Abel

Very simple. Selective breeding. This is seen today with dogs, cats, even horses. You breed a hairy monkey with another hairy monkey, you get a hairier monkey. You find this hard to believe, yet you believe monkeys came from some tadpole looking creature. Now tell me who is in denial of reality.

__________________
God loves you and I'm trying.

Og

Do you know anything about cross species genetic similarity (homology)? It would seem that the theory of "tadpole looking creature" to "monkeys" is highly supported by an analysis of sequence divergence in the respective genomes of existing creatures.

I recommend searching the National Center for Biotechnology Information. This site is run by the National Institute of Health and is a database for the peer reviewed scientific community and regulated in an open environment where every contribution is subject to criticism and documentation.

Check out GenBank if you want specific raw data, or search on interspecies sequence homology in journals or on wikipedia: Homology (genetics)

Abel, you are the one in denial (or simply in ignorance) of reality.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Og

Linked off the wikipedia page is a paper titled:

Evolution at the nucleotide level: the problem of multiple whole-genome alignment
The full text of the article is free for download.

Abstract is as follows:
It's literally a book that has the entire history of evolution by natural selection written in it. All life forms on earth come together to tell the story of our origin in exquisite detail.

The biblical account is childish, boring, and flat out incorrect compared to the story obtained from analysis of inter-organism sequence homology.

Care to comment Abel?

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

jimmy77611

OK, so along this line of resoning, if there were ONE "sort" of monkey only, as the bible says, how could there have been selective breeding? Where did the hairy monkey find the different hairy monkey to breed with, thus creating the hairier monkey?

Where in any of my previous posts did I indicate that I believe monkeys came from a "tadpole looking creature" ? You make a lot of assumptions I've noticed.

GX

I AM a believer of Jesus and his teachings. I just refuse to believe the lies and perversions of his teachings and of the nature of God that organized religion has foisted upon mankind that you happen to believe in. Including the lie that you need to make Jesus your god in order to do the things he did. Even the stuff written in the bible is highly suspect as evidenced by erhmans fine book "misquoting jesus".

I do not foresee having the time to answer you fully until the weekend except for this little tidbit. In the meantime, I see everyone else is doing just fine clobbering your preposterous statements to smithereens.

greywolf90

abel, you yourself have said that you are no scientist and you don't understand scientific explanations, and yet you refuse to believe people who actually do know what they are talking about? simply because what they say is not in the bible? do you even understand evolution? because i think you would find that monkeys did not come from "some tadpole looking creature." why don't you try to actually research evolution before you simply disregard it (most of us here at least have the courtesy to read the bible before we call it rubbish). now i know that "research" sounds difficult, but it is really easy to just wikipedia "evolution" and read until you reach the end. anyways, i am not interested in disproving the bible to you. as long as you consider it the absolute athority, you will always interperate it so that their are no contradictions. so instead i will leave you with this advice: if you truely want to know and understand god, life, and the universe, try to set the bible aside for awhile and pick up a science book. you say you are no scientist, but all science really is, is making an observation and then testing it. reading about what people have discovered is how we come to a better understanding of life. i am not asking you to throw religion and philosophy out the window; i am only asking you to not substitute religion for science.

__________________
"for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."- Hamlet

Abel

No, I do not. I am not a scientist. You have presented a book written from a presuppostion that evolution is true and can be proven. I am not qualified to respond, so I will allow those who are qualified to speak:
Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order)

Agard, E. Theo
Allan, James
Anderson, Kevin
Armstrong, Harold
Arndt, Alexander
Austin, Steven
Barnes, Thomas
Batten, Don
Baumgardner, John
Bergman, Jerry
Boudreaux, Edward
Byl, John
Catchpoole, David
Chadwick, Arthur
Chaffin, Eugene
Chittick, Donald
Cimbala, John
Clausen, Ben
Cole, Sid
Cook, Melvin
Cumming, Ken
Cuozzo, Jack
Darrall, Nancy
Dewitt, David
DeYoung, Donald
Downes, Geoff
Eckel, Robert
Faulkner, Danny
Ford, Dwain
Frair, Wayne
Gentry, Robert
Giem, Paul
Gillen, Alan
Gish, Duane
Gitt, Werner
Gower, D.B.
Grebe, John
Grocott, Stephen
Harrub, Brad
Hawke, George
Hollowell, Kelly
Holroyd, Edmond
Hosken, Bob
Howe, George
Humphreys, D. Russell
Javor, George
Jones, Arthur
Kaufmann, David
Kennedy, Elaine
Klotz, John
Koop, C. Everett
Korochkin, Leonid
Kramer, John
Lammerts, Walter
Lester, Lane
Livingston, David
Lopez, Raul
Marcus, John
Marsh, Frank
Mastropaolo, Joseph
McCombs, Charles
McIntosh, Andrew
McMullen, Tom
Meyer, Angela
Meyer, John
Mitchell, Colin
Morris, Henry
Morris, John
Mumma, Stanley
Parker, Gary
Peet, J. H. John
Rankin, John
Rosevear, David
Roth, Ariel
Rusch, Wilbert
Sarfati, Jonathan
Snelling, Andrew
Standish, Timothy
Taylor, Stephen
Thaxton, Charles
Thompson, Bert
Thomson, Ker
Vardiman, Larry
Veith, Walter
Walter, Jeremy
Wanser, Keith
Whitcomb, John
White, A.J.(Monty)
Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
Wile, Jay
Williams, Emmett
Wise, Kurt
Wolfrom, Glen
Zuill, Henry
If you care to, you may read their findings since you are such an open minded scientist. I have neither the time nor inclination to, since I have read and believed the story in the Bible. I too can produce a list leading scientists that hold the creation account as true. But, here's a couple more comments.

A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design: "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started."

All information was taken from website www.christiananswers.net

__________________
God loves you and I'm trying.

AB517

His teachings do not lie.
This would be like calling your beliefs lies. I may not agree with everything that other people said he said, but I do not believe he (or even you and I) is intentionally lying.

AB517

When all religions, and people, can generally agree on these approximations we will be closer to the truth. This is why the Roman Catholic Church picked such a general creation story in the first place. The early church fathers put two versions of a generalized story in the bible to try and show people the limitations of the book. They assembled the bible not for then, they assembled it, and the traditions, for 100, 1000, 10,000 years after them.

They never intended for the bible to be taken literally. One of the reasons for the traditions surrounding the RCC is to help people not use the bible as the complete and final description of the nature of God. God told them “You can not know me in my entirety today”.

Only the devil would have you think that we hold the complete and final description of the nature of God in our hands. In one book none the less. Place the book in the center of meadow in spring and look around. Take it to center city, lay it on the sidewalk, and look around.

The bible answers one Question, Who am I?

Og’s descriptions of what science is and how evolution is perceived is spot on. I am a science (well more of an engineer) guy. God knows I do not agree with him on everything. “God” here meaning Og.

Leave the science stuff to science people, be them believers or non-believers. Adel, I tell my believing friends to stay out of the areas they do not know. Keep your supporting evidence to the notions that you can speak to. You do not know evolution, just say “I can’t speak to that, but I can speak to this …”

Little joke:
What’s the difference between a scientist and an engineer?
Scientist only worry about what others think.
Engineers only worry if their wiggit is going to work.

Og

Which book would that be? I don't know of any texts that take this stance. Which book did I reference? I presented papers that cover the detailed evidence of interspecies homology and presented an accessible database run by the national institute of health. I presented data that is reproducible and directly contradicts your theory.



Hrm. So are you taking the stance now that PhD has some meaning?

Again, who cares about the names of people or what titles some un-accredited or accredited institutions have given them. How many nobel laureates or members of the national academy of sciences are on your list there? I'm willing to bet that there are none. How many people from your list have positions at degree granting ABET accredited institutions (I'm willing to bet that a few do). How many have published peer reviewed papers in journals such as Nature, Science, Journal of Experimental Biology, or other prestigious and long lived journals (I'm willing to bet that the answer here is zero where "creationism" is concerned)?

When have I tried to argue through authority? At every step of our interaction, I have tried to provide data, evidence, examples, visualizations, etc. I have not mentioned the name of a single evolutionary biologist or indicated that advanced degrees were necessary to understand it.

I'd much rather you provide the data that leads these "scientists" to "hold creation account as true..." Then I want you to find scientists that hold evolution as true and not "failed to be disproven." Who cares about the names of individuals?

False. See self assembling molecules. Learn about thermodynamics, energy barriers, enzymes, and entropy.

It sure does appeal to them when they get a drug resistant strain of TB (or some other disease) and need medical help.

Again! ZERO data. Simply statements of social situations and attitudes of proposed individuals! Your position is brainwashed Abel.

I think this part speaks for itself.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are