Neil, It's neat how you magically made the letters appear in front of my face just now. Since you obviously couldn't have a computer or anything, right? What? You mean you trust the scientific method as long as it suits your world view? Cool. Wish I could be that two-faced.
Your bridge analogy was laughable. You just used the scientific method to demonstrate that some bridges will fail after a certain number of attempts. Congratulations.
And naming fallacies, while making you look smug, doesn't help your argument since everybody is ignoring SOLID EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. The challenge at hand is:
Please explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry.
And of course Gerard's addition: why do other endogenous retrovirusses consistently appear in analogous parts of the genomes of other creatures. Always close together in vertical groupings in a particular branch of the phylogenic tree, instead of all over the place?
Good luck. And everybody pay attention to how Yamil posts next, as I mentioned below.
Yamil, 1st of all: Whenever Gerard or myself attempts to show you how and why you are in error, this conversation goes elsewhere, and then you claim victory. Stop that, it's a poor debate tactic and makes you look arrogant.
As to your last post: You are avoiding the question. And your counter shows (very evidently) that you know nothing of endogenous retroviruses or the theory of evolution. Here's another hint: Endogenous retroviruses have nothing to do with genetic similarity in the sense of which you are speaking. It has a lot more to do with primates catching colds several thousand years ago.
Educate yourself and get back to me. Or...show your ignorance and reply with another snide, arrogant remark. Your next post will show everyone whether you are a coward and an intellectual fraud, or not...
What Gerard said. Now then...If evolution doesn't happen (and the earth isn't billions or at the very least millions of years old), then please explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry.
Hint: Endogenous Retroviruses weren't part of the original "design", lol.
Neil, This is true, but not really an argument against evolution. Evolutionary theory PREDICTED not only that we would find fossils, but what sort of fossils we would find and where (geographically, how deep in the ground) we would find them. That is one very good reason why scientists are able to use the fossil record as evidence.
I see nobody wants to touch my question: Explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry. Can you handle the truth?
So who is actually singing the "I'm smart, you're stupid" song? I forgot, weren't the atheists supposed to be the smug and arrogant ones? Guess I'm just confused. At any rate, nice dodge. And nice Todd Friel logic there as well
But you still haven't explained how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry. More FACTS that contradict your faith.
Yamil, Your last post was silly. I present fossil evidence and you say, "You'll have to do better than fossil evidence". What more do you want? Okay, in that case, explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry. Hint: "Goddidit" is not a valid answer.More undeniable evidence for evolution...
Yamil, How ironic that a young earth creationist brings up fossils. You say it's "scarce", but you neglect to bring up what we HAVE found. The fossil record will always be relatively scarce and Darwin never predicted that it wouldn't be (when was the last time you dug up something that was 200 million years old?)
Take a look at this picture. That is a great collection of fossils. Of the intermediate and transitional forms, scientists also have: Reptile-birds Reptile-mammals Legged whales Legged seacows, etc. (see link below)
Faced with this kind of evidence, you cannot say that science does not have transitional forms or a great fossil record.
That is why it was hard to take Yamil's claims seriously- I've seen clear evidence for things he so blindly dismisses because of *snicker* faith. Facts are facts. Faith is faith. If the two conflict, the facts should win.
Yamil, I can't wait until a real Christian comes along and sees the way you have been spewing venom all over this comment board. As for your comments on evolution, you made 2 claims, Gerard and I commented on how absurdley made-up they are, and you come back saying "Yeah! I told them monkeys!". Idiot.
Yamil, "Funny, I have not quoted anyone and you claim that I take advice from false teachers. And you take advice from saints, right. It's that what you are getting at?" Try again.
""Here's a good start..." Now hold on horsey, you are already trying to go from subject to subject without answering anything." Show me an intelligible argument and I will answer it. You have yet to do so with regards to evolution, so I thought I would show you 100 million year old FOSSIL, which completely contradicts your belief system. It was fun for me, what can I say? Oh, and way to avoid hard evidence for evolution and a transitional fossil at that. Can't face the facts and don't know anything, so you bring the argument back to...a non-argument. Well done
"You are going to have to do better than that if you are going to strut over here claiming to be smarter than everyone else simply because you affirm that your great grandad was a flee-infested monkey." Strawman. And arrogant at that.
"P.S. I see since you can't catch any fish over here, you resort to bring your monkey friends over here. So predictable." You, sir, are a wonderful example of a Christian. Everybody should congratulate you for being such a wonderful, compassionate, Christ-like figure.
Yamil, What you have just shown is an inability to understand basic concepts due to your delusion, and you managed to be more arrogant than most at that. Your last post dripped with ignorance of the theory of evolution. I feel that I can talk about the bible (for example) because I've read it, studied it, and continue to read it almost every day. You, on the other hand, take false arguments from false teachers and accept them as fact. If you take the time to educate yourself on a subject such as evolution, feel free to talk about it. Otherwise, shut the hell up. Here's a good start: Transitional fossils are common, but this one grabs the attention of people more than others. This fossil is roughly 145 million years old, by the way. fficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi>archaeoptery Another Bird-Dinosaur
Yamil, Your last paragraph was demeaning and hateful. I simply prefer the user-friendly forum as opposed to a comment board, but you obviously have me down, don't you?
As for observing something that takes millions of years- That's hilarious.
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
saved by grace, Yes, I used to visit AIG almost daily when I was a YEC Christian like yourself. Why don't you stop making a bad name for the rest of the Christians on this comment board by slandering my "biblical interpretations", which I assure you were as fundamentalist, bible-believing as it gets? *sighs* Christian "love" never ceases to amaze me.
Also, name one lie that evolutionary biologists currently state with regards to the theory of evolution. Do you think that endogenous retroviral inserts are a "lie" or a fact, for example? Here's a hint:
Cbcpreacher, Three strawmen in a row does not equal a valid argument.
Discerning Believer, We did not evolve from monkeys, and the theory of evolution does not say that.
Kyle Smith, Thank you for an intelligent, well thought-out post. I do not, however, presuppose evolution and "deep time" as you state. I used to presuppose a young earth just like you, and did not "believe" that evolution could be true. I quoted "believe" to distinguish the difference between belief and knowledge, or faith and facts as it were. The truth is that evolution is a theory, and it is also a fact. (See definition for scientific theory and do a ton of research on evolution if you have any questions about this).
As logical beings, you and I must take the evidence we are given and discern between reality and beliefs. I did my research, and it turns out that every single young-earth creationist counter-claim to the theory of evolution either patently misrepresents evolution, is simply a lie, is incorrect on many levels, or all of the above. To demonstrate this, take any claim that Kent Hovind (for example) makes with regards to evolution and then research it on www.talkorigins.org There are many great examples there.
Also, pls come over and check out www.atheistforums.com Will
Peterhen mentioned Kent Hovind. My response: BWAH!! That's hysterical that you can bend your mind that far inside-out to believe what he has to say. A question for everybody who chose the first option on this poll: If your religion didn't seem to demand it, would you really believe that the earth was young? Honestly? If you would like to discuss, come on over: http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=2294
Also, check this out: http://www.moloth.com/pics/Religion/ScienceVSfaith.jpg
"expositor," all unbelievers think the Christian absurd for trusting GOD'S Word in the Bible more than man's ever changing theories. All Christians (real ones) believe that Christ rose from the dead, so why not believe the rest of scripture? Is anything exept lying impossible with GOD? As the "apostle of love" John wrote; "Let God be true and every man a liar." That is; any man who contradicts Him. By the way, you should probably change your nick-name from "expositor" to "Ad-hoc." Will
To establish a doctrine of the church you need two or three clear passages of Scripture. Headcovering is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. The only thing that gives us access to God's throne is the blood of Christ shed at Calvary not wearing a piece of cloth on the head. The veil was rent and the way into the holy of holies was opened to all who come unto God through Christ. Veiling was a local custom and Paul says clearly that we (the churches) have no such custom.
Albert, Just a polite question from a Lutheran here. I don't believe in transubstantiation, but I do believe in Christ's real Presence in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion. Jesus said "This is my body." We know Christ rose physicaly into Heaven. Reformed doctrine is that He cannot be physically present in the bread and wine, because He is limited by His physicality. Have you walked through a wall lately? Or walked on water? Or changed water into wine? Us mere mortals telling GOD He cannot be physically be in two places at once! Perhaps it is because we understand OmniPotence! and have measured It's limitations with our omniscient minds! "Oh no, LORD! You may have built heaven and earth out of nothing, and put the stars in their place, and built every cell in all it's intricate parts, and put the red in the sunset, but, Oh No! You cannot be bodily in Heaven and bodily in the bread and wine at the same time! WHY? Because I, future maggot food cannot understand how, so it must be impossible!" Foolish drivel! Will(Even "Born again,) doesn't make me all knowing.)