to look at anything differently, would be a move toward problem solving.
Will settling this argument improve our economy? Will it bring peace to the world? Will it suddenly cause our elected officials (of every party!) to serve America instead of special interests? Heal a disease? Protect our environment, feed a hungry child, cure an addict, increase our tolerance of diverse cultures, beliefs, orientations?
So, what does everyone think would happen if we quit arguing and put our good minds together to tackle our problems? Maybe this small group in doo-dah could raise the level of intellectualism. We may even solve a problem, and we have a few that need a solution.
You are splitting hais Nathan!! Any regular blogger here knows EXACTLY what you meant!! You are such a BIGOT!!
Chas,
Now you are saying you know what I meant… regardless of what I actually said…
Linda — many on the religious right fringe, have no interest in long term help for education, or health care concerns, or the homeless, or the hungry — See, Linda, they are utterly convinced that JESUS is coming, and such things as social problems arent theirs to work on… They dont CARE… because they believe they will be extricated from planet earth
Why shouldnt I?? You do it to me and others all the time!! Hypocrite Bigot!!
Chas,
My church, which is on the so called by you “religious right fringe” (LOL) helps people all the time and we all care about helping others as well.
Just because I don’t support the government taking money from others to give away doesn’t mean I don’t as an individual care about others or do anything to help them.
You can sure dish it out, Nathan, but you sure cant TAKE IT!! Grow Up, boy!!
So does that mean you are a Scientologist Chas? I’ve asked you several times already. :)
IF you are what denomination I think you are, dont you dare tell your denominational leaders that you are on the religious right fringe!! Laast one of that denominations leaders I talked to thinks you all are a mainstream denomination… LOL
Chas,
I have yet to call you any names, plunge into a tyrade of capital letters calling you names… create strawman arguments to call others a liar… refuse to admit I am wrong…
The only one of us here who needs to grow up is you.
I’m a confessed Southern Baptist Chas.
See how easy that is?
Your turn. :)
Chas,
I don’t think I am on the fringe, that is why I used your saying in quotes with “so called” in front of it.
You really can’t read very well can you?
James, that has got to be the dumbest, most incomprehensible, idiotic thing you have said here all day!! I emphatically stated last nite, that I am NOT a Scientologist… I dont even know very much about them… and their so-called founder was a religous nut case… and a pathetic sci fi writer!!
Now you got it this time??? Cause I am NOTZ going to answer your STUPIDITY S**T ANGAIN TONITE!! TROLL!!!
it is truly hilarious watching the marine-boy telling others to “grow up”
……………….this comes from a member of the christian-taliban!
Nathan, to use your father’s own word, YOU ARE A CLASDSIC CASE OF A NITWIT!!
YOU ARE SELF-RIGHTEOUS, SELF-AGGRANDIZING, SELF-CENTERED, JESUS OBSESSED, AND A GENERAL NUISANCE!! ANYBODY HERE WITH HALF AN OUNCE OF BRAINS WOULD AGREE WITH ME ON THAT!!
You could have just said “No I’m not” Chas. :)
Well, that will solve the problems for them.
Was just curious Chas, because you’re belief in Science and extra-terrestrial stuff is very similar to what Scientology followers subscribe to.
Perhaps you just like reading the Enquirer? :)
NATHAN — ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR LIES… TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS ONE, TROLL, JR…..
“Chas,
My church, which is on the so called by you “religious right fringe” (LOL)”
SHOW ANY PLACE WHERE I HAVE CALLED YOUR DENOMINATION “RELIGIOUS RIGHT FRINGE” WHY DO YOU HAVE THIS INSANE NEED TO KEEP LYING ABOUT ME, NATHAN???
I’ll call it “religious right fringe”………….it would be an honor!
Umm James… Even the Vatican professes a belief in UFO activities. In fact, a rather famous Southern Baptist has even related seeing at least one UFO… I dont know why you would center in on the Scientology people… They are strange… But I had never heard that they are “into” UFO’s
James, do you think the Pope is a Scientologist?
Chas,
I stand corrected. You were not talking about me or my denomination at all sepcifically.
So what denominations were you talking about when you said religious right fringe?
Thanks Apophis… stick around….
Is belonging to a “church” what gives one the insight into who is what and who isn’t whatever? Is that doing God’s work? So when you can decide Chas isn’t a Christian that takes a burden from God’s long list of duties. And you feel good about your judgments?
Never heard that the Pope believes in UFO’s.
Did you read that in the National Enquirer Chas?
You think you know everything… You tell me!! IF you can…
NO James… I dont read that trash… you should really walk past it at the Grocery Store… I know it might be hard, but do try!!
lindainks55,
Chas has admitted he isn’t a Christian. Chas believes in God, but he doesn’t believe Jesus in the Messiah.
At least that how I read his writings.
I read where Clark said those words, never read where Chas said them. But I don’t read every word here. And, really I don’t think anyone needs to answer to people here on the blog anyway. Don’t think what is typed here will keep me out or get me into heaven.
Linda,
Chas isn’t a Christian because he belives there is more than one true God.
That is a very basic and fundamental part of Christian theology.
I feel very good about my judgement. If a muslim came up to me and said he was Christian yet everything he believed was in line with being a Muslim I would say he was not Christian too.
Simply going to church or even being a Pastor at the church doesn’t automatically prove that you are actually a believer of what that Church professes.
Linda,
When Chas proclaims to be an authority and a Christian on this blog I have every right to question him on that.
Especially when the things he says is contradictory to being what he claims to be.
Chas,
So what denominations were you talking about?
HERE JAMES — From a Catholic Theologian —
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc814.htm
So says Nathan. I don’t try to read the condition of another’s soul. People who do keep me far away from everything religious. There’s a big difference between God and religion. I left religion because of judgmental people just like you.
You have NO right to question anyone little marine-boy.
You are nothing!
Oh, BTW, the Msgr. gives several resources within the Article…
Interesting Chas, I wonder if the Pope has a service planned out for them when they arrive. :)
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”
This would SEEM to imply the existence of other gods who are not to be put before the god issuing this commandment. Otherwise wouldn’t the commandment be “Their ARE no other gods other than me”?
Nathan, you can pick your nose, your friends, your words, do whatever you choose. So can Chas. He doesn’t answer to you. Neither do I. I have NO respect for you! You seem very full of hate to me. I can’t imagine someone so full of himself, so proud, so quick to judge others trying to tell anyone how to behave!
God damn, this is getting ridiculous – the anti-intellectuals are out to prove beyond any doubt that they are truly anti-intellectual.
And they are doing a damned fine job of it, I would add.
Could some one please explain why the religious right and ring wingers in general are so damned anti-intellectual?
Really.
Apparently asking questions and asking for proof is some sort of “failure” from what I have seen on this thread – and answering direct question is totally out of the question for these anti folks.
Damn, this country is in more trouble than I thought.
NATHAN — You dont get tired of posting LIES???
Here’s ANOTHER one!!! You are such a loser!!
“Chas isn’t a Christian because he belives there is more than one true God.”
SHOW ANY PLACE WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID THAT?? And NOW you have even LIED directly to another poster… not just to the Blog!! So, does your Christianity allow you to do this??
Apophis, the resident Lib insult troglodyte. Comes on the blog to insult, the slithers back to his taxpayer funded, Union protected job.
Linda,
If I told you I was a black African man from the Ivory Coast, would you believe me or tell me that I am a white man from America? How judgemental of you!
Give me a break.
That is all I am doing when Chas says he is a Christian yet doesn’t believe what Christians do.
So tell me Linda, is there any qualification for calling yourself a Christian or if someone says they are one does it make it so?
Regular
Posted April 4, 2008 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
Interesting Chas, I wonder if the Pope has a service planned out for them when they arrive.
===========================
Funny…. sort of… But actually, I would HOPE that he does!! It would be a wonderful witness to the World!!
Well, there goes the neighborhood…
(poof)
Nathan is a sick young man who needs professional help.
Since the WEBlog encourages him and doesn’t ban him, I suspect they will be legally liable when the ticking time bomb finally does go off.
Linda,
You tell me you have no respect for me then go on to tell me how wrong I am for saying Chas is not a Christian? Then you go on to say how full of hate I am? Look who is judging who now! Chas is the one calling me names and you say I am the one full of hate?
Does the word Hypocrite come to mind? It does for me.
I don’t have the right to judge what is in someone’s heart. Thank goodness! Because if goodness is in your heart, it is well hidden.
Now now, Pepper… Nathan knows where he can get help, IF he decides he needs it.
I said how you seem to me. I didn’t say you ARE full of hate, I said that’s how you seem to me.
Chas,
If you don’t believe that there is more than one true God then why do you offer a blessing to people from whatever they conceive of god to be?
I don’t have any respect for you, Nathan. That is mine and I give it when it is earned in my opinion.
Nathan, SHOW SOME PLACE WHERE I HAVE SAID I BELIEVE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE GOD!!
If you cant do it, then shut up about it!!
BTW, I only call you what you are… Cant take it, huh??
Linda,
You are a Hypocrite. You chastise me for being judgemental in saying Chas is not a Christian. Then you go on to judge my character and make comments very judgemental about me.
So it’s ok for you to do that to me, but not ok for me to do that to Chas?
Double standard to boot!
I appreciate that tolerance Chas shows and the fact that he wants everyone to be blessed. It doesn’t go to what he believes, it goes to tolerance for whatever another holds as their belief.
As a Christian, I can give a Blessing to ANYbody… not just to believers… SHOW SOME PLACE WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID I BELIEVE IN MORE THAN ONE TRUE GOD… I AM WAITING…
I KNOW YOU CANT DO IT, THUS, YOU ARE A LYING SELF-RIGHTEOUS BIBLE THUMNPER!!
Chas,
If you don’t believe that there is more than one true God then why do you offer a blessing to people from whatever they conceive of god to be?
Nathan
Posted April 4, 2008 at 6:02 pm | Permalink
Chas,
If you don’t believe that there is more than one true God then why do you offer a blessing to people from whatever they conceive of god to be?
===========================================
I do it because it gets you so confused. And because your horrible definition of Logic doesnt allow you to figure it out. And because you cant STAND the possibility that there are other people out there who do not share our belief in GOD in the way we do… And, finally, I do it because Jesus once said: “I have other sheep which are not of this fold.” I take him seriously at that point… ALL people are deserving of a blessing from God — whatever they conceive God to be!!
Now, Nathan… NOWHERE IN THAT STATEMENT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SHOULD LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT I BELIEVE IN ANY OTHER GOD THAN MY OWN!!!
ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE ATTACKING, NATHAN!!
Your nightly response to my Blessing is, in fact, the true blasphemy… NOT my blessing for ALL People!!
OK! You hold whatever opinion of me that you choose. That means in your opinion I am a hypocrite and a judge of your character. That’s your opinion, not a fact. Just as your opinion of Chas is that he isn’t a Christian. Your opinion of me doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t respect your opinions.
Nathan… I have now answered your absurd question TWICE… Dont ask it again, OK??
Linda,
It is not an opinion that you are a Hypocrite when there is clearly evidence here that on one hand you tell me I am wrong for being judgemental and on the other you are being judgemental of me.
That is the definition of Hypocrisy.
You don’t have to respect my opinions. But in a discussion, when I present facts you can either refute them or not. You can’t just call them my opinion and dismiss them.
Facts are not opinions.
Nathan makes the Marines look like a bunch of fools (if Nathan really is a Marine and not some sicko living in his mom’s basement).
Chas,
So you do believe in there only being one true God for all people then?
A person who practices hypocrisy: pharisee, phony, tartuffe. See honest/dishonest.
Noun hypocrite – a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives
dissembler, dissimulator, phoney, phony, pretender
beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat – someone who leads you to believe something that is not true, charmer, smoothie, smoothy, sweet talker – someone with an assured and ingratiating manner
do you have proof of your “god” marine-boy?
I haven’t professed anything I don’t hold as my opinion.
I wonder…
If I went up to a Muslim, told him I worship Jesus, that I believe you must have faith in Jesus to be saved, and that I am a Muslim.
Do you think he would agree with me, look at me in bewilderment, or tell me that is not what a Muslim believes….
“Nathan” –
Just what part of “Judge not lest ye be judged” do you not understand?
You’ve got your idea of what it takes to be “Christian.” Fine. Go and sin no more
But when you set yourself up to be the judge of other people’s faith, you’re outta your league.
God was pretty specific in telling us all that He’s gonna be the one who judges us. That’s His job, after all.
I’m pretty sure that altar call you responded to has you convinced that you’re cleansed of all your sins, before and after. And your obvious deeply held faith in whomever you consider to be your “savior,” makes you feel superior to the rest of us. But if you read the fine print, you are in no position to judge others. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
And yet a recurring issue in this forum is you judging another poster’s Christianity. With implicit and explicit condemnation.
Where do you get off, “Nathan?”
Who made you the judge of anyone else’s “Christianity?”
Linda,
So what do you call someone who tells someone what they are doing is wrong while they do the same thing?
Price has all the social skills of a hungry feral dog standing at the gate of a chicken farm.
Sucks to be him.
That’s right on target WSClark!
Life beckons.
This person who holds opinions is outta here.
Nathan, I call them opinionated.
WS Clark,
How would you know? You refuse to meet me.
I have many friends. Everywhere I have ever been I have had no problem making friends and I am well liked and respected.
You simply don’t like my opinions on alot of subjects so you choose to attack my character instead.
I wonder if Linda will come by and tell you how wrong you are for making such judgements about me.
Linda,
So, I am not being judgemental at all then!
When I tell Chas he is not a Christian, I am just being opinionated like you.
And, I think my opinions are as good and as useless as others. But, I do recognize them as mine and not those of another.
Nathan — Take OFF your blinders for oh, let’s say, 3 minutes….
You ask – AGAIN – “So you do believe in there only being one true God for all people then?”
What I believe is for me, and others who share MY BELIEF… Got that Those who share MY BELIEF!!!
Now, over on the other side of the world, there is somebody else… THAT PERSON HAS A DIFFERENT GOD!! I AM NOT A BELIEVER IN THAT GOD… BUT YOU KNOW WHAT??? THAT PERSON HAS JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN THEIR GOD, AS I HAVE TO BELIEVE IN MINE!!
CAN YOU POSSIBLY GET YOUR FEEBLE MIND AROUND THAT CONCEPT??? IT IS AN OLD CONCEPT… VERY OLD!!
……..marine-boy………..you have NO character; you are a an enemy “christian” taliban!
I think your being as asshole and the kind of person who drove me away from all things religious. That is my opinion of you.
Now, I am gone.
Chas,
So, if you believe in a god, someone else believes in a different god, whose god is the one true god or are there two gods?
Linda,
I’m just being opinionated, like you. Except I don’t have to resort to calilng you names.
NATHAN — If Linda were to tell you: Nathan, your shoe string is untied!! Would she be stating something judgmental??? NO, of course not… She would be telling you something about yourself!! Something TRUE no less… When you constantly, day after day, after day, call me UN Christian — because you dont agree with my theology — THAT is judgmental lunacy!! Because it says NOTHING about ME, and — get this –IT ISNT TRUE!!!
GET IT NOW???
Nathan,
How about answering some questions yourself:
Which religion do you belong to?
Is your religion the one true religion?
Are any religions other than yours the one true religion?
If not, how do you know yours is the one true religion?
If a religion does not recognize Christ as either the Son of God, the Redeemer, or anything else your religion says he is, are they condemned to hell?
“So, if you believe in a god, someone else believes in a different god, whose god is the one true god or are there two gods?”
YA JUST CANT TAKE OFF THOSE FRIGGIN BLINDERS, CAN YA TROLL BOY???
I SAY TROLL BOY, CAUSE ALL YOU ARE DOING IS DISRUPTING THE THREAD WITH YOUR STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE….
Which religion do you belong to?
================================
I am a Christian
Is your religion the one true religion?
=======================================
Yes
Are any religions other than yours the one true religion?
===============================================
No. It wouldn’t be the “one” true one otherwise.
If not, how do you know yours is the one true religion?
=============================================
Jesus.
If a religion does not recognize Christ as either the Son of God, the Redeemer, or anything else your religion says he is, are they condemned to hell?
=================================================
One must have faith in Christ to be saved.
JM Walker,
I don’t hide from questions.
Chas,
Why will you not answer the question?
I would like to amend one of my answers:
Is your religion the one true religion?
=======================================
There are many real religions, Christianity holds the one real truth of Jesus.
wHAT QUESTION NOW, nATHAM??
Chas,
So if you believe in a god, someone else believes in a different god, whose god is the one true god or are there two gods?
“Nathan” –
It was your “god” who declared “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”
Sounds like He recognized there were other gods. He simply didn’t want any of the others considered better.
So maybe there are other lesser “gods,” the ones that help your tomato plants grow or help you find a parking place at the mall.
So you, “Nathan,” as devoted as you are to whatever or whomever you’ve determined to be the One True God can casually dismiss all those other gods. But your “god” absolutely recognized them and just declared you should have none of them *before* Him.
You’ve ordained yourself, “Nathan,” as the judge of what makes someone else a “Christian.” Perhaps you’ve decided you have a better opinion on this “other god” issue that’s better than, y’know, *God’s.”
Why should we bother with “God” or the other gods he acknowleges but declares we should not put before Him? Hell, we’ve got “Nathan” to determine who’s God and who’s a “Christian” and who should be murdered if you kill his dog!
God bless “Nathan!”
Or — for it to really count — “Nathan” bless God.
In “Nathan’s” mind, the latter is more important.
For ME — My God Just as I already said before… But you refuse to READ what I post!!
For the other guy, who does NOT believe in my God, well, he has HIS God!! Now since I have no right to tell the other guy what to believe, WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM!!
Chas,
So is there one or two Gods? Yours or his? Or both?
If you want to claim there is only one true god, you can’t then say there are two gods. Which is it?
YES, Nathan, I aleady answered your TROLLISH Stupid Idiotic Question… Are you THAT DENSE??? OPEN YOUR EYES, ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN AND READ WHAT I SAID!! FOR ONCE!! OTHER WISE, JUST STFU!!
Nathan, this line of conversation only PROVES the level of anti-inbtellectualism to which you have sunk!!
Chas,
If you have your God and someone else has their God, that is 2 Gods. Not one true God like you claim to believe.
It is a simple question and you are being purposefully evasive.
I don’t believe that Nathan is a marine (a maroon maybe).
If he is a marine, it’s no wonder America is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Viet Nam it was drugged out, high Marines who lost the war.
In Iraq and Afghanistan it is apparently just the stupidity of the average grunt (if Nathan really is a marine).
Gee Nathan, read the first commandment again.
God said that there are “other” gods.
I AM NOT BEING EVASIVE AT ALL, NATHAN… YOU ARE BEING UNBERABLY DENSE!! AND FOR THAT REASON, I AM CALLING YOU A SHAMELESS TROLL!!! YOU WILL STOP AT NOTHING IN YOUR CAUSE TO DISRUPT THE BLOG THREADS!!
YOU TOLD PMAMA ON OPEN THREAD THAT YOU HAD TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR GRANDPARENTS AND WOULDNT BE AROUND TILL 9 P.M. GUESS YoU DONT LIE TOO MUCH, EH??
you still wont admit you lied when you said i am not a christian because i believe in more than one god… but yet, you cant find any place to prove that statement…. therefore IT IS NOTHING BETTER THAN A CHEAP SHOT LIE!! AND COMING FROM THE SELF-PROFESSING CHRISTIAN!!
SHAME, SHAME NATHAN!!
Chas,
I never said any such thing about going to take care of my Grandparents.
Learn how to read.
So far you have admitted that you believe there are more gods than just one. So I am not a liar at all.
“You refuse to meet me.”
Only because I do not like you and would not want to be seen in public with you.
Someone might think that you were my friend.
That would be a tragedy.
Nathan, I asked what religion you belonged to. Organized religion, like Catholic, Protestant, etc. That should be simple for a Marine. The answer tells me what your particular breed believes in. After all, some Christian religions believe the bible demands snake handling, some claim the bible supports white supremacy. Obviously, not all Christian religions are created equal.
All your answers are step-arounds. I want precise answers, not blips. Why do you obfuscate?
#
Nathan
Posted April 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm | Permalink
Chas,
If you have your God and someone else has their God, that is 2 Gods. Not one true God like you claim to believe.
It is a simple question and you are being purposefully evasive.
If, as you claim, God made the universe 6~7 thousand years ago, and placed photons from stars mega million light years away, but only days from earth, then why can’t one religion claim one God, and another claim a different God, and both religions be correct? After all, God is everywhere and everything, so being two different Gods at one time should be no problem. Or is that too much for you to understand.
I STAND CORRECTED ON YOUR GRANDPARENTS… GUESS I NEED MY BI-FOCALS ADJUSTED… :-)
Chas – Preacher Man – I never seen anyone like you. Even preachers I don’t like never talk to men the way you do. I thought Christian preachers were supposed to save souls. Aren’t you damning the unbelivers on the blog to hell if the only way to heaven is through Jesus the son. Man how do you square that with the Big Man?
#
Pepper
Posted April 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
I don’t believe that Nathan is a marine (a maroon maybe).
If he is a marine, it’s no wonder America is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Viet Nam it was drugged out, high Marines who lost the war.
In Iraq and Afghanistan it is apparently just the stupidity of the average grunt (if Nathan really is a marine).
Pepper, you are wrong on way too many counts: Nathan is a Marine and a damn fine one, regardless of his beliefs.
Viet Nam was lost by a bi-polar congress, who decided they knew more about war than the military, regardless of the fact Viet Nam was a really stupid idea from day one.
In blogging, it must then be the stupidity of posters named Pepper, huh?
What happened to the real reason for this thread? Public education is failing our kids by the busload and all the intellectuals can say is that its because of Christians who believe in creation.
JM Walker,
Probably the only question I was not as specific and straight forward as I could have been was the one on religion. Not done on purpose mind you.
I belong to the Assemblies of God church.
I have done nothing in this discussion to warrant your being snide with me. I am not being snide with you, so please afford me the same respect.
If I was not specific enough with you on the other questions then pleaes let me know how much more clear I can be.
I base my faith on what is in the Bible. That is why I only believe there is one true God and why I don’t believe there are 2 gods.
The concept is rather easy to grasp. I simply don’t believe it.
JUST — YOU BETTER TAKE THAT QUESTION UP WITH THE JESUS FREAK OF THE BLOG – NATHAN…
Troll Just — Time to back to your Troll bridge now… You have been out in the open for too long now…
Chas,
Calling me a Jesus Freak is not an insult to me. It is a rather good song by Jars of Clay too.
The question is, as someone who calls themself a Christian, don’t you consider yourself one as well?
Well if we have kicked this fine Marine around enough lets talk about the failure of our eduction system. We spend more per student that any other country. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that evolution has nothing to do with it. Just another strawman argument and we let poor teaching off the hook again.
“Assemblies of God church”……..just another CULT!
the “marine”-boy is just another of the taliban………..a terrorist!
The Gospel according to Nathan…
“all the intellectuals can say is that its because of Christians who believe in creation.”
It is not the creationists that are the problem – it is the mindset of a lack of intellectual curiosity and the lack of a willingness to challenge an idealogical position.
If you choose to ignore scientific evidence because it does not dovetail with your beliefs, then you are being intellectually lazy and dogma driven.
A failure to recognize failures in evidence led us to this wasted effort in Iraq. If we had chosen to look at reality rather than the misguided propaganda of the government, we would not be in this situation that apparently has no end.
Creationism has little or nothing to do with it – it is just a product of the anti-intellectual mindset.
God help us.
Justwondering……..support your assertion of “poor teaching” or STFU
Chas you are one twisted man. Anger must be eating you from the inside out. Get a grip on. Look back at your posts. They appear to be written by a madman as in crazy mad.
WS Clark,
I don’t ignore Evolution. I disagree with most of it.
There is a difference.
Popoff the class of students we are turning out speaks for itself. Look at the dropout rates. See what the CEO of ATT said about not being able to find 5000 candidates for his customer service jobs. Non english speaking Indians are handling these jobs better. You tell me whats wrong.
“Creationism has little or nothing to do with it – it is just a product of the anti-intellectual mindset.
God help us.”
WS what exactually is the anti-intellectual mindset? Sounds like a liberal talking point to me.
Just — I dont give Trolls the time of day… Go back to your bridge now… It is dangerous for you to be out past dark… LOL
Whats with the troll thing?
“See what the CEO of ATT said about not being able to find 5000 candidates for his customer service jobs.”
Yeah, Americans have this thing about wanting to get paid more than pennies. And they should NEVER be taught anything else.
Starving people in India make real good little toady employees who dare not ask for more than the crumbs they are tossed.
“I don’t ignore Evolution.”
You just choose to ignore all the scientific and physical evidence that supports evolution. Explain again how you feel that the evidence that dinosaurs walked the Earth 165 million years ago is in error.
“Sounds like a liberal talking point to me.”
Did you buy the Bush Administrations claims in their rush to war on Iraq? Did you challenge any of those claims?
I did.
If that is a liberal talking point, then I am guilty.
I challenged all of the points because I knew they were false and I marched in opposition to this needless and unwarranted war.
Did you buy the administration’s claims?
Just — Cant do proper teaching when the Anti-intellectual crowd doesnt want teachers to teach acceptable science… and insted want to interject religious speculation into science curruculum… THATS the theme of this thread… and a big part of the problem…
I was talking about lack of abilities. Has nothing to do with pay rates.
Clark, Nathan doesnt believe there was a planet 165 million years ago, remember??
I don’t agree much with this administration. But I don’t buy that ole argument that liberals have all the answers either.
Nathan doesnt believe in ancient dating procedures… HOWEVER… Nathan, can you prove that the dinosaur bones and fossils are NOT OLDER than 6,000 – 7,000 years??? And what dating method do you propose be used to prove your allegations???
What in the world does the dumbing down of our kids have to do with evolution?
I think the intellectuals on here have a comprehension problem.
Makes a nice excuse for that greedy CEO.
Sorta like John McCain talking about how we need Mexicans to take the 50 dollar an hour lettuce picking jobs “Americans won’t take”>
WS Clark,
I disagree with the dating methods used and the assumptions made in those dating methods.
Chas what are you so hung up on about this evolution thing for? Do you have stock in some dino bones or something?
Chas,
The absence of something better or different doesn’t then prove the already bad status quo.
“It is not the creationists that are the problem – it is the mindset of a lack of intellectual curiosity and the lack of a willingness to challenge an idealogical position.”
——————
WS: It’s called faith. Once belief is settled, it is settled.
With Darwinian theory, it is not a matter of the evidence, it is a matter of interpretation of the evidence. Science, which is constantly making conclusions and then having to correct them, seems to make an exception with the theory of common descent (Darwinism). In 150 years plus since Darwin, the theory stands, unchanged. Why? Because it cannot be proven or disproven. And because it fits the purposes of science in that it precludes the influence of a Creator/Designer. It is faith-based science.
Since I know that a Creator/Designer was involved in humanity, my bias is going to always be against any theory that would preclude the involvement of a Designer. I know it would be false.
Could I ever change my position? Sure, if there were positive proof presented.
I’m not worried.
What Science, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathemtical principles do you use to determine that YOU are right, and dating methods are wrong??
FURTHERMORE — What scientific methods do you propose using to PROVE that dinosaur bones and fossils of now extinct creatures, are no more than 6,000 – 7,000 years old??
“I disagree with the dating methods used and the assumptions made in those dating methods.”
So the scientists (all of them) were off by 164,990,000 years in their analysis of the fossil remains of dinosaurs?
That would be 99.9939 percent.
So dinosaurs remains are actually only 5,000 years old (given the time of the estimated voyage of Noah?)
Just answer yes or no, Price – were the scientists (all of them) off by that much in their estimations of the age of the dinosaur fossils?
Just answer the question with a simple one word answer – yes or no?
“WS: It’s called faith. Once belief is settled, it is settled.”
So answer the question I asked Price, Outlander; were the scientists (all of them) that far off in their analysis of the fossil remains of dinosaurs?
Easy yes or no answer.
WS Clark,
“Just answer yes or no, Price – were the scientists (all of them) off by that much in their estimations of the age of the dinosaur fossils?”
Yes.
NOW Nathan — answer MY questions eh???
Justwondering: Liberals don’t have all the answers, just questions arising from investigaton/observation. There are 3 steps to truth. 1) Deny truth. 2) Defame truth. 3)Reluctantly accept truth. I figure we’re in stage 2 these days, after years in stage 1.
Sursum what truth would that be?
“Yes.”
So what evidence do you have, scientific or other wise, to base your claim that dinosaurs existed only 5,000 years ago.
And where do you find fault of that magnitude with the dating process?
How was the carbon (and other) dating processes so obviously (in your mind) off the mark?
Given also that dinosaur remains and human remains have never been found in the same strata, how do you support your claim that dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth?
We are …evolving for lack of a more appropriate word, beyond our need for god things. Consider the progress in just the last 50 years.
My best friend is a believer in creationism, he has sent me several articles and websites that pertains to the Creationist evidence. The problem I find with it and Monkeyhawk mentioned it. But it depends heavily on the unanswered questions rather that known proof. In the Theory of Evolution and for that matter I.D. and creationism. There are several areas that as of yet have no provable answers, the difference is that Evolution simply said that as of yet the answer is unknown. While both I.D. and Creationism have the same questions and both point to life is so complex that it could not possibility been by accident or hap-stance. They differ in I.D. said they do not know who was the creator (designer) . The creationist said that answer is God, yet neither have proof of their theory. They point to some complexity or random occurrence as the proof for their theory.
Sadly as my friend pointed out to me, the creationist tend to be dishonest in their approach to promoting the theory. As you have witnessed on this thread, rather than presenting their evidence they demand that the evolutionist produces theirs. Then attacks and dismisses that evidence presented but does not expose their own. The problem with this other then being dishonest, Evolution is the established theory and I.D./Creationism is the opposing theories. It is up to the opposing theory to prove itself not the established theory. Since as of yet neither Intelligent design or Creationism have show proof that their theory is correct or plausible. That is not saying that they are wrong as much as it said they are not provable enough to upset the established theory.
Clark, he apparently wont/cant answer those questions… I’ve been trying, too…
Wow you could have blown me over with a feather, I could have SWORN nathan was Southern Baptist.
I know you’re being obtuse, Nathan, when you say that you can’t understand the difference between respecting someone else’s belief in a different God, even when you don’t hold that same opinion.
This is why I can accept Chas’s version of God, it’s why Chas can accept my version. THat doesn’t mean he adopts my version, but that he understands that’s how I feel and doesn’t feel the need to correct me.
How do you go into the Marines with so many different religions and get along there? How do you fight along side of Muslims if you don’t respect them as people to believe as they wish?
Understanding Chas’s sign off, is so elementary, and so very much the epitome of what I was taught about Christianity. We thought they were wrong, and surely going to die for it, but respected their belief nontheless.
I know you also don’t think someone who rejects the trinity is Christian, but they are. THey accept Jesus as savior, the SON of God. Divine in a different right. To the RIGHT hand of God. Sent by God to die for our sins, the biggest sacrifice a Father can make.
For he so loved the world…
I guess it was Him, according to scripture, that
we are supposed to feel his love for us. Now you have to admit,that sounds WORLDS apart from the God of the Old Testament.
Nathan,
I’m hardly being snide with you. Some of it is a taste of your own medicine, I’ll admit, but your specific religion DOES have a bearing on what you believe, and what you expect others to believe for the very reasons I gave.
Interesting religion, though. Roots going back to approx 1901. Not that long in religious history. Mine, the Catholic religion, dates back to the Last Supper. We believe in God the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost.
The Catholic church does not impose biblical beliefs, such as creationism, on it’s members. It does understand the nature of parables, and the times in which they were written. Interesting how religions can dominate science to the point they deny science. Einstein is still correct in his assertion.
Well WS that is really true. Humans and dino did share the earth some scientists believe.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
Be brave and read something that doesn’t jive with your ingrained notions.
I wonder how many people have the time to read the 370+ posts on this thread?
Writerdog just curious why is the ID person dishonest for not giving you evidence and no the evolution person?
“Humans and dino did share the earth some scientists believe.”
What LEGITIMATE scientist believes that the dinosaurs wandered the Earth 5,000 years ago?
Really.
We can break this down into baby steps.
Chas signs off at night, Goodnight and God Bless, whoever you perceive God to be…
Nathan: Do you believe that OTHER people believe in a faith different from yours?
: Do you know that these other faiths also call their deity, a God?
: Do you deny that they believe in a God different from yours? See, this is where it gets tricky, I’m afraid that YOU THINK that if you acknowledge that they have a different God, then that means YOU ACKNOWLEDGE their god as legitimate…which is not true. It is merely being respectful of their beliefs. Did anyone ever teach you how to be respectful of another’s beliefs?
I can explain this further…I could say to a scientologist, goodnight and LRon Hubbard bless you.
I don’t give /02 craps about LRon Hubbard. I don’t know that he ever existed. I dont’ care. But it means something to the person whom which I am referring, therefore, I’m being respectful of his/her belief.
I can explain it differently…do you think it’s WRONG to say Happy Hannuka to a Jew on Hannuka?
Is it ok for a Muslim to tell you Merry Christmas?
Political Mama,
I understand just fine how to respect someone elses right to believe as they wish and not agreeing with them.
“How do you go into the Marines with so many different religions and get along there?”
===========================================
Very easily. We don’t have religous discussions every day and when we do they are usually very repsectful.
“How do you fight along side of Muslims if you don’t respect them as people to believe as they wish?”
===============================================
I respect everyones right to believe as they wish.
The Trinity is an entirely different discussion. We can’t even get past the one were on and you want to introduce something else?
WS if you read the article you wouldn’t have to ask that question. Not brave enough huh?
How long does it take for bones to turn into Fossilized materials??
Finally! It seems we are making progress. Great. So now Nathan understands how to respect another’s religious beliefs. So now he can stop accusing Chas of not being a Christian simply for his own respect of other people’s rights to their beliefs.
I never saw where we got to the Trinity discussion.
Justwondering >>>> THIS has been debunked so many times, by legitimate science and archaeology, it is disingenuous for you to even post it here!!!
“One of many human footprints contemporary with dinosaurs taken from the Paluxy River located in Dinosaur Park near Glen Rose, Texas. Pictured with my foot, it exceeds 45 cm (18 inches) in length.”
There ARE NO HUMNAN footprints along side of dinosaur prints ANYWHERE — unless they have been RIGGED there by illegitimate folks trying in desperation to prove their ludicrous point of view!!
“Not brave enough huh?”
Read it – not convinced that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together 5,000 years ago.
Given that the written word was already part of human culture, why didn’t ancient writings mention T-Rex and Brontosaurus Rex?
After all, it would be hard to overlook a 60 foot tall veggie eater or a 40 foot tall meat eater that considered everyone and everything as his prey.
Brave? Brave is being willing to open your mind to reality – not buying into fantasy and fairy tales.
JM Walker,
I have been a member of the Lutheran church, Orthidox Presbytarian, Church of Christ, several non-denominational churches as well.
I have gone to Mormon church, Catholic Church, and Who knows how many different types of Baptist churches.
I understand and have studied the many doctrinal differences between multiple Christian denominations.
Please don’t assume I am hung up on the Assemblies of God church and blind to this fact.
The only thing that truly matters is faith in Christ.
I don’t get any marching orders from my church on rejecting Evolution. I do laugh that you are talking to me about the church imposing things on it’s members when you are a Catholic though. that is a different conversation…
I have already said that I don’t think it really matters to your salvation if you believe in creation or not.
I think you have to be ignorant of a bunch of things as a Christian to believe in Evolution and there are some other questions which don’t make sense, but that is a different conversation as well.
I don’t deny science. I don’t ignore science. I love science. Since High School I have loaded up on the stuff in classes.
I disagree with most of Evolution, not all of “science”
Why do you believe in Evolution? Simply because that is what the majority of scientst say is true? Have you ever really stopped to critically think about some really tought questions about Evolution?
Justwondering: I’m not sure what truth is but people with a lot more smarts than me, ie philosiphers, have asked that question since time began. It has been described as a cultural necessity. It has been described as what people say it is and agree on the language they use. It has been said that what we agree on is truth. It has been claimed all that which is considered good is truth and all that is bad is a lie, hence goodness must be the truth. The basis may originate as an idea, a going against the grain, a new concept which will meet with denial, defamation and finally acceptance. I think…..
By the way, Just Trolling, I didn’t see anything in your link about a LEGITIMATE scientist documenting dinosaurs and humans sharing the Earth 5,000 years ago.
Political Mama,
I didn’t just suddenly realize how to respect other peoples right to believe as they wish.
What Chas preaches and believes is not Christian. That is why I say he isn’t one. He can believe whatever he want’s, but when he calls himself a Christian I have every right to disagree with him on that statement.
I don’t soley base it on his prayer. I think that any self respecting Christian wouldn’t attempt to legitimize an opposing faith by offering someone a blessing from their god.
There are a multitude of things Chas has said on this forum which has led not just me, but most every other Christian on this blog besides CapnAmerica to say that what Chas says is not Christian as well.
I am curious Nathan, do you speak in tongues?
I’ve always wondered how that whole thing worked.
“Simply because that is what the majority of scientst say is true?”
Jeez, having confidence in what SCIENTISTS (notice the correct spelling) have determined?
Who wudda thought?
WS Clark,
I thought you said you also believe in god. So why do you mock others for their fairy tales when you have your own?
Political Mama,
No, I don’t speak in tongues.
“There are a multitude of things Chas has said on this forum which has led not just me, but most every other Christian on this blog besides CapnAmerica to say that what Chas says is not Christian as well.”
Bases on what you have posted, Price, I would have to conclude that you do not follow the spirit of what Christ said during his ministry.
Let’s start with your judgmental attitude and then go on to your desire for violence……
Why? because he gets angry and curses? So?
You carry a machine gun and kill people, despite the commandments. I don’t go around telling you you’re not a Christian.
Sometimes none of you act very Christianly, but isn’t that the beauty of your religion, is that you can be forgiven?
See, the religion I grew up in, you couldn’t merely use that as an excuse. You couldn’t walk out of Church asking for forgiveness, then turn around and go back to doing what you did before, Sunday ask forgiveness. No. You were EXPECTED to live chaste, live modestly, to do good works every day, all day. If you even THOUGHT impurely, you should realize it and stop.
It was too hard. THus the guilt, all the time.
“So why do you mock others for their fairy tales when you have your own?”
What fairy tales do I believe in, Price?
Dinosaurs on the Ark with Noah?
An Earth that is 10,000 years old?
Eh?
WS Clark,
Do you believe in a god?
Political Mama,
I find it hard to believe that any Christian minister would act the way Chas does. I don’t think his attitude here proves he is not a Christian, but it sure isn’t a very good reflection on his being in the ministry where there are obviously higher standards.
It is Chas’s refusal to say what he actually believes about Christ, God, and salvation. The way he talks as if there is not one true God and refuses to clarify and be specific on that.
Those are the things which make me say he is not Christian.
There is no commandment which says not to kill people. It is properly translated not to murder people. The Bible has a very consistent theme with murder being wrong, not killing.
WS Clark,
I have no desire for violence.
“Do you believe in a god?”
Asked and answered many times – I believe in God – I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus nor do I believe in religion.
I believe in a higher power, a supreme being.
Is THAT what you are calling a fairy tale, Price?
That would make you a HUGE hypocrite of the first order, given your beliefs in Fred and Dino walking hand in hand, etc.
“Tolerance is not punching someone in the face because of his religion. Acceptance is being completely okay with what he believes. Civility is, at least, not mocking his God in front of him at every opportunity.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory115.html
“I have no desire for violence.”
Bullshit. You post all the time about your ability to shoot and kill, your FEAR of social situations and your absolute NEED to pack to “protect” yourself.
Most of the rest of the American population does not live in a self-proclaimed climate of fear of their fellow man.
WOW, that’s the first I’ve ever heard that interpretation about killing people.
But I am gathering you probably feel your interpretation came directly from something of authority.
Kill, murder, pretty synonymous.
And STILL Nathan continues his onslaught of my faith, BECAUSE HE DOESNT AGREE WITH IT!!!
Nathan, what does it take to get you to open that small narrow mind of yours, to understand that YOURS is not the only kind of Christianity in this world??? With the exception of Lutheran, some of those other denominations you claim to have attended, or belonged to, at least two of them teach total intolerance of other beliefs… Orthodox Presbyterian and Church of Christ.
Now, listen…. and listen REAL GOOD…. Either you cease and desist from telling the entire Blog I am not a Christian because I disagree with your sorry A$$, OR, I am contacting your local military establishment, and lodging a complaint!!
You dont believe me??? JUST KEEP IT UP!!
This is AMERICA Marine boy… YOUR SWORN DUTY is to protect and defend this Country!! This country does NOT guarantee YOU are anybody else, the power of wandering around telling other people they are not Christians (or any other religion) just because they disagree with your sorry butt!!
Now are we clear here??? I HAVE HAD IT WITH YOUR TOTAL LACK OF TOLERANCE FOR ANYTHING BUT YOUR OWN SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGION!!
I could go on for quite some time about the rise of American Pentecostalism… but, because of my tolerance, I WONT!!!
Nathan,
“Please don’t assume I am hung up on the Assemblies of God church and blind to this fact.”
Never said you were. Please don’t twist my words. All I said was it was an interesting religion.
“I do laugh that you are talking to me about the church imposing things on it’s members when you are a Catholic though. that is a different conversation…”
Isn’t that what this is all about? Imposing beliefs on a churches members? Are you saying you have a problem with the Catholic religion? Or just my interpretation of things as a Catholic? Isn’t that why people pick and choose their religion to reflect their own beliefs? That is pretty much the norm nowadays.
“Why do you believe in Evolution? Simply because that is what the majority of scientst say is true? Have you ever really stopped to critically think about some really tought questions about Evolution?”
I believe I answered that many times, in detail. Do you really want me to post it all over again?
“There is no commandment which says not to kill people”
I have to disagree with you there. Being a Catholic, ours reads: Thou shalt not kill.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
Words, Nathan, they do mean something. That’s why there are over known 4000 religions in the world, and thousands of spin offs.
WS Clark,
I don’t think your having faith in a god is a fairy tale. I was pointing out YOUR absurdity for saying what others believe is a fairy tale when you believe something just as unprovable.
“But I am gathering you probably feel your interpretation came directly from something of authority.”
“You shall not murder.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
“What Chas preaches and believes is not Christian. That is why I say he isn’t one. He can believe whatever he want’s, but when he calls himself a Christian I have every right to disagree with him on that statement.” [NATHAN]
All you can disagree on nathan, is that I am not an Assembly of God Christian, or a Pentecostal Christian, or a Fundamentalist Christian…
But you have NO RIGHT to say I am not a Christian because I do not share your rather narrow minded beliefs in Jesus, or the Bible, or any number of other things!!
I belong to a denomination with nearly 3 million members…. ANY of them will tell you that I am VERY MUCH a Christian!!
So, by your own statement earlier,
Chas, I swear he does that just to get you to go off.
We know you’re a Christian, and really his opinion doesn’t matter. We have free speech/free religion. He’s entitled to his opinion just as you are. That doesn’t mean he’s right.
Political Mama,
It is not anything that new, the word being not to murder rather than kill.
They are not very synonymous either. There is a huge difference in the motive involved between the two.
SO, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT EARLIER, BASED ON MY BELIEFS THAT YOU CLAIM ARE NOT CHRISTIAN, YOU HAVE THUS LABELED MY ENTIRE DENOMINATION NOT CHRISTIAN…
NOW, DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOU STATEMENT ANY??
OR AM I GOING TO HAVE TO CONTACT THE MILITARY ENVOY IN WICHITA, AND REPORT YOUR CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE TO THEIR OWN BELIEFS??? SEE, NATHAN, WHAT YOU SPOUT HERE ON THIS BLOG, SAYS YOU COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT YOU ARE SWORN TO PROTECT AND DEFEND!!
“We know you’re a Christian, and really his opinion doesn’t matter.”
Who is “we”? No problem if you want to speak for yourself but if “we” includes me, you are wrong.
“I was pointing out YOUR absurdity for saying what others believe is a fairy tale when you believe something just as unprovable.”
The difference is, Price, that I have never claimed to be able to PROVE that God exists, yet you claim to be able to PROVE creationism.
Of course, you don’t have the balls to produce your EVIDENCE.
Why? I don’t know. No guts. Chickenshit. Liar. Moron.
Hell, I don’t know, but you have yet to produce anything except baseless claims, Price.
Typical Republican.
Exodus 20 2-17
An interesting look at the evolution of the Catholic catechism. It changes the word of God as passed down as the ten commandments to reflect the times. Something the fundamentalists fail to recognize.
A Traditional Catechetical Formula
I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
I am the LORD your God,
who brought you out
of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.
As it is now:
You shall have no other gods before me
. . .
JM Walker,
I am sure that the Catholic Church does indeed use the word kill, but does your church say you should never kill?
They don’t say that do they?
There are exceptions for self defense, service of your country…etc…etc…
You might still have the word kill, but you still go off the meaning of murder.
“OR AM I GOING TO HAVE TO CONTACT THE MILITARY ENVOY IN WICHITA, AND REPORT YOUR CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE TO THEIR OWN BELIEFS??? SEE, NATHAN, WHAT YOU SPOUT HERE ON THIS BLOG, SAYS YOU COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT YOU ARE SWORN TO PROTECT AND DEFEND!!”
“Military Envoy”? What or who is that?
Where did he violate the Constitution?
Chas,
It’s hard not to reply when someone makes up things about you, especially when your very way of life is being ridiculed and attacked. To me, when Nathan does this very thing to you and your faith it doesn’t diminish you — but him. My advice wasn’t asked for and I offer it only as a suggestion — don’t even dignify his ugliness with a response.
WS clark,
When have I ever said I could prove creationism?
I don’t beleive that nor can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt either.
Yes, J M Walker… Catechisms do evolve over time… I remember my old Lutheran catechism is a lot different from the newer one in use today… Same kinds of differences in translation as you note above…
Chas,
Go right ahead and call the Marines. You will not be the first nut case they have dealt with.
Naathan, in fact, you cannot prove GOD exists either… or that “other” Gods do NOT exist… Thus, you are totally LYING when you make accusations about my beliefs being not acceptable to YOUR definitions of whats YOU think Christianity means… And I did mean what I said about contacting your military over seers….
Nathan, they will be dealing not with me… but with the Chief of Chaplains… a man that I happen to know personally!! Touche!!
Chas,
You are not a Christian. Call the Marines. We will all have a good laugh about your stupidity.
Chas,
Good! I will finally know what church you go to, who you report to, and who you are.
See, Nathan, I think its time you had a course in multi-culturalism, and in religious tolerance. And unless things have changed in the past four years, they still offer those courses… And they can be mandated for those who have been reported for intolerance of the beliefs of others… That would be YOU!
It will also be a great opportunity for me to share with your Chief of Chaplains the language you use on this blog and your attitude on this blog as well.
SHOW ME where the bible says you can kill for your country.
I’m not even sure it says you can kill for self defense.
New testament, remember…
You also believe your traslation for ‘the grave’ means hell.
NO NATHAN, YOU WILL STILL NOT KNOW WHAT DENOMINATION I BELONG TO… YOU JUST HAVE A MASSIVE POWER/CONTROL FETISH… FOR SOME RIDICULOUS REASON, YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR HEAD THAT IF YOU KNOW MY DENOMINATION, YOU CAN CONTROL ME… WHICH IS PLAIN CRAZINESS!!
BUT, YOU ARE FREE TO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU LIKE… PERHAPS IT GIVES YOU COMFORT…
BTW, I HAVE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BLOG EDITORS ABOUT YOUR CONSTANT HARASSMENT OF ME, AND OTHERS, CONCCERNING MATTERS OF RELIGION… SOMETHING IS BEING PLANNED, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE…
“I don’t beleive that nor can I prove it beyond a reasonable doubt either.”
I can prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt – can you say the same for creationism, Price?
By the way, believe is spelled with a the “i” before the “e” Price.
But, just for shits and grins, where is your “proof” that dinosaurs sailed on the Ark with Noah?
If you believe (notice the correct spelling) that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, then where does Dino fit into the picture?
Other than Flintstone reruns, of course.
Basically, Nathan, the bottom line is very simple… just stop harassing people over the fact that their religious beliefs are not the same as yours… You do that, and all will be fine here… Ummm You and your little sock puppet friends, that is…
Whether you like it or not, you are dealing with professionals here… and matters will be dealt with in a professional manner… Of that you can be certain!!
Nathan, as mentioned above, you will NOT know my name, or denomination… That is not a requirement… In fact, for your information, the process has been started as an informal situation at present…
IF you do not agree with the proposition, then it will beccome a formal matter… not between me and anybody.. but between YOU and the Marines…
Chas,
90% of the time I ever talk to you about your faith you are the one who started the conversation.
Most of the time I never say a word about faith on this blog unless it is brought up first. Most of them time I am responding to other peoples attacks on the Bible and Christianity.
I am not afraid of the Editors. They have my email address, they have my fathers email address. If they want to talk to me or think I am doing something wrong I am fair game.
Chas,
LOL, whatever you say Chas. If you honestly are contacting the Marines, the only fool in all this will be you.
If you think it will be anonymous, you are wrong on that as well.
Chas,
Dealing with professionals will be a welcome change from dealing with you, that is for sure.
The bottom line is this:
If you are a Christian minister, then start acting like one. Both in your name calling and attitude towards people on this blog.
If you don’t want to be questioned about your faith, then simply don’t bring it up.
No Nathan, you are wrong. I have already contacted our denominational offices — the process has been outlined for me… Emails have already been sent, along with supporting posts made by YOU… My NAME is not a part of this, any more than it is here… Do you understand that?? And dont worry, its not a legal matter whatsoever… I would not do that to you are anybody else who wears the uniform… But you WILL show the proper respect for the people you CLAIM to be defending in this insane war. THAT you will do… And the Corps will help you in that regard.
One more comment, and then I am out of here for the night —
Nathan, when you make a mockery of my nightly blessing, you make a mockery of the very God in whom you claim to believe… Please not the words carefully to my nightly Blessing…. I ask for Blessings for ALL — and for God to bless All — whatever they conceive God to be…
Thus, when you reject that blessing by calling ME a blasphemer… you reject a Blessing from the God in whom you profess profound faith!!
Chas,
I have been in the Marine Corps for 11 years. You are too full of yourself.
I don’t know what your denominational offices told you, but there is nothing they can do to me by contacting the Marine Corps.
There is nothing legal you can do to me either.
If you want to be treated like a Christian minister then start acting like one.
“If you don’t want to be questioned about your faith, then simply don’t bring it up.” [Nathan]
How facist of you Nathan!! Please God, open his mind, and his eyes, before its too late!
Long weekend here this week —
Good night; Good luck; God bless;
Whaever you conceive God to be!
Blessings ALL!!
God protect our troops!! Wherever they are!
“Wrong Agnostic.
“Transition of morphology is adaptation not evolution. It is NOT proof that the evolutionary process translate that we all come out of the same slug.”
No, I am not wrong, your high handed (although not necessarily trollish) comment to the contrary.
1) Regular defined “transition fossils” out of existence.
2) The statement that all morphology is adaptation is just plain false. Morphology is also history. For example, there are a series of fossils, going from synapsid reptiles to therapsid reptiles to mammals that demonstrate a transition from multt-boned lower jaws to shrinking bones at the rear of the lower jaw to single bone lower jaw plus three bones that equal the three bones in the middle ear. Structures that fulfill one purpose in earlier forms followed by structures that appear to serve dual purposes, finally replaced by structures that only fulfill the later adaptation, are a damn good indication that a transition occurred. And the synapsid to therapsid to mammal transition holds is consistent, just as would be expected if the common descent hypothesis were to be true.
Regular: “Wrong Agnostic.
“Transition of morphology is adaptation not evolution. It is NOT proof that the evolutionary process translate that we all come out of the same slug.”
No, I am not wrong, your high handed (although not necessarily trollish) comment to the contrary.
1) Regular defined “transition fossils” out of existence.
2) The statement that all morphology is adaptation is just plain false. Morphology is also history. For example, there are a series of fossils, going from synapsid reptiles to therapsid reptiles to mammals that demonstrate a transition from multt-boned lower jaws to shrinking bones at the rear of the lower jaw to single bone lower jaw plus three bones that equal the three bones in the middle ear. Structures that fulfill one purpose in earlier forms followed by structures that appear to serve dual purposes, finally replaced by structures that only fulfill the later adaptation, are a damn good indication that a transition occurred. And the synapsid to therapsid to mammal transition holds is consistent, just as would be expected if the common descent hypothesis were to be true.
ooooops, duplicate post.
Chas,
I look foarward to being in contact with your denominational offices so that we can discuss your language and attitude on a public blog as a minister.
And have a wonderful night as well.
I am an atheist. Perhaps this gives me a perspective outside intramural differences.
On posts here over a long stretch of time, I judge Chas a FAR better Christian than Nathan.
At least according to my understanding.
I find Nathan judgemental, arrogant and greedy.
He has also been known to bare false witness.
But that is just my take. PERSONALLY I just wish religion would just go away. It holds humanity back.
“I have been in the Marine Corps for 11 years.”
So why aren’t you back in the promised land – Iraq – Price?
Didn’t you volunteer for another tour of duty?
Why not?
You believe (notice the correct spelling) in the mission, right?
You believe in your Commander in Chief, don’t you?
So why aren’t you back in Iraq, fighting the good fight?
“There is nothing legal you can do to me either.”
NATHAN — I already said that. Better read what I said again — I said I would not do anything legal to anybody who wears the uniform… Dont be thinking of yourself more highly than you should… I think St. Paul said something like that once…
#
Nathan
Posted April 4, 2008 at 9:20 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
I am sure that the Catholic Church does indeed use the word kill, but does your church say you should never kill?
They don’t say that do they?
There are exceptions for self defense, service of your country…etc…etc…
You might still have the word kill, but you still go off the meaning of murder.
This is really good. It points out how someone can claim one thing, but deny that same claim in others.
Nathan, my religion says, in the ten commandments, You shalt not kill. Period. It does not say there are exceptions, because, I expect, God recognizes no exceptions. Maybe yours does, but mine doesn’t. Pretty much black and white: You shalt not kill.
Nathan
Posted April 4, 2008 at 9:54 pm | Permalink
Chas,
I look foarward to being in contact with your denominational offices so that we can discuss your language and attitude on a public blog as a minister.
And have a wonderful night as well.
=======================================
I guess you really CANT Read… I Explicitly stated that you will not be getting my name or any information about me… You will ALSO not hear from my denominational offices about anything. You will only be dealing with the office of the Chief of Chaplains of the U S Military. Thats all!! Thats all that is necessary!! And one more time, just so you get it right… There is nothing of a legal nature whatsoever involved in this.
Sorry you cant read properly!!
O and I don’t go off the meaning of murder: the Catholic church does. THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
I saw a historical perspective on the origin of the Ten Commandments.
It informed me that “Thou shalt not steal” did not apply in survival situations.
To whit, if you are hungry, it is NOT wrong to go into the field of another and feed yourself.
I liked that. Maybe you faith folks should seek back to the basics.
Nathan is exactly correct about the meaning of “Thou shalt not kill”. The correct translation is “murder”. And that makes sense. Otherwise, you would have had God encouraging disobedience of His own commandment in the numerous wars in which He assisted the Jews in killing their foes.
That could never happen.
“SO, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT EARLIER, BASED ON MY BELIEFS THAT YOU CLAIM ARE NOT CHRISTIAN, YOU HAVE THUS LABELED MY ENTIRE DENOMINATION NOT CHRISTIAN…
“NOW, DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOU STATEMENT ANY??
“OR AM I GOING TO HAVE TO CONTACT THE MILITARY ENVOY IN WICHITA, AND REPORT YOUR CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE TO THEIR OWN BELIEFS??? SEE, NATHAN, WHAT YOU SPOUT HERE ON THIS BLOG, SAYS YOU COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT YOU ARE SWORN TO PROTECT AND DEFEND!!”
Chas. knock it off. Saying that someone’s beliefs are not Christian on a freaking blog is in no way limiting their freedom of speech, and you know it.
This is a blog where people argue (it says on the description that people exchange “zingers”). To claim that your are being harrassed because people take issue with what you say about your identity is just silly.
Personally, I have come to the suspicion that your over the top behavior is a strategy (like Regular’s sometimes intentional hypocrisy). That is, I used to think of you as troll bait.
Now, I just suspect you are a troll.
It should be obvious that I do not agree with Nathan much at all (in fact, I think his basis for dismissing you as a Christian is ludicrous, and would be easy to expose as ludicrous). But no, in response to Nathan’s “you are not a Christian” nonsense all we see is post after post of sTOP HARRASSING ME!!!!!!!! i’M WARNING YOU!!!!!!!
It’s an obvious invitation for more “harrassment”, more claims that you are not a Christian. I now strongly suspect that the invitation is intentional.
Enough. This hysterical over the top typed yelling is as much a pollution of this board as anything Regular does.
Re: Chas.
DNFTT
JM Walker,
Really?
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm
“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
“The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69″
Seems to me that your church does indeed recognize it as being against murder not killing in general.
Chas,
I look forward to hearing from them too!
I am sure that even if I am unable to contact your offices myself, the Office of the Chief of Chaplains will be contacting your office on your language and attitude on a public blog as a minister.
KsAg… Perhaps if you put yourself in MY Shoes… Thirty years as ordained clergy… Many years of academic study… And then some dolt on a Blog attacks me day after day, as being not a Christian… all because he disagrees with my Christianity… even attacking my belief in God… That, KsAgn… is a form of harssment — And you can be dead certain, complaints have been made to the appropriate places…
I appreciate your concerns… But I am not sure you understand my situation here… There ARE those who DO know who I am on this Blog. They call me… They want to know how these things can happen on a public Blog.
And NO, KsAgn… I am not a Troll…
BTW, KsAgn… IF you have CapN’s email, ask him, and he will give you mine… so long as he knows you are legit… and I believe you are… I will give you more information in that way…
And back to Dino and Fred Flintstone……
Proof, Price?
Evidence, Price?
Anything, Price?
“Otherwise, you would have had God encouraging disobedience of His own commandment in the numerous wars in which He assisted the Jews in killing their foes.
“That could never happen.”
Uh huh.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
“As the Lord commanded Moses, they slew all the males.”
Did the Israelites kill every male in Midian?
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. They took the women and children captives, and burnt all their cities.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. (31:14-18)
“Have ye saved all the women alive?”
Moses was angry with the officers saying: “Have ye saved all the women alive?
Was Moses meek?
What the Bible says rape and abortion
Have ye saved all the women alive?
Suggested Bible stories for the next Barna survey
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Moses tells the Israelites to kill every male and all the non-virgin females, but to keep the virgins for themselves.
Is it wrong to commit adultery?
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him
Sounds like incitement of murder to me. And the Old Testament is full of God commanding the Israelites not only to kill their enemies in battle, but to kill their children (especially their male children).
Mere mortals stood trial in Nurenburg for the same sort of thinking.
Nathan, apparently you are still missing something quite important. The Chief of Chaplains office will not have my name either.. This isnt just about me — rather it is about an attitude of yours. My NAME and denomination will not be known to the Chief of Chaplains. He will never know from whom the initial inquiry came from at all… Now, that is the end of it… There is no more to be said.
WS Clark,
I don’t view this debate as an either/or.
If Evolution is not ture, I don’t believe that then proves that Creation is. That is not logical.
Neiher is Evolution being anymore true simply because Creation is false.
Everytime a discussion comes up about Evolution, those who believe in it want to attack Creation.
My belief in creation comes from the Bible first and observation of evidence second.
I believe there are many things which Evolution uses as evidence which could just as easily explain creation.
Chas,
I am seeing a pattern here.
Everytime you keep changing your story on who/what/how I will be contacted to counter my claim that I will simply share with them your language and attitude here.
Lets be honest here, you were bluffing me, and it didn’t work.
Ecclesiastes 3:8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.
The Hebrew word in the Ten Commandments means by the word kill – to kill with malice aforethought.
It has nothing whatsoever to imply anything else in slaying enemies.
Chas, is an okay person here. He makes reasoned comments. Because he will respond to trollish crap he is denigrated for that? Come on people.
“He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”
Many of you people (to borrow a term from the intellectual giant, Fleettwood – NOT!) are such hypocrites.
But, then again, Nathan can’t even figure out why his dad’s name shows up on his posts.
Note to self: Advise son to scratch off the WSU computer science program from the list.
Naathan, spin it any way you like… I have laid out the process for you as simply as I know how… Nowhere did I say anything about my name or my denomination being accessible to the office of Chief of Chaplains. YOU have said all of that, to which I have had to set you straight time after time. I said there is no more to be said here. So, stop flaming and spinning it. You will be notified appropriately — in the appropriate manner.
Chas, what a worm you are.
You get your feelings hurt on a blog and want to make an issue of it with Nathan’s chain of Command.
How about manning up and deal with that you are on a blog.
Either that or go somewhere else where they play patty cake.
How about YOU man up and face what YOU are on this blog there James?
Chas,
Lets be logical about this. Unless your contact to the office of chaplains is completely anonymous they can back track to you.
Who ever contacted the Office of Chaplains can easily by told about your behaviour here.
Then who ever contacted that person can be contacted and so on and so forth till it gets back to you.
I am not worried, but you should be.
Ah Junior shows up, spouting off with his trailer trash mouth.
I sense fear in Nathan….
“KsAg… Perhaps if you put yourself in MY Shoes… Thirty years as ordained clergy… Many years of academic study… And then some dolt on a Blog attacks me day after day, as being not a Christian… all because he disagrees with my Christianity… even attacking my belief in God… That, KsAgn… is a form of harssment — And you can be dead certain, complaints have been made to the appropriate places…
“I appreciate your concerns… But I am not sure you understand my situation here… There ARE those who DO know who I am on this Blog. They call me… They want to know how these things can happen on a public Blog.”
Chas., I have not said nor am I saying that you are not who you say you are. And, you are under no obligation to reveal specific information about your congregation or yourself to Nathan or anyone else.
But let’s put things in perspective here. This is a blog. It is the equivalent of people shooting their mouths off in a bar full of strangers. People here, for whatever reason, clearly come here because they enjoy arguing or debating. Then they go back to their lives.
So a guy with thirty years of experience as ordained clergy is called a non-Christian by a politically conservative fundamantalist who clearly has a very narrow definition of Christianity, and a very shallow understanding of the historical underpinnings of the hundreds of writings, copied and recopied by hand for hundreds of years that forms the basis of his faith. And yet, this guy who is an ordained member of the clergy takes this conservative fundamentalist seriously? Come on. Nathan’s belief that you are not a Christian is certainly sincere (many people who have answered to the label of Christian, the vast majority of people over history in fact who answered to that label, do not qualify for the label of Christian in Nathan’s eyes). Assuming that you have a background in textual criticism and the history of Christianity, you would already know that. You could patiently (even pointedly) explain the issues to Nathan (and then point out when he is clearly missing the point and move on), but, well, look back at the thread and many, many other threads and everyone can see how you have been responding.
I’ve been on discussion boards for years, and on a few threads I have revealed my professional credentials I have had people question them. It’s insulting, sure, but really, it’s far more amusing.
Because really, what does it matter? It’s like a drunk yelling at your from across the bar as you are walking out the door.
“And NO, KsAgn… I am not a Troll…”
The definition of a troll is simple. Someone who will say anything to maximize the number of responses to his/her posts, whether they be expressions of outrage or derision. Your threats to contact Nathan’s superiors and the blog editors in caps are perfectly suited to maximize just those sorts of reactions.
So, if you truly don’t want to be a troll, don’t act like one. If you know (and if you have completed the sort of study that I suspect you have, you are no dummy) that your hysterical over the top caps yelling to sTOP IT! (and by the way, the little letters where caps would routinely go in written discourse are a dead givaway that the caps are intentional) are going to result in more accusations that you are not a Christian, and more snarky comments at your expense, then you are knowingly trolling.
And that’s all I have to say about that for tonight.
Nathan, I said there is nothing more to be said about it.
BTW, the quotation above comes from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (needed to make the citation because of the extraneous comments in the quote I pisted above).
“My belief in creation comes from the Bible first and observation of evidence second.”
One, evolution cannot be observed, since evolution takes place over millions of years.
Two, the Bible is not a science book.
Try again, Price.
#
Regular
Posted April 4, 2008 at 10:22 pm | Permalink
Ecclesiastes 3:8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.
The Hebrew word in the Ten Commandments means by the word kill – to kill with malice aforethought.
It has nothing whatsoever to imply anything else in slaying enemies.
WOW, are we saying the word of God is open to interpretation? Backs what I’ve been saying all along.
“I am not worried, but you should be.”
So what are you going to do, Price, shoot Chas.?
Reposted………………
So why aren’t you back in the promised land – Iraq – Price?
Didn’t you volunteer for another tour of duty?
Why not?
You believe (notice the correct spelling) in the mission, right?
You believe in your Commander in Chief, don’t you?
So why aren’t you back in Iraq, fighting the good fight?
JM Walker,
What we are saying is that you were wrong when you said it means no killing of anykind is allowed.
It is not so much interpretation as it is translation. And if you were going for consistency, you could refrence the rest of the Bible where killing is ok for certain reasons.
WOW, are we saying the word of God is open to interpretation? Backs what I’ve been saying all along.
Yeah, but not the misuse of word
Just the English word “down.” You can run all the variations of “down” through your mind and one of them will have a colloquial meaning of some sort of physical violence, as to “down” them.
(downed enemy aircraft which could result in death)
There are also numerous other meanings of the word.
Damn, can’t ANY of these fundies, Regular, Price, Outlander answer a simple question?
Shit. These are the folks that want to determine the curriculum in our schools?
Why can’t they answer?
WS Clark,
Just for you, I’ll answer those questions.
I volunteered to stay there for another tour while I was still in country. They didn’t need very many volunteers and the ones they were getting were going off to run the PX somewhere.
I volunteered to go back the day I got back into Wichita.
Last week I was asked to go to Afghanistan. I said yes. They already had enough volunteers by the time my command submitted my name.
I have already served one tour voluntarily in Iraq.
Anymore questions WS Clark?
KsAgn, as i have mentioned here (to cat calls of derision) i have problems with my fingers finding the appropriate keys many times… due to several light strokes over the past 4 yers… I cannot always feel what I am hitting on the far left side of the keyboard… often times, it results in hitting the caps key when attempting to hit the letter “A” key… i know, it looks bad, but i honestly cannot control that finger at times… its hell to be a touch typist, and not have feeling !! :-)
“My belief in creation comes from the Bible first and observation of evidence second.”
More to the point, Mr. Clark, this comment says it all.
The Bible above all else. I strongly doubt that Nathan is willing to relinquish his belief in the Bible’s inerrancy if he was to find evidence that contradicted it.
Therefore, there is no such evidence. Any evidence that is seen must support the Bible’s account, or most be interpreted as supporting the Bible’s account.
Nathan has, in the past, tried to issue challenges to debate evolution “on the science”. But his statement above clearly indicates that he is not really capable of doing so.
He will probably interpret my comments as “anti-Christian”. They are not. Because with this sentence, Nathan clearly identifies the nature of his approach.
1) Believe the Bible.
2) Observe the evidence.
Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible clearly influences the kind of evidence that will be observed, and restricts how such evidence may be interpreted.
Unless Nathan is willing to reject strategy 1) if the evidence gathered in strategy 2) contradicts the validity of strategy 1), one can not have a conversation on the evidence.
There are many people who are Christians who do not operate under the strategy that Nathan, in once sentence, outlined above.
one = once
God tells Nathan ( and Hank) and they tell us.
Screw it, I can’t get any of these fundamentalists to answer a straight question. They ALWAYS try to weasel out of an answer.
That’s enough for one night.
Pray for yourselves – now I lay me down to sleep…. if I should DIE…………….
Maybe, just maybe……….
I referenced the ten commandants as the Catholic church sees them, nothing else. We say, You shalt not kill. Nothing more. That is where the ambiguity lies. You are correct; In other parts of the churches teachings, it okay’s killing as a defensive move. In the ten commandments, it states it pretty plain. Ambiguity. It’s everywhere in the bible. Some only read what they want to read, others read it completely different. Whose right? Whose on first?
KSagnostic,
There is nothing in my statements which “clearly indicates” I am unable to debate Evolution without introducing my faith.
I don’t see your comments as anti-Christian, just wrong.
If there was something which clearly showed how wrong the Bible is then I would have to obviously reconsider my belief on some things.
However, the things people like you see as contradiction to the Bible are easily explained.
I have yet to see something which couldn’t be.
You are right on one point though, and that is the world view one has. My world view is obviosuly one based on the Bible and the understanding that the world is only about 6-7 thousand years old.
However, the same is true for those who also believe Evolution as true. Their world views are that of the world having to be old and thus many assumptions they make start with that premise.
For instance: If a Catholic dives on a live grenade to save his buddies, the church recognizes that as suicide. Suicide is a mortal sin, excluding one from heaven. So, while the church states that, would God do the same? Again, ambiguities.
In the beginning, GOD
In the end, GOD
In between? Crap Shoot!!
JM Walker,
Part of reading the Bible is understanding that it was not written in English and that anytime you start using one word or one verse to make a doctrine you are treading on thin ice.
The Bible is pretty conistent on the big things throughout.
God has sent people to kill other people. So why would he then say killing is wrong, period?
God has used soldiers to aid him. Why would he use people in a profession in which killing would be required in some situations?
You attempted to pass off that your Church simply prohibited killing, no exceptions, because that is what the commandment said. That simply wasn’t true and now you are the one trying to skirt that.
It is about translation and understanding. And now you are trying to use this as proof of some grand interpretation problem with the Bible.
There are verses which are not clear and can be open to different interpretations, that doesn’t mean that no verse has truth simply because others are not so clear.
JM Walker,
Where does the Catholic Church recognize jumping on a hand grenade to save others as suicide?
Sorry, I just got back from work. Have the creationists provided any evidence for their position or are they still whining and not accepted the overwhelming scientific facts for evolution?
J M Walker, ask your Priest about it. :)
Morphology is also history. For example, there are a series of fossils, going from synapsid reptiles to therapsid reptiles to mammals that demonstrate a transition from multt-boned lower jaws to shrinking bones at the rear of the lower jaw to single bone lower jaw plus three bones that equal the three bones in the middle ear. Structures that fulfill one purpose in earlier forms followed by structures that appear to serve dual purposes, finally replaced by structures that only fulfill the later adaptation, are a damn good indication that a transition occurred. And the synapsid to therapsid to mammal transition holds is consistent, just as would be expected if the common descent hypothesis were to be true.
Jaw bones of a reptile to a human as a linear descent is a quantum leap in logic.
It ain’t happening.
Show me the missing links how it occurred exactly, DNA evidence, cellular construction and diversification across species lines.
You can’t, because there is no evidence that shows that.
Common descent is unproven and can’t be proven.
When I went to Catholic school, I was taught just that. That same example was asked and given. Anytime a Catholic puts him/her self in a position that is known to cause that persons death, that is considered suicide. To the church, it is no different than jumping off a bridge. I am not making this up: this is what was taught when I was in school. Is it right? I think that’s up to God to decide, not me.
Regular,
That is why the Evolutionists had to come up with Punctuated equilibrium.
JM Walker,
Well, fortunately, your Church has a clause for that one too:
“We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. ”
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm
I am banking on God providing for a soldier who threw himself on a Grenade to save others.
“Common descent is unproven and can’t be proven.”
So how is it that only hominds have the broken gene that codes for vitamin C production while all the other living mammal species can code for vitamin C?
Why is it that humans have 23 pairs of DNA while the other ape species have 24? The 23 pairs result from two chromosomes that are fused together, if they weren’t fused then we’d have 24 pairs like the others in the homind family.
Two perfect examples of shared ancestry.
AS a goodnight to you “goddies”
I’ll put this out there.
To the king of kings and the lord of lords…
To He who it is said knows the number of the hairs on my head….
I say you do not exist. PROVE me wrong.
Doug,
Those examples prove nothing more than coincidence.
They don’t teach the New Testament in the Catholic Church J M Walker?
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
Matthew Henry Commentary:
“Those whom God loves as a Father, may despise the hatred of all the world. As the Father loved Christ, who was most worthy, so he loved his disciples, who were unworthy. All that love the Saviour should continue in their love to him, and take all occasions to show it. The joy of the hypocrite is but for a moment, but the joy of those who abide in Christ’s love is a continual feast. They are to show their love to him by keeping his commandments. If the same power that first shed abroad the love of Christ’s in our hearts, did not keep us in that love, we should not long abide in it. Christ’s love to us should direct us to love each other. He speaks as about to give many things in charge, yet names this only; it includes many duties.”
Really Nathan, how so?
I’ll wake up in the morning. And I will do it without any “god”.
Doug,
How are they perfect examples of shared ancestry?
“You are right on one point though, and that is the world view one has. My world view is obviosuly one based on the Bible and the understanding that the world is only about 6-7 thousand years old.
“However, the same is true for those who also believe Evolution as true. Their world views are that of the world having to be old and thus many assumptions they make start with that premise.”
One view is supported by multiple lines of physical evidence. The other is not. To attempt to equivacate between the two points of view as both being a priori assumptions is a gross misrepresentation (and in your case, Nathan, I would allow an honest one, but still a gross misrepresentation nevertheless).
To back up…
“If there was something which clearly showed how wrong the Bible is then I would have to obviously reconsider my belief on some things.”
Many such somethings exist, particularly when one holds a viewpoint in the inerrancy of Genesis and a YEC viewpoint. The problem is, when invoking the supernatural, the six year old comic book hero argument is always available. Thus, the cosmic distances reliably measured by a presumed speed of light matched to scale become “God created the light when He created the stars and galaxies” (which means, presumably, sometimes God really wants us to see supernovae from billions of light years away), transitional fossils merely become evidence of God using a conservative body plan for multiple animals (and the same for genetic evidence), the evidence of gradual geological processes become “God built the world to look old because old implies solid” and so on and so on. Evidence consistent with the contrary viewpoint can always be rebuted by invoking the magic of an omnipotent character who just makes the evidence seem to look different.
And if that fails, there is the old chestnut of saying that the evidence doesn’t exist.
And Nathan, one can always explain away discrepancies when there is an a priori assumption that any discprepancies must be illusionary. But the discprepancies and contradictions in the Bible are numerous and, to anyone who doesn’t assume that such contradictions can not be real, obvious. Genesis 1 and 2 are an obvious example. In one, God creates man and woman on the sixth day, In two, he creates man after resting after the second day, then forms the animals out of the ground and brings them to Adam, then creates Eve out of Adam’s rib.
Again, this is what you said:
“My belief in creation comes from the Bible first and observation of evidence second.”
This means…
1) Bible first.
2) Then observation of the evidence.
Since the Bible (and particularly your apparent intepretation of it) outlines the history of an omnipotent being who can do anything, any evidence can be explained away. More to the point, your sentence explains your thought processes.
Despite what you think, I do not hold such an a priori assumption that I can invoke against any evidence to the contrary. If a fossil platypus is found Cambrian deposits, followed by other fossils of people, McCaws, and even dinosaurs in other Cambrian deposits, my assumptions are in trouble. I have no literal deus ex machina that I will invoke. You do.
You may honestly see my comments as wrong, but they are not wrong.
Doug,
It ain’t that simple.
There is more to a genome of a living thing than just chromosomes.
Just a 1 percent difference in 1 Chromosome can mean 10s of thousands of loci on base pair alleles. You would literally have to go through and match up each allele from each species to show any commonality.
Sorry, but there just isn’t any commonality with millions and perhaps billions of common alleles.
And that’s a scientific fact. On a genetic, sub cellular level, evolution does not work with common descent.
er uncommon alles
“How are they perfect examples of shared ancestry?”
Because Nathan, all hominids have the same number of chromosome pairs. Humans have one different as described but without the mutation they’d have the same number as the hominids. That’s an example of shared ancestry.
Hominids also share the same genetic mutation that has been passed down thought their lineage. It would be a huge coincidence if they all managed to get the same mutation, with the same gene, on the same location on their DNA. But since to believe that’s just a mere coincidence is so absolutely absurd when the entire concept of genetics and heredity of genetic material is such a well understood concept.
Do you understand genes Nathan? Do you know why parents that have brown hair and brown eyes will most likely have children with brown hair and brown eyes? I’m hoping they taught you about Mendel and his peas when you were in elementary school. It appears you have forgotten.
I can’t imagine myself trying to dumb myself down any farther to explain this most basic of concepts.
“Doug,
“How are they perfect examples of shared ancestry?”
For one thing, there would be no evidence of fused chromosomes if the chromosomes were not seperate in an ancestor (If we were made the way we are, there would be no reason to expect there to be evidence of two chromosomes ends fused together. Furthermore, there would be no need for homologies between the point of fusion in human chromosomes and two seperate chromosomes in African great apes species). However, that is exactly what would be expected if humans shared a common ancestor with African great apes. The DNA sequences on the ends of two chimpanzee chromosomes matches the interior of a human chromosome. More to the point, the interior of the human chromosomes match the end sequences of two chimpanzee chromosomes, thereby showing evidence of two chromosomes that were seperate in a human ancestor being united in a later human ancestor.
Of course, one can always object that we and they were simply made that way. But again, that is the six year old invoking Superman argument. That is the deus ex machina. That is, in fact, exactly the sort of thought process one would expect from…
1) Bible first
2) Observed evidence second
“There is more to a genome of a living thing than just chromosomes.”
No Regular, not on this specific example. The fusion of the chromosomes happens on a location that if separated would reveal a genetic structure identical to the structure of other hominids.
Here’s a clear picture of the similarities:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html
Here’s another new view on the Chimpanzee/Human Genome.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/eichler2.html
KSAgnostic,
Regardless of one line of reasoning being supported or not, the assumption is still there. It is there in many areas besides on the age of the things.
I could just as easily argue that my assumption is supported as well.
The point is that I am not the only party guilty of having a predisposed thought.
Example: The dating methods used by scientists. How do they know that the atmosphere of today was the same in the past?
A scientist would never stop to think that something would be or could be proof of a young Earth because they are already predisposed to assume that the Earth is billions of years old.
(Based on evidence that I would hardly call proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
There is not a contradiction in Genesis on the creation accounts either.
If you really want to debate that, I am fair game.
I do not explain evidence away either. I make well reasoned and rational arguments.
If the problem is that I can say God is omnipotent than the issue isn’t about Evolution vs Creation at all.
The issue is about the existence of God at all.
My sentence doesn’t explain my thought process any further than my thoughts on creation.
Regular, thanks for that link it adds another piece of undeniable evidence for shared ancestry. From the article:
“We know that there are some disease `architectures’ that are shared between chimp and human, so we know that is the ancestral state. But other predisposing structures have arisen only in the human lineage, so such comparisons can provide important information on the genetic histories of disorders and disease susceptibilities of the human species.”
Naturally we wouldn’t expect to see a chimp’s genetic structure to code for resistance to the Black Plague since the two species diverged at that time. However the two species show similar disease resistance codes from a time before the two species branched off from the evolutionary tree.
“The dating methods used by scientists. How do they know that the atmosphere of today was the same in the past”
How far back to you care to go? For simple carbon dating that is measured by the content in ice core drills. For further back we can see deposits of iron that haven’t turned a rust color since there wasn’t any oxygen in the atmosphere.
KSagnostic,
If you want to have a discussion with me on Evolution without me interjecting my faith, you will first have to stop using my faith to attack me in a discussion on Evolution.
It is the typical thing you Evolustionist do. Instead of discussin Evolution with someone you figure out if they believe in creation and then attack them on that.
Just like you are trying to do with my statement about creation earlier.
So do you want to seperate the two things in this discussion or not?
When you are the one that starts making fun of my superman when I have not even mentioned him in the discussion, you don’t get to complain because I am talking about him in response to that.
Commonly fused chromosomes may be serendipity.
For instance, both humans and chimps are susceptible to the same type of diseases (malaria, hepatitis, viruses)
Since the etiology of the ‘fused’ chromosome is unknown, it could be a reaction to a disease.
This is the same way that both chimps and humans get jaundice eyes when they acquire hepatitis.
It has nothing to do with common descent as it does how sub-cellular processes react to environmental or invasive micro-organisms.
“A scientist would never stop to think that something would be or could be proof of a young Earth because they are already predisposed to assume that the Earth is billions of years old.”
The claim the universe is 10,000 years old or younger has already been soundly refuted on a previous thread yesterday. No need to rehash it, simply put, ’speed of light’. I suggest you go to yesterday’s Open Thread, all the undeniable evidence has been presented.
My post at 12:00 a.m. is based in fact and evidence on why Lab researchers use certain kinds of animals to do research, because of their anatomical or physiological similarities to humans.
Pigs – Human heart
Dogs – Lung functions in humans
etc.
“Doug,
“It ain’t that simple.”
Yes, it is.
There is no functional necessity that sequences on the ends of two African Great ape chromosomes match up to the interior of one human chromosome, right down to the end sequences, when the interior of the human chromosome is almost identitical down to the terminal sequences of the two ape chromosomes. Combined with the fact that humans have one less chromosome pair than great apes, the explanation that in the human ancestry two chromosomes fused is an obvious one. The only other option is to explain it away. The same goes for the shared mutation with other primates involving the synthesis of Vitamin C (or lack of ability to synthesize Vitamin C). Again, this is what is expected with common ancestry.
Appeals to numbers of genes and gene pairs is just hand waving. In fact, given the numbers of those pairs, the idea that the sequences are so similar when, functionally, they don’t necessarily need to be, is one of the truly MULTIPLE lines of evidence for common descent. It is curious how the same sort of evidence that is considered to reliably indicate relationships between individual humans and between human populations becomes invalid when applied at the level of species, orders, or classes. Curious, that is, until one considers that those doing the objecting are following along the lines of
1) Bible first.
2) Observed evidence second.
“Since the etiology of the ‘fused’ chromosome is unknown, it could be a reaction to a disease.”
The reason why they are fused is irrelevant and doesn’t change the conclusion that we share a common ancestor.
ksagnostic,
I’m thinking these guys would look at identical twins and be confused as to whether or not they are related. Somehow I can’t comprehend how creationists can look at simple, undeniable evidence of shared ancestry and conclude anything different.
You don’t have to be stupid to not believe in evolution . . . okay, wait, I’m wrong.
You do have to be stupid.
Sorry Doug and Agnostic, I have to disagree. Here’s some more evidence to refute the Chimp/Human similarity.
A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.
The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4
1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed ‘large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes.’ They found a number of regions that ‘might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage.’3
In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.
While previous studies have focused on base substitutions, they have missed perhaps the greatest contribution to the genetic differences between chimps and humans. Missing nucleotides from one or the other appear to account for more than twice the number of substituted nucleotides. Although the number of substitutions is about ten times higher than the number of indels, the number of nucleotides involved in indels is greater. These indels were reported to be equally represented in the chimp and human sequences. Therefore, the insertions or deletions were not occurring only in the chimp or only in the human and could also be interpreted as intrinsic differences.
Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’8 To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons6, 10, 11 have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!10
Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference.6 However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.
References
1. Archidiacono, N., Storlazzi, C.T., Spalluto, C., Ricco, A.S., Marzella, R., Rocchi, M. 1998. ‘Evolution of chromosome Y in primates.’ Chromosoma 107:241-246.
2. Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635.
3. Fujiyama, A., Watanabe, H., Toyoda, A., Taylor, T.D., Itoh, T., Tsai, S.F., Park, H.S., Yaspo, M.L., Lehrach, H., Chen, Z., Fu, G., Saitou, N., Osoegawa, K., de Jong, P.J., Suto, Y., Hattori, M., and Sakaki, Y. 2002. ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map.’ Science 295:131-134.
4. Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13.
5. Gibbons, A. 1998. ‘Which of our genes make us human?’ Science 281:1432-1434.
6. Heyer, E., Zietkeiwicz, E., Rochowski, A., Yotova, V., Puymirat, J., and Labuda D. 2001. ‘Phylogenetic and familial estimates of mitochondrial substitution rates: study of control region mutation in deep-rooting pedigrees.’ Am J Hum Genet 69:1113-1126.
7. Kakuo, S., Asaoka, K. and Ide, T. 1999. ‘Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length.’ Biochem Biophys Res Commun 263:308-314.
8. Knight, A., Batzer, M.A., Stoneking, M., Tiwari, H.K., Scheer, W.D., Herrera, R.J., and Deninger, P.L. 1996. ‘DNA sequences of Alu elements indicate a recent replacement of the human autosomal genetic complement.’ Proc. Natl Acad Sci USA 93:4360-4364.
9. Parsons T.J., Muniec, D.S., Sullivan, K., Woodyatt, N., Alliston-Greiner, R., Wilson, M.R., Berry, D.L., Holland, K.A., Weedn, V.W., Gill, P., and M.M. Holland. 1997. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat. Genet. 15:363-368.
10. Sigurgardottir, S., Helgason, A., Gulcher, J.R., Stefansson, K., and Donnelly P. 2000. ‘The mutation rate in the human mtDNA control region.’ Am J Hum Genet 66:1599-1609.
Doug,
What you are trying to basically say is that similarity proves common ancestry.
No?
Capn,
Here’s some comedic evidence for shared ancestry. Watch some National Geographic about gorillas fighting over a mate. Then go to a bar and watch a couple drunken frat boys fight over a girl. It’ll be hard to tell the difference between the two species.
The idea of “intelligent design” is the one that doesn’t match the facts.
A whale has a pelvis with vestigial leg bones. We humans have a hole in our lower eyelid that once probably functioned as a tear duct–now it’s non-functional.
Perfectly consistent with evolution–perfectly inconsistent with “intelligent design.”
“If you want to be treated like a Christian minister then start acting like one.”
If you want to be treated like a Marine then start acting like one.
Man up! a smart Marine would not spend as much time as you do beating a dead horse. In spite of Chas’s and others goading if you ignored them you would be the better man — as of now you are no better than they are ….. little boys playing with themselves — not too smart Price
“What you are trying to basically say is that similarity proves common ancestry.
No?”
Never heard of a paternity test have you Nathan?
So Capn, where is the vestigial hip bone of the whale? :)
Regular, it depends on what genetic differences you look at. Other scientists from studies more recent than the one you reference find a closer similarity. But in all cases no scientist is claiming chimps and humans do not share a common ancestor.
Doug,
I have. And if you did one on an Ape it will come up as not a humans baby everytime.
Evolution is one of those theories that becomes more and more robust.
When Darwin first postulated it (among others) in mid-19th Century, he was mainly looking at the fossil record and the morphological changes in isolated groups of finches.
Since then, all kinds of genetic data has emerged that completely supports the evolutionary model.
******
Hey! Maybe that’s it! The group that understands evolution is evolving past the humans left behind like the Neanderthals . . .
Doug,
Paternal tests look for common alleles.
from Wiki on genetic tests for humans:
Finally, Y-DNA and mtDNA tests each only trace a single lineage (one’s father’s father’s father’s etc. lineage or one’s mother’s mother’s mother’s etc. lineage). At 10 generations back, an individual has up to 1024 unique ancestors (fewer if ancestor cousins interbred) and a Y-DNA or mtDNA test is only studying one of those ancestors, as well as their descendants and siblings (same sexed siblings for Y-DNA or all siblings for mtDNA). However, most genealogists maintain contact with many cousins (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., with different surnames) whose Y-DNA and mtDNA are different, and thus can be encouraged to be tested to find additional ancestral DNA lineages.
Doug, I don’t think you read and absorbed that lengthy article I previously posted. :D
“I have. And if you did one on an Ape it will come up as not a humans baby everytime.”
Nobody claimed one would. You are the one claiming DNA is no indicator of shared ancestry. According to your position your parents could compare their DNA to your and you’d expect to see no similarities. Science, and reality, say otherwise.
The entire concept of a paternity test works the same as on the Maury Show as it does comparing the DNA of humans and apes. I’ve officially dumbed myself down as much as possible. If these basic concepts still can’t be explained to you then you’ll have to find someone that can communicate on a lower denominator.
Doug,
The “degree” of similarity it the problem here, not that they are simply similar.
I understand the concept just fine. I think you are the one who doesn’t grasp how similarity doesn’t prove anything other than… similarity.
“Evolution is one of those theories that becomes more and more robust.
When Darwin first postulated it (among others) in mid-19th Century, he was mainly looking at the fossil record and the morphological changes in isolated groups of finches.
Since then, all kinds of genetic data has emerged that completely supports the evolutionary model.”
Is the reason creationists refer to scientists as “Darwinists” because creationists are still stuck in the 19th century?
Well Gentlemen and Ladies,
you too Capn,
I’m heading out, my eyes are slamming shut…
Sorry Nathan, I’m incapable of dumbing myself down further to aid in your desire to remain ignorant of the obvious.
“If you want to have a discussion with me on Evolution without me interjecting my faith, you will first have to stop using my faith to attack me in a discussion on Evolution.”
Wrong. You made the connection yourself.
“My belief in creation comes from the Bible first and observation of evidence second.”
That’s your statement. I am holding you accountable to it. To claim that I am using your faith to attack you simply because I hold you accountable to what you said is, whether you realize it or not, dishonest, when your faith is the reason why you look at the evidence the way you do. And make no mistake, it is. YOU are the one who interjected your faith in very sentence I quoted. It’s relevant, and your attempt to seperate a discussion of evidence from your stated beliefs about the PRIMARY source of your belief in creation is frankly dishonest. Which makes the following cries of foul play hollow indeed.
“It is the typical thing you Evolustionist do.”
To anyone reading this thread and simply following this conversation (probably no one as I type this), I encourage you to go back and reread everyting I said about Nathan’s sentence and his arguments. I never, ever engaged in argument by labeling. I dealt with what he said. Period. Saying “It is the typical thing you Evolutionists do”, on the other hand, is now arguing with an assigned label, rather than what I said.
“Instead of discussin Evolution with someone you figure out if they believe in creation and then attack them on that.”
Again, reread this thread. I specifically discussed evidence, including describing why it is evidence. The problem isn’t that I won’t discuss evidence, it is also that I won’t let him off the hook for what he said earlier regarding the priority he assigns to evidence. He wants to seperate what he says about wanting to discuss just the evidence from what he said earlier about where evidence ranks with regards to why he believes as he does. I won’t permit him to do that in discussion with me. Why? Because it is relevant. His basis for ignoring evidence is relevant.
“Just like you are trying to do with my statement about creation earlier.
“So do you want to seperate the two things in this discussion or not?”
No, because they are not seperate. You yourself assigned the level of importance to observed evidence, and it is clearly secondary to your belief in the Bible. Your belief in creation comes from the Bible first. This means that your objection to evolution also comes from the Bible first. If you argue otherwise, you are being disingenuous.
“When you are the one that starts making fun of my superman when I have not even mentioned him in the discussion, you don’t get to complain because I am talking about him in response to that.”
1) You referenced the Bible first, and who is the Bible’s main character? Your claim as to who introduced “your superman” is a hollow one.
2) To be clear on why I am invoking the comparison. One can always invoke the “well maybe” argument, especially when the reason why evidence is being rejected or explained away is because of a belief in a supreme being who created the world in a time and fashion with one’s belief in a book concerning said supreme being. That is a dues ex machina, the ultimate get out of jail card when confronted with evidence that does not jibe with a strongly held, indeed identity defining, belief.
Regular asks where is the vestigial hip bone in the whale.
Duh.
Various whales have more or less hip and leg development, depending where on “the tree” their branch split off from the common descendant . . . exactly as one would expect from prediction by the theory.
More here:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-evolution/how-does-evol-work/how-does-evolution-work.html
Because evolution is complex and there are many seeming inconsistencies, those who know just enough to attack it can make an apparently strong case among the ignorant.
There’s no scholarly support for anti-evolutionary theory, because there’s no empirical support for it.
Period.
Similarity doesn’t mean common ancestory.
BS.
That’s exactly how linguist Jones was able to see that Sanskrit was an Indo-European language related to Greek and Latin.
Latin–Frater
Sanskrit–Bhrahter
English–Brother
Latin–Deo
Sanskrit–Diva
English–divine
Latin–videre [to see]
Sanskrit–vid [to know]
English–wit, wise [knowledge]
You find similar gemstones in areas of the world that have similar processes that create those gemstones.
Seeing similarity and difference is the basis for every scientific principle we’ve got.
That’s the whole idea behind the periodic table and what’s called “periodicity” for instance.
Genetics according to Genesis:
Jacob in order to pull a faast one on his father in law — knows how to mate different colors of goats… he puts up a board in front of the female being mated… to get a spotted goat, he paints the board in spots… to get a black goat, he puts up a black goat… and to get a white goat, he puts up a white board… What ever color the female sees as she is being mated will be e the color of the baby goat…
THIS is Bible based Genetics!!
I am not makin this stuff up!!
Regular
1) Your source for your article is unattributed, and it is clearly a secondary source.
2) Nothing in that article rebuts the evidence discussed by Doug or myself.
3) Ask the authors of the actual studied being referenced whether they agree with the obvious creationist take (indeed, the YEC take) on the article, and particularly the conclusions therein.
4) The presumed age of a modern human species has nothing to do with comparisons between human and chimpanzee DNA. The author of the article either has no idea what he or she is talking about, or, more likely, is intentionally misrepresenting the basis of evidence (professional creationists do that).
5) About those pesky reoviruses, care to explain why we share evidence of historical viral infections with primates that match up with other evidence of taxonomic relationships? That is, we share reoviral sequences with great apes than old world monkeys, and share more reoviral sequences with both apes and old world monkeys than with new world monkeys. You know, since inherited reoviral sequences, as indicated in the article you quoted, also account for some of the differences between human and chimp DNA. If shared reoviral sequences by humans and not chimpanzees are evidence of systematic DNA differences between humans and chimps, then shared reoviral sequences on identical points of the human and chimpanzee genomes are evidence of a shared history of infection, and just as shared histories of infection in humans are seen as evidence of shared ancestry between humans, such shared history of infections between humans and chimpanzees would be seen as evidence of shared ancestry between humans and chimpanzees. After all, if one rule is followed for comparing and interpreting similarities between the DNA across human populations, then it stands to follow that the same rule should be followed for intepreting similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences.
Let it never be said that I don’t own up to mistakes.
When I used the term reoviruses, I should have used the term retroviruses.
In fact, to be completely accurate, I should have used the terminology rndogenous retroviruses.
Like Regular, I really need to be going to bed.
Doh!
Endogenous retroviruses.
JUSTWONDERING, the dishonest is exactly what I pointed out, Evolution is the commonly held understanding of the origins of the species. The premise for the theory is available in every text book, it is the established theory.
While I.D. is the alternate, the opposing theory which wishes to usurp the established theory. The dishonest comes from the stance taken that rather then the I.D. propionate having to prove their theory which they may or may not be able to do. The tactic is taken where the Evolutionist is asked to prove theirs.
Pointing to questions that the I.D. already knows that the Evolution does know the answer to, without the I.D. having the answer either. If I were to ask you for an answer to a question that I myself do not know the answer to. Than accuse you of being stupid for not knowing the answer, that is intellectually dishonest.
For the record, there is a difference between Intelligent design and Creationism, while both make the claim that all things have been designed. I.D. does not put forth the answer as to whom the designer was, while creationism states it was the God of Abraham whom was the designer.
My friend whom is a creationist states there is evidence to support his belief and it is dishonest since in the public realm other creationist doe not expose this evidence to review. But rather take the tactic of attacking Evolution then putting forth the evidence for Creationism for review and letting it stand or fall on its own.
It just amazes me how some people can take such pride in being willfully stupid.
Corrected (because it really needed to be):
About those pesky (endogenous)retroviruses, care to explain why we share evidence of historical viral infections with primates that match up with other evidence of taxonomic relationships? That is, we share retroviral sequences with great apes than old world monkeys, and share more retroviral sequences with both apes and old world monkeys than with new world monkeys. You know, since inherited retroviral sequences, as indicated in the article you quoted, also account for some of the differences between human and chimp DNA. If shared retroviral sequences by humans and not chimpanzees are evidence of systematic DNA differences between humans and chimps, then shared retroviral sequences on identical points of the human and chimpanzee genomes are evidence of a shared history of infection, and just as shared histories of infection in humans are seen as evidence of shared ancestry between humans, such shared history of infections between humans and chimpanzees would be seen as evidence of shared ancestry between humans and chimpanzees. After all, if one rule is followed for comparing and interpreting similarities between the DNA across human populations, then it stands to follow that the same rule should be followed for intepreting similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA sequences.
553 posting to this thread (plus 1 for this one). It looks like my prediction early yesterday morning came true!
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/is-anti-intellectualism-hurting-america/#comment-325696
Great job anti-intellectuals and “weary” psuedo-intellectuals. There is obviously plenty of energy for this debate. It will continue.
Here is the key for every evolutionist.
1) Assume that evolution is true.
2) Observe the evidence.
3) Do not think.
4) Anything from (2) supports (1).
There’s almost a one-to-one correspondance between the “gov’t is the problem, not the solution” CONs and the “evolution is just an unproved theory” CONs.
Interesting.
Stupidity in one area spills over into stupidity in other areas.
Yup. Very common-sensical. If you willfully believe what you want to believe in one area despite fact, you’ll do it in many areas . . .
Capn,
Whether or not you believe in a God/Creator has grave ramifications on what you believe the role and limitations government should have in detailing your rights. This is why the creationists and limited government types are often synonomous.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-Thomas Jefferson, A unanimous Declaration of the…United States of America
A belief in a entity higher than ourselves is the only justification for unalienable Rights. That entity in all likelyhood had the ability to design the creation. America was founded on an assumption that such a deity existed and therefore certain rights could be demanded.
However, there is no evidence proving evolution plain and simple. That is reason enough for me to debate against it.
“Here is the key for every evolutionist.
“1) Assume that evolution is true.
“2) Observe the evidence.
“3) Do not think.
“4) Anything from (2) supports (1).”
Mere assertion and ad hominem.
rfl — please note that the Constitution of the United States (law of the land) makes no mention of a Creator, or God, or Designer, or Bible, or Jesus, or Savior, and yet — the President takes an oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the U. S. — which just happens to include those inalienable rights!
Now how can the Constitution not mention a Creator, and yet defend inalienable rights?
Chas,
The rights declared as unalienable to the people of the United States in the Declaration were included in the Constitution via the 9th amendment.
9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
“Capn,
“Whether or not you believe in a God/Creator has grave ramifications on what you believe the role and limitations government should have in detailing your rights. This is why the creationists and limited government types are often synonomous.”
Bullsh*t. Some of the most ardent anti-government types I have seen have been atheist libertarians. Which means, yes, Cap’s point was simplistic. It’s also bullsh*t because monarchies and theocracies were and are also based on belief in a God/Creator.
“A belief in a entity higher than ourselves is the only justification for unalienable Rights. That entity in all likelyhood had the ability to design the creation. America was founded on an assumption that such a deity existed and therefore certain rights could be demanded.”
A mere and unsupported (and in fact insulting) assertion. The belief in rights for people can come simply from valuing people and realizing that they, like yourself and those you love, are subject to lives of their own.
Also, just to make this clear. Belief in evolution is not predicated on disbelief in god or gods.
“However, there is no evidence proving evolution plain and simple. That is reason enough for me to debate against it.”
False statement. There are multiple lines of evidence supporting evolution (e.g., common descent). And your protestations to the contrary, given your previous self identifications on issues, I do not think that your opposition to evolution is evidence based, because you haven’t really posted anything of substance so far.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Retained by the people. Not by God for the people. The 9th Amendment is not simply a restatement of the Declaration of Independence.
And you did not address Chas.’s point (the Constitution does not mention God).
“such shared history of infections between humans and chimpanzees would be seen as evidence of shared ancestry between humans and chimpanzees”
Because a bacterial infections are capable of inhabiting both a primate and human does not prove common ancestry.
ksagnostic,
Where do the rights come from that are referred to by the 9th amendment?
“The belief in rights for people can come simply from valuing people and realizing that they, like yourself and those you love, are subject to lives of their own”
Who determines which values are valuable and which are not?
ksagnostic,
Does might make right?
Does the power in the hand of a despotic dictator determine what is right and what is wrong?
Does the power in the hands of a democracy determine what is right and what is wrong?
Case in point: Does the plurality of support for slavery prior the Civil War make slavery morally acceptable during that time period?
Chas and ksagnostic,
The constitution does not explicitly mention God.
So since I have answered Chas’s question, you will answer mine.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the Declaration of Independence?
2. Does the Constitution and Declaration of Independence contradict each other?
3. What is the likelihood that the founding fathers produced a Constitution that disagrees with the Declaration of Independence 11 years after they all signed the latter?
“And your protestations to the contrary, given your previous self identifications on issues, I do not think that your opposition to evolution is evidence based,”
As an agnostic, your belief in evolution need not be supported by evidence either.
If not so, supply the evidence that convinced you that evolution is the ONLY way to explain life on this planet.
RFL —
# 1) It is an importaant historical document.. NOT Law…
# 2) Irrelevant question. They are not comparative documents. One is the Law of the Land. The other is basically editorial commentary on a socio/politico/economic situation.
ksagnostic
Posted April 5, 2008 at 7:47 am | Permalink
Corrected (because it really needed to be):
About those pesky (endogenous)retroviruses, care to explain why we share evidence of historical viral infections with primates that match up with other evidence of taxonomic relationships? That is, we share retroviral sequences with great apes than old world monkeys, and share more retroviral sequences with both apes and old world monkeys than with new world monkeys.
——————-
Erm, well…virology is not my strong suit, but I’ll take a stab at it.
Viruses of all types manifest themselves similarly in mammals. Rabies virus that is found quite a few mammals is hardly found in others (squirrels, etc.)
Viruses, such as retro-viruses, which can be found in both humans and certain apes, usually manifest themselves in the same patterns of organs, skin, internal, bone, etc. It’s not a wonder that there are similarities, because the same type of organs are being attacked.
The reaction to the retro-virus, is in my opinion more of a function of how similar organ’s micro-physiology react to a disease, rather than an indicator that the genetic structure is alike.
This would be like saying, if you put sand in a combustion fueled by gasoline, it will clog it up and stop running. A combustion engine that is a 4 cylinder and one that is a Wankel style engine are both combustion engines, but they have different structural (anatomical) characteristics.
What your proposal says to me is that you are stating that function and reactions of that functions to a certain virus is an indicator of genetic similarities.
Sorry, I ain’t buying it simply because function in different forms does not mean the same design necessarily. Similarities yes, the same – no.
The Founders left GOD out of the Constitution to make the very unique point (at that time) that the LAW of the Land belongs to the People… That Lex/Rex… instead of the norm of that time — Rex/Lex….
The RIGHTS in the Constitution come FROM the People, and are retained BY the people!!
They wanted to make a distinct separation between Church jurisdiction, and the Nation’s jurisdiction.
Read some history, rfl!! Please!!
….squirrels, etc…. NO RABIES??? You have GOT to be kidding, right?? I suppose they are technically mammals… but also known by most folks as Rodents…. :-)
Yeah Chas,
I didn’t know that either until I got bit by a squirrel. My fault, I was feeding it and decided to pet it’s tail – which it didn’t like.
The Doctor told me at the time there were no known cases in the U.S. of squirrels causing human rabies, so I didn’t have to get the shot. I did get a tetanus (I think) and some anti-biotic.
I think your Dr. is nuts!!
Whatever Chas, I’ll take the word of a physician over yours. :)
Also, show some kind of evidence for your statement… Since I know of several people who have been bitten by rbid squirrels, and I have killed several!!
Well preacher man is a lay MD and a big game hunter. He just never stops surprising me!
From the Center for Disease Control
Bites of squirrels, hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, chipmunks, rats, mice, other small rodents, rabbits, and hares almost never require rabies postexposure prophylaxis.
Small rodents (e.g., squirrels, hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, chipmunks, rats, and mice) and lagomorphs (including rabbits and hares) are almost never found to be infected with rabies and have not been known to transmit rabies to humans. From 1990 through 1996, in areas of the country where raccoon rabies was enzootic, woodchucks (groundhogs) accounted for 93% of the 371 cases of rabies among rodents reported to CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/types.html
OK Thanks James… I can accept that… guess I have just run into some very rare cases… Although, the cases I have encountered, WERE in heavily skunk infested areas…. That probably explains it!!
Well, time to run errands… Back later!!
Chas.
Posted April 5, 2008 at 11:31 am | Permalink
Also, show some kind of evidence for your statement… Since I know of several people who have been bitten by rbid squirrels, and I have killed several!!
Regular probably all 371 cases of those rabid rodents were friends of preacher mans.
“The RIGHTS in the Constitution come FROM the People, and are retained BY the people!!”
-Chas
Anjswer this qestion Chas (now that you are running errands)
Does the plurality of support for slavery prior the Civil War make slavery morally acceptable during that time period?
If what you are saying is true, then blacks had no right to freedom during the time of slavery because a majority of people supported the institution.
A majority determined that Blacks had rights, and then and only then did that have rights? Not so. Blacks had an unaleianable right to freedom just like whites no matter who and how many people disagreed. It took a Civil War to pry the will of a majority of Whites from supressing the Blacks.
Based on Jeffersonian America, Might does not make right when it comes to the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights come frome the Creator and therefore can not morally be taken away from any government or man decreed law.
The founding fathers who helped craft the constitution also signed the Declaration of Independence. Would you sign a document saying:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Chas wouldn’t.
Fortunately, a few honorable and brave men did.
Note: I answered Chas’s question. He did not answer mine. What an intellectual!
=============================================
Questions from rfl:
1. Do you agree or disagree with the Declaration of Independence?
2. Does the Constitution and Declaration of Independence contradict each other?
3. What is the likelihood that the founding fathers produced a Constitution that disagrees with the Declaration of Independence 11 years after they all signed the latter?
Response from Chas:
# 1) It is an importaant historical document.. NOT Law…
# 2) Irrelevant question. They are not comparative documents. One is the Law of the Land. The other is basically editorial commentary on a socio/politico/economic situation.
The founding fathers who helped craft the constitution also signed the Declaration of Independence. Would you sign a document saying:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
===========================
Took those founders a LONG time to see to it that those “rights” extended to ALL people!! Blacks, Women(Suffrage – sstill no ERA), Property ownership and voting rights, Gee, they left out a WHOLE lot of folks!!
They left out GAYS and LESBIANS….
Mercy, at first they didnt even think the common people were smart enough to elect their own Senators!!
Why would you just center on Slavery as a problem?? Jefferson wasnt nearly the Bible Thumper as you want to make him out to be… Do your homework on T. J. You might find it interesting!!
rfl
Posted April 5, 2008 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
Note: I answered Chas’s question. He did not answer mine. What an intellectual!
==============================
I answered your questions… just not what YOU wanted to hear… SOOO bring on the ad hominem CRAP as usual!! What an idiot!!
“…then blacks had no right to freedom during the time of slavery because a majority of people supported the institution.”
rfl
————–
How can you make the statement above? Are you saying the only ones who could be counted as “people” were the slave owners? Anyone give the blacks a voice in this?
“How can you make the statement above? Are you saying the only ones who could be counted as “people” were the slave owners? Anyone give the blacks a voice in this?”
A majority of those with a right to vote were content to let slavery continue unabated. Does a majority make right and wrong?
Are saying that in order for slavery to be wrong, you have to import enough slaves to your country so that you can create a majority of people who oppose it?
I answered your questions… just not what YOU wanted to hear… SOOO bring on the ad hominem CRAP as usual!! What an idiot!!
-Chass
When have I ever called you an insulting name?
You are a disgrace to your profession for accusing me of doing what I have not done but what you do routinely yourself.
Feel free to debate to yourself from here on, since you do not have to cajones to answer questions that reveal the incorrectness of your beliefs. I do not feel the need to respond to your feckless arguments.
Linda,
Answer this one question, please
In a hypothetical country with a government like America’s, there are 100 white people and 10 black people, 65 out of the 100 white people believe that it is okay to own blacks as slaves.
Blacks are permitted to vote but nothing else.
1. Do the ten black people have a moral justification to demand their freedom?
FYI: It takes 51 people to make a majority.
Stupid Word Press.
“Viruses of all types manifest themselves similarly in mammals. Rabies virus that is found quite a few mammals is hardly found in others (squirrels, etc.)
“Viruses, such as retro-viruses, which can be found in both humans and certain apes, usually manifest themselves in the same patterns of organs, skin, internal, bone, etc. It’s not a wonder that there are similarities, because the same type of organs are being attacked.”
Wrong. The retroviral sequences I am talking about are passed from ancestor to offspring. They are viral DNA sequences that first occurred when an organisms germ line (i.e., eggs and/or sperm) were infected. Thus, a retroviral sequence in the same location of the same chromosome in a group of humans is an indication that this group of humans shared a common ancestor who was infected. By the same token, a retroviral sequence in the same location of the same chromosome in all humans (and such retroviral sequences have been found) is an indication of an infection in an ancestor of all humans. But guess what, some of these common retroviral sequences (same location, same chromosome) are found in all humans and apes, and still others are found in all humans, all apes, and all old world monkeys, but not new world monkeys. Remember, these are inherited sequences.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vu5l013365w10q42/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
“What your proposal says to me is that you are stating that function and reactions of that functions to a certain virus is an indicator of genetic similarities.
“Sorry, I ain’t buying it simply because function in different forms does not mean the same design necessarily. Similarities yes, the same – no.”
But the sequences are not related to function, they are related to inheritance. Seperate infections, even by the same retrovirus, are not found on the exact same location on the exact same chromosome, they are found elsewhere. The only explanation, given the very nature of these infections, is that when two organisms share a retroviral sequence on the same location of the same chromosome, is that a shared ancestor has an infection. The shared retroviral sequence is a record of that infection in that ancestor.
“As an agnostic, your belief in evolution need not be supported by evidence either.”
Uhm, no, this is not an equivalence. My agnosticism is not predicated on my acceptance of evolution. In fact, I believed in evolution when I was a Catholic.
“If not so, supply the evidence that convinced you that evolution is the ONLY way to explain life on this planet.”
Evolution (common ancestry) is supported by multiple lines of evidence, which I have in fact already referenced in this thread and others. I don’t think that such evidence is relevant to you, however. As for explanations, anyone can come up with explanations. The question, however, is whether the explanations are grounded in reality. The explanations that are grounded in reality, of course, are the explanations that are supported by multiple lines of independent evidence.
“Blacks are permitted to vote but nothing else.”
As slaves, African Americans were never allowed to vote.
rfl:
The status and assumption that humans have rights is a political, moral, and social belief. The idea that other humans have rights comes from the realization that others should have the same rights that you want for yourself or yours. Yes, Jefferson did reference a creator (not really the Biblical God, by the way) in the Declaration. However, the lack of reference to God in the Constitution was intentional. The government was based on a representational democratic republic, and the Bill of Rights was added to outline the rights of citizens as individuals and as groups. That is a legal basis for rights, and agreement to that legal basis is in no way dependent on the assumption of a creator. If you don’t see that, that is a a reflection of your limitations, not those of us who do not agree with you. Furthermore, you blithely ignored the reality that belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes that all other people have rights. After all, belief in a creator god has also been the basis of the divine right of kings, or intolerant theocracies based on Sharia or “Biblical” law. Furthermore, lack of belief in a creator god is not predictive of whether someone does not believe in the concepts of rights.
Your question and argument, rfl, is a non-starter.
Trade-offs in defense against retroviruses
I have written about evolutionary trade-offs before, starting with early posts about trade-offs between seed size and seed number in plants, and trade-offs between the ability of insects to escape predators by flying away, versus the ability to hide from them by playing dead. I have also given some examples of the increasing use of sophisticated experimental (often molecular) methods in evolutionary biology. This week’s paper combines both themes.
The paper is “Restriction of an extinct retrovirus by the human TRIM5-alpha antiviral protein” by Shari Kaiser, Harmit Malik, and Michael Emerman, published in Science (vol.316 p.1756).
Retroviruses are made of RNA, but make DNA copies of themselves that can insert into the DNA of host cells they infect. HIV, the cause of AIDS, is a well-known example, but there are many others. If DNA copies of the retrovirus are inserted into cells giving rise to sperm or eggs, they can be passed to the next generation, as endogenous retroviruses. If the DNA inserts somewhere where it turns an important gene on or off, it may kill the host. Or, once in a while, this change may turn out to be beneficial. The few beneficial changes are the ones that survive and spread, just as the few mutations that are beneficial are the ones that persist.
VWXYNot has an interesting discussion of how a creationist web site misused one of her papers as evidence of “intelligent design.” She shows how shared endoviruses can be used to infer shared ancestry, providing yet more evidence that we share a recent ancestor with apes, less-recent ancestors with monkeys, etc. But that’s not what this week’s paper is about….
…except that the retrovirus it discusses is found in chimps and gorillas, but not in humans. Did our common ancestor somehow pass this endogenous retrovirus, PtERV, on to chimps and gorillas, but not to us? That seems unlikely, since each of them has multiple copies. How could we miss inheriting some of them, if they came from an ancestor shared by all three species?
In fact, if this difference in retrovirus infection were the only information we had about humans, chimps, and gorillas, it would make me wonder whether chimps might be more closely related to gorillas than they are to us. Then, they could both have inherited PtERV from an ancestor they share with each other, but not with us. But most modern family trees put chimps and humans together, on a separate branch from gorillas, so I’d look first for another explanation…
…and, as Deep Thought once said, “there is an answer; a simple answer.” The chimps and gorillas didn’t inherit the endogenous retrovirus from a common ancestor. By comparing the viral-origin DNA in chimps and gorillas, the authors estimate that they picked it up 3-4 million years ago. Although this is 1000 times longer ago than some religion-based estimates of the age of the earth, it is only one-thousandth the actual age of the earth. It was about the time when Lucy lived, and at least a million years after the last common ancestor of humans and chimps lived. So, their ancestors living at that time caught the virus; ours didn’t. [See comments for additional evidence for this.]
But why didn’t we? 3-4 million years ago, the (nonshared) ancestors of humans, chimps, and gorillas were all living in Africa, perhaps near each other. Could our ancestors have somehow been more resistant to this virus than theirs? That’s the main question answered by this paper.
Ideally, the authors would have resurrected some 3-million-year-old virus to test. This probably would have involved crossing rope bridges, being chased by tigers (not ordinarily found in Africa, but maybe escaped from a zoo?), and stealing a bit of amber (containing mosquitoes that had bitten chimps) from a Mayan temple (don’t ask me how that got to Africa). But, instead, they decided to resurrect the original PtERV virus from endogenous retroviruses in modern chimps.
Mutations over the last 3-4 million years have changed each individual copy in the chimp genome, but there are enough copies per chimp that they were able to figure out the original DNA sequence. They made a hybrid virus containing the original RNA sequence from PtERV, particularly for that part of the virus targeted by a defense protein, TRIM5-alpha, found in all apes, including humans.
They then tested whether this virus could infect cells with the human version of TRIM5-alpha, or those from various apes and monkeys. Most apes and monkeys were susceptible to the PtERV virus, but modern humans, modern chimps, and modern sooty mangabeys were resistant. Because chimp DNA is full of “fossil” endogenous retroviruses, we know that their ancestors 3-4 million years ago must have been susceptible, but they’ve apparently evolved resistance since then. We just beat them to it. Clever of us…
…except that all the species that are most resistant to PtERV are also highly susceptible to infection by HIV. They were able to identify a specific region in our TRIM5-alpha gene that determines specificity in virus defense. One sequence gives resistance to PtERV, another to HIV. Take your choice.
But, would it spoil some vast eternal plan if we had two different copies of TRIM5-alpha? Would that give resistance to both viruses? While we’re at it, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a different genetic code (for translating DNA into protein) from all other animals? We’d still be able to digest their proteins (same amino acids), but any virus that could reproduce in them wouldn’t be able to reproduce in us, because it would make nonfunctional proteins (different amino acid order). Of course, if humans had a different genetic code, that would make it really obvious that we had been created separately from other life, which would undermine the need for faith… “and vanished in a puff of logic.”
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2007/06/tradeoffs_in_defense_against_r.html
Retrovirus Struck Ancestors Of Chimps And Gorillas Millions Of Years Ago, But Not Ancestral Humans
ScienceDaily (Mar. 9, 2005) — The ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas were infected with a deadly retrovirus about three to four million years ago, but there is no evidence it infected ancestors of modern-day humans, according to research by genome scientists. The virus struck after humans had split off the evolutionary tree from primates, researchers said. The infection may have played a role in the evolution of such great apes as chimps and gorillas. The research appears in the April issue of the journal Public Library of Science-Biology, which is available online on March 1.
Researchers studying portions of the genome containing ‘retroelements,’ also known as junk DNA, found many copies of a gene sequence in the chimp and gorilla genome that didn’t appear anywhere in the human genome. They translated that genome sequence into its corresponding protein, and discovered that it was the remnant of a retrovirus, a type of virus that copies its genetic information into the host’s genome. Evidence suggests that the ‘retroelement’ originated from an external retrovirus that actively infected ape species in the past.
“The reason retroviruses are so deadly, at the genetic level, is that they have a tremendous potential to mess up a gene and interfere with its expression,” explained Dr. Evan Eichler, UW associate professor of genome sciences and co-author of the study. “That can have negative effects. It’s a double-whammy: the virus infected and possibly killed off some of the population, but also caused genetic errors in survivors. Those errors would have later eliminated more of the population.”
The virus had invaded the genome in the germline – in sperm or egg cells – allowing the sequence to be passed on to future generations. In those animals in which the virus was taken up next to or inside a gene – in the part of the genome that codes for the most important biological functions – the virus had an even stronger effect.
What researchers don’t understand is why the virus affected the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and Old World monkeys, but didn’t affect the ancestors of humans or of Asian apes like orangutans and gibbons. The infections took place independently, and did not originate in a common ancestor of humans and apes. The event also took place between three and four million years ago, well after the separation of humans from apes. That split is estimated to have occurred five to seven million years ago. During that period, ancestral humans were likely to be living in the same area of Africa as great apes. African apes may have been susceptibile to the virus, or ancestral humans and Asian apes may have been resistant to it. Another possibility is that some early humans may have carried the virus, but eventually died off.
Researchers also don’t know the impact the virus had on the primate species it did affect. They found many copies of the virus in the genomes of both species, but only a tiny fraction of those copies landed in or near a gene, where it would have the greatest impact. Other studies have shown that most retroviruses typically land near or within genes. This difference may mean the animals that had the virus taken up in or near a gene didn’t survive long. Because of that natural selection, researchers believe that the virus may have had major impacts on the formation of the species we now call chimps and gorillas. The virus struck when each of the primate groups was still an incipient species with widely varying populations.
If the virus had killed off much of the population of both species, it may have created what evolutionary biologists call a population bottleneck. This much smaller group of surviving animals would then sort out most of its genetic variation in relatively fewer generations than would a larger group. This would lead to a higher probability of rare genetic variants becoming fixed in a short time. Before long, a genetically disparate population, possibly with wide variations in morphology, would have emerged, leading to today’s chimps and gorillas.
###
The study’s lead authors are Zhaoshi Jiang, a Ph.D. student in Eichler’s lab at the UW, and Chris Yohn, a technician at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
Adapted from materials provided by University Of Washington.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050308093951.htm
from the article above and other by the same author
Re: Retrovirus
…there is no evidence it infected ancestors of modern-day humans, according to research by genome scientists.
The study’s lead authors are Zhaoshi Jiang, a Ph.D. student in Eichler’s lab at the UW, and Chris Yohn, a technician at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
“When have I ever called you an insulting name?”
[rfl]
answer: nearly every day!! LOL!!
I truly hate word press.
Oh holy hell. Nearly 600 comments on my favorite subject, and I missed it. The subject I have decided to devote the next 5 years of my education to, LOL!
If anyone is still reading this, I’m much too lazy to dig up my previous posts supporting evolution, but I’d offer a link with examples of evolution, Hawaiian-style ;)
http://www.hawaii-forest.com/evolution.html
Sadly, Tara, it wasn’t 600 comments on your favorite subject. There were several detours along the way and many of those were on rocky paths. No minds were opened to accept new information along the way.
Let’s try again.
“from the article above and other by the same author
“Re: Retrovirus
…there is no evidence it infected ancestors of modern-day humans, according to research by genome scientists.
“The study’s lead authors are Zhaoshi Jiang, a Ph.D. student in Eichler’s lab at the UW, and Chris Yohn, a technician at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.”
1) I wasn’t talking about “it” as in a single retrovirus, I was talking about multiple, multiple and different retroviral remnants. Go back and look at my links. Here are a couple more plus the talk origins link that bears repeating(stupid word press):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10468595?ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890939?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10773466?dopt=Abstract
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
On the last link, pay special attention to the graph on Figure 4.4.1. The number of shared retrovirusus in the SAME location increase according to the sequence of new world monkeys, old world monkeys, apes, and African apes. Which, again, since these sequences are inherited, is what one would expect if evolution (common descent) was true. And these sequences pretty much line up with fossil evidence, other DNA evidence, blood protien evidence, morphological evidence, and even some behavioral evidence.
The article you referenced was interesting to me (because primate taxonomics is a HUGE interest of mine). It does seem to tangle the generally agreed upon seperation sequence of gorillas first, the human-chimp/bonobo split. However, the article you reference also talks about multiple remnants of the same viral DNA in chimp and gorilla genomes. How many of these locations are shared is not stated. Apparently, however, this virus would have been deadly when it landed near functional genes. It is possible that the virus ran rampant through hominid and hominoid populations, but that the remnants of the virus in gorillas and chimpanzees have more to do with common environment, and that the ancestor of modern human beings was somewhere else. From what I understand, it would be the common locations of the remnants that would be revealing. That is, if the gorilla and chimpanzee not only shared remnants of the viral DNA, but shared them in the same location and according to an expected rate of mutation, that would be a problematic issue for those who advocate a more recent human-chimpanzee/bonobo split (which would come as a relief to some more traditional primate taxonomists who have argued that it is unlikely that knuckle walking would have evolved independently twice). Of course, the reason that the more recent chimpanzee/bonobo-human split is so widely held is because of lots of other DNA and blood protein evidence.
But then, that is the nature of science. Self correcting.
To be clearer:
“The number of shared retrovirusus from the human genome in the SAME location increase according to the sequence of new world monkeys, old world monkeys, apes, and African apes.”
Note in the graph three remnants shared only between humans.
Very cool link, Tara.
Tara, you know the bible thumpers will claim all that as adaptation, not evolution, regardless of the facts.
Interesting article, though.
Where do we get our Human rights?
“ksagnostic”
[rfl]
” The idea that other humans have rights comes from the realization that others should have the same rights that you want for yourself or yours.”
[Where is the "Golden Rule" referenced in the constitution as the source of human rights"]
“Yes, Jefferson did reference a creator (not really the Biblical God, by the way) in the Declaration. However, the lack of reference to God in the Constitution was intentional.”
[Because the rights of man being derived from the Creator where considered "self evident".]
“The government was based on a representational democratic republic, and the Bill of Rights was added to outline the rights of citizens as individuals and as groups.”
[The Bill of Rights were never intended to list ALL the rights that American citizens. Trying to do so would limit the scope of rights protected. This explains the 9th amendment.]
“That is a legal basis for rights, and agreement to that legal basis is in no way dependent on the assumption of a creator.”
[Where is the legal basis for the "Golden Rule" writting in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any document authored by at least one of the men responsible for producing both of those founding documents to this nation?]
“Furthermore, you blithely ignored the reality that belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes that all other people have rights.”
[The source of human rights must be defined if you are going to determine what power government has in changing or eliminating them.]
“After all, belief in a creator god has also been the basis of the divine right of kings,”
[Belief that all men are created equal and have equal rights is NOT consistent with divine right of Kings philosopy. This is exactly why the Declaration was written as it was.]
“or intolerant theocracies based on Sharia or “Biblical” law ”
[intolerant theocracies are lead by intolerent men who are not protecting the human rights given to all men by the Creator. No government, King, or human institution, can take these rights away.]
Furthermore, lack of belief in a creator god is not predictive of whether someone does not believe in the concepts of rights.
[True, anybody can make up whatever basis rights they want to, regardless of whether or not that basis is in the Constitution or any other document. You have proven as such in your last post on this topic].
“Yes, Jefferson did reference a creator (not really the Biblical God, by the way) in the Declaration. However, the lack of reference to God in the Constitution was intentional.”
[Because the rights of man being derived from the Creator where considered “self evident”.]
Followed by:
“Furthermore, you blithely ignored the reality that belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes that all other people have rights.”
[The source of human rights must be defined if you are going to determine what power government has in changing or eliminating them.]
Obviously, you replied to the argument of the moment without bothering to consider whether you might be undercutting yourself later on (in the very same post, I might add). “God’s not mentioned in the constitution” –> They didn’t need to, the rights are self evident. But then later, “belief in a creator God is not predictive of whether someone believes in rights”–>the source of rights must be defined if your are going to determine what power government has.
Cerebral inertia. Remarkable.