Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That original DNA lived in the trees and had a long tail.
You need to accept the fact and recognize the proof of evolution is there, not only for animals, but also man.
I think I will go get my banana for breakfast now. Sure glad I evolved enough not to have to climb a tree for it.
I will never believe your religious brouhaha.
Nor would I ever bow to some arrogant, intolerant, hateful being even if one existed.
That said, why do you try to convert atheists?
For the most part, we don't care. At least, I can say with 100% assurance, I do not want anyone trying to convert me to anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REFORMED
Just out of curiosity, cheilgirl, why does it seem you are so hateful toward Christians?
It doesn't look to me like she said anything hateful towards Christians at all. Would you like to reconsider your accusation?
[Edit] I did see where you apologized, presumably for saying this, but I couldn't tell whether you were apologizing because you could have made the accusation more politely or because the accusation itself was false.
Virtually all cells of every living thing (plants, animals, and humans) contain tiny strands of coded information called DNA. DNA directs the cell, telling it what to produce and when. Therefore, much of your appearance and personality is determined by DNA you inherited from your parents.
In human cells, the nucleus contains 99.5% of the DNA. Half of it came from the individual’s mother and half from the father. Because both halves are shuffled together, it is difficult to identify which parent contributed any tiny segment. In other words, half of this DNA changes with each generation. However, outside the nucleus of each cell are thousands of little energy-producing components called mitochondria, each containing a circular strand of DNA. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes only from the mother. Where did she get hers? From her mother—and so on. Normally, mtDNA does not change from generation to generation.
In 1987, a team at the University of California at Berkeley published a study comparing the mtDNA of 147 people from five of the world’s geographic locations.2 They concluded that all 147 had the same female ancestor. She is now called “the mitochondrial Eve.”
From a biblical perspective, do we know where Eve lived? Because the flood was so destructive, no one knows where the Garden of Eden was.4 However, Noah’s three daughters-in-law, who lived only a dozen or so generations after Eve, began raising their families near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey—very near the common boundary of Asia, Africa, and Europe. (Each of us can claim one of Noah’s daughters-in-law as our ever-so-great grandmother.) So it is not surprising that Asia, Africa, and Europe are candidate homes for mitochondrial Eve.
Likewise, when similar words, sounds, and grammar of the world’s most widely spoken languages are traced back in time, they also seem to originate near Ararat.5 Another convergence near eastern Turkey is found when one traces agriculture back in time.6
When did mitochondrial Eve live? To answer this, one must know how frequently mutations occur in mtDNA. Initial estimates were based on the following faulty reasoning: “Humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Because the mtDNA in humans and chimpanzees differ in 1,000 places, one mutation occurs about every 10,000 years.” Another erroneous approach began by assuming that Australia was first populated 40,000 years ago. The average number of mitochondrial mutations among Australian aborigines divided by 40,000 years provided another extremely slow mutation rate for mtDNA. These estimated rates, based on evolution, led to the mistaken belief that mitochondrial Eve lived 100,000–200,000 years ago.8 This surprised evolutionists who believe that our common ancestor was an apelike creature that lived 31/2 million years ago.9
A greater surprise, even disbelief, occurred in 1997, when it was announced that mutations in mtDNA occur 20 times more rapidly than had been estimated. Without assuming that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor 5 million years ago or that Australia was populated 40,000 years ago, mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate, mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.10
Is there a “genetic Adam”? A man receives from his father a segment of DNA which lies on the Y chromosome; this makes him a male. Where did your father receive his segment? From his father. If we all descended from one man, all males should have the same Y chromosome segment—except for rare mutations.
A 1995 study of a worldwide sample of 38 men showed no changes in this segment of the Y chromosome that is always inherited from fathers. Had humans evolved and all men descended from one male who lived 500,000 years ago, each should carry about 19 mutations. Had he lived 150,000 years ago, 5.5 mutations would be expected.11 Because no changes were found, our common father probably lived only thousands of years ago. While Adam was father of all, our most recent common male ancestor was Noah.
Yes, new discoveries show that we carry traces of Adam and Eve in our cells. Furthermore, our common “parents” are probably removed from us by only 200–300 generations. All humans have a common and recent bond—a family bond. We are all cousins.
It doesn't look to me like she said anything hateful towards Christians at all. Would you like to reconsider your accusation?
[Edit] I did see where you apologized, presumably for saying this, but I couldn't tell whether you were apologizing because you could have made the accusation more politely or because the accusation itself was false.
June removed some of my comments. I apologized for saying a couple things to her, but I had been offended not only by this comment, but others she had posted before in my forums, which seemed way too abrasive or unkind. Anyway, I guess it's a dropped subject.
I like to think that I have an open mind, If a Christian on this thread could provide me with with just one shred of proveable evidence that a God exists, I will gladly use the almost empty church in my town.
Sometimes it is very hard for a Christian to answer a statement like this, because it seems, based on your wording, that you are not even willing to entertain a conversation. A lot of Athiests have made statements like this, and when a Christian responds with what they believe to be their own proof of God's existence, many times, the Athiest who has posed such a question will fire back with something like "That's no proof" or "sorry, that's not good enough", or just insinuate/tell the Christian how rediculous they are for believing in God. Many times, it ends up in a heated debate with uncalled for harshness. If a Christian truly felt as if an Athiest were seriously asking for "more info on God", then they would most likely answer you in droves. It is more or less people protecting themselves for what it seems would end up in some sort of 'attack' against our beliefs.
Just thought it may be helpful to understand why some Christians may not answer your question when you pose it in this kind of light...
That original DNA lived in the trees and had a long tail.
You need to accept the fact and recognize the proof of evolution is there, not only for animals, but also man.
I think I will go get my banana for breakfast now. Sure glad I evolved enough not to have to climb a tree for it.
Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said,
Quote:
"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that
Quote:
"there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Sorry not a one......
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart.
Evolutionists show their mean-spirited nature when they debate creationists, usually at a state university. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to these debates in his book, Monkey Business: "Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. Creationists load the audience.
We creationists do not "load" the audience (not that I'm above such a thing). It's only that it is very difficult or impossible to do in a secular university. No, Eldredge was wrong. They lose the debates because they have taken the wrong side of the argument!
Evolutionists hate creationists and anyone who believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. They are as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when we talk of personal accountability to a sovereign God. They are bigots and haters with a few exceptions. Please remember that they are the ones who believe incredibly silly things WITHOUT any scientific data to support their philosophy and religion. They are often arrogant, asinine and audacious.
The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. If something is said to be a “theory”, it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved.
Sorry for sounding mean my intentions are not to be mean, but point out facts.
Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said,
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that Sorry not a one......
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart.
I'm beginning to think that creationists just hand out cue cards nowadays full of PRATTs and outright lies oh well, if their faith is so meager that they need to pretend it's science then so be it. People here in England(and most of europe for that matter) will just keep on laughing at this 50's american phenomenon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Route_66_traveler
Evolutionists show their mean-spirited nature when they debate creationists, usually at a state university. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to these debates in his book, Monkey Business: "Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. Creationists load the audience.
We creationists do not "load" the audience (not that I'm above such a thing). It's only that it is very difficult or impossible to do in a secular university. No, Eldredge was wrong. They lose the debates because they have taken the wrong side of the argument!
Evolutionists hate creationists and anyone who believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. They are as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when we talk of personal accountability to a sovereign God. They are bigots and haters with a few exceptions. Please remember that they are the ones who believe incredibly silly things WITHOUT any scientific data to support their philosophy and religion. They are often arrogant, asinine and audacious.
The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. If something is said to be a “theory”, it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved.
Sorry for sounding mean my intentions are not to be mean, but point out facts.
And thus when all else fails, insult the people on the other side.
June removed some of my comments. I apologized for saying a couple things to her, but I had been offended not only by this comment, but others she had posted before in my forums, which seemed way too abrasive or unkind. Anyway, I guess it's a dropped subject.
I guess what I was interested in was whether you thought Chielgirl was being “hateful toward Christians” because she called God (as described by Christian dogma) an “arrogant, intolerant, hateful being”. It seems to me that criticism of the Christian God does not constitute criticism of Christians.
A lot of Athiests have made statements like this, and when a Christian responds with what they believe to be their own proof of God's existence, many times, the Athiest who has posed such a question will fire back with something like "That's no proof" or "sorry, that's not good enough", or just insinuate/tell the Christian how rediculous they are for believing in God.
Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
First off, this is lifted, word for word without attribution from http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html. Why would you steal someone else’s comments and pretend they were your own?
Secondly, why would you steal such ridiculous comments as these? There’s nothing here but PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times), quote mines (quotes taken out of context to change the original speaker’s meaning), and unsupported insults.
Quote:
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not. Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said,
Quote:
Quote: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that
Quote: "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
The Kitts quote is 34 years old. Kitts goes on in the original to say: “The claim has been repeatedly made that the fossil record provides a basis for the falsification of synthetic theory [Neo-Darwinism] and Simpson has demonstrated that this is not the case.” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote54)
The point Patterson was making was that we can never be sure whether a particular transitional fossil was the actual ancestor of a new group, or simply closely related to a similar looking ancestral species that hasn’t been found yet. It doesn’t mean that the many transitional fossils that have been identified couldn’t actually have been transitional in an ancestor-descendant sense. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html).
Quote:
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them.
No, they’re still quite valid. And many more have been found in the roughly 30 years since the quotes from Kitts and Patterson listed above were first made.
Quote:
Evolutionists show their mean-spirited nature when they debate creationists, usually at a state university. One of the best known evolutionists, Niles Eldredge, refers to these debates in his book, Monkey Business: "Creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The creationists nearly always win. Creationists load the audience.
We creationists do not "load" the audience (not that I'm above such a thing).
So Eldredge is “mean spirited” for charging that creationists tend to load the debates, but then the author admits he’s not above such a thing? How can it be mean spirited to accuse someone of doing what he admits he’s willing to do?
Quote:
Evolutionists hate creationists and anyone who believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God.
No, evolutionists dislike creationists for trying to undermine science and hoodwink the public. Additionally, many evolutionists also believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. They just aren’t so idolatrous as to believe the literal word of the Bible even where it conflicts with worldly evidence left by God Himself.
Quote:
They are bigots and haters with a few exceptions. Please remember that they are the ones who believe incredibly silly things WITHOUT any scientific data to support their philosophy and religion. They are often arrogant, asinine and audacious.
And now the rhetoric descends into simple name calling. Very sad. (Although I kind of like the “audacious” part.)
Quote:
The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. If something is said to be a “theory”, it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved.
The theory of evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. Rather than just a guess, that means it’s a coherent and well-tested explanation for a wide assortment of observations. Other such “theories” include the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of gravity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
