Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I think I'll take on some more of those 'science facts' from the Bible.



This is one of those passages from the Bible that get stretched to mean a modern scientific fact. This passage literally just asks which way is light parted? It's entirely mum on any sort of recombination, or that color even comes from different wavelengths of light. To be honest, I'm not sure where it's getting the "parting" from, or really even the combining. The recombining looks like the authors of this piece stretching the meaning of a single poetic line to mean whole swathes of scientific theory.



Sailors in antiquity had knowledge of coastal currents, but obviously not ones from the open ocean. This one isn't that valid either, I'm afraid.



Unprotected sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health. It didn't take the Bible for people to realize venereal diseases exist. The rest of this is moralizing against homosexuality and for monogamy. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you sleep with the same person, you chances of catching STDs go down.



This is one of those 'facts' which actually aren't valid explanations. It doesn't actually give a reason except 'God did it,' which is a fallacy filled 'God in the gaps' argument

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can attribute to a god. There are lots of things we didn't know before, that we do know. I guess that makes a god an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Also, I dunno if we actually do know what the penis and vagina evolved at the same time. The above still applies regardless.



This one is funny to claim credit for. Considering the translation quote says incalculable, and that it stands to reason that there is a finite number of stars (there is, the universe also has a finite mass, i.e., an actual weight), you can't give credit for something that will ultimately proved wrong.

I'd also like to know where it gets the 5,000 stars visible bit. The ancients also witnessed one or two supernovas, and I can't find anything about how many they thought there were in the universe.



So it contradicts itself! First in claims it's impossible to count all the stars, and now it twists the passage to say it can! Not to mention the exact passage it quotes doesn't actually automatically mean finite, it could be easily be infinite based on Christian claims of what God can do.



This is the third time it's gone on about stars. See above for an answer.


False claims. Take a look what Christians did when they ran the planet. Go on. I'll wait. Take a look on the priests who are morally depraved because they touch little boys. "People of God" can be morally depraved as anyone else. Hell, the Scandivian countries are fairly atheistic, yet they seem to be doing just find in terms of happiness and law and order.



It isn't possible for the Flood to have happened, but mass extinction events do. The reasons its impossible are numerous. The Ark can't have possibly held every species. There isn't enough water to flood the earth completely. It isn't possible to repopulate most species from simply two members of it.

Isn't it funny that now you wish you use fossil evidence, but only when its convenient for you?



Fossils aren't from the flood. See above.



This is a massive stretch to say it predicts that. Those passages explicitly state how he separates the ocean from the land. It's entirely mum on anything concerning one super continent or plate tectonics.



Again, the Flood didn't happen. So there's no pointing arguing like it did.



THE FLOOD DID NOT HAPPEN. I stated way it's impossible above. Two, it's stretching the meaning of Bible passages again. Those passages only talk about ice and cold in general. There is no mention of a world wide ice age. Saying it said anything about the ice age is stretching the truth considerably.



This is still open to debate at where life starts. We still haven't decided. Taking a stand on an issue like that does not equal science fact.



It just says God makes us. It doesn't say anything about embryonic development. In fact saying God does it makes it false, we know how fetus' develop in the womb. Also, the womb was not unknown to ancient peoples either, so saying this knowledge comes solely from the Bible is wrong.



That's not what that passages means at all. It just says God already knows who a person is and what their actions are before they are born. Which is pretty in line with Christian teaching (predestination anyone?).

To say it means DNA is to completely miss what that passage actually means.



This is stretching it, almost certainly. Y-chromosomal Adam is simply the most recent common ancestor of all this. He wasn't actually Adam, and only got named that because of the Bible and people's preference for assigning pop culture to something like that. He didn't even live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.

Also, don't people who object to evolution object to the fact of common descent from a gene pool? Didn't you say we were all created and not from a "slime mold?" Way to contradict yourself.



Of course evolution wouldn't teach that, that's the field of anthropology and linguistics. I'm not sure why we should expect people isolated from each other to have the same language, that's actually quite retarded to suggest, and poor evidence that that is evidence of the tower of Babel.



So, it accepts concepts from evolution, but only when it's convenient? What hypocrites.


Every ancient culture wasn't one based around the Judeo-Christian god. So the point is invalid by its own argument, the Bible has had nothing to do with.

These next twenty were more or less the same as the first. It involved shoveling scientific theory into whatever passage could fit the theory, stretching the meaning of passages beyond belief, and often times attributing to the Bible what is actually the credit of other non-Jewish societies. I'm surprised it wishes to use evolutionary concepts, but doesn't think evolution exists.

Don't attack something you clearly don't understand.

And how don't I understand it?

If you wanted them to write it exactly like we would today 3,500 years ago. I'm sorry to disappoint you but all of your atttacks are baseless and from your typical atheist websites.

Could you point out how precisely they state scientific theory? I'm pretty sure the only way you could construe the theory you want is by stretching the meaning of the words past the breaking point. I examined the passages listed and pointed out that many did not even go near anywhere of actually describing modern scientific phenomenon. Perhaps you'd care to offer specific rebuttals to my points?

I have responded to your baseless attacks on the bible in the past and it can be shown your understanding of the scriptures is rather poor.

I think you and drock spend too much time at the same sites as well as the mythical god loki.

Actually all I did was google the specific passages and chapters, and then looked up various sites that described the specific theory that I didn't know off the top of my head. There were no atheist sites like you suggest.

If I'm so wrong and have "baseless" attacks, perhaps you could offer more specific criticisms of why I'm wrong, rather than just a general "well you're wrong!" without giving actual support.

I guess you got me, the difference between science is they are in search of facts and with God it is a fact. God don't create theories he just creates.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mostly fact? Judging by some of the 'facts' it presents, I'd say no.

Then we just disagree.

You're free to disagree, however the reality of the situation proves the contrary.

I have answered this before,if God exists he knows the facts he is not searching for it.

I guess you're right God is not involved in the scientific method because he is not looking for facts he created facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.

This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC can you explain chromosome 2 yet?

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

I don't deny genetics, i believe every living organism is a product of parental genes. The same with Asexual organisms they are what they are because of the genes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

 

[Woyzeck]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

 

[cbirch2]

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.

Which is actually my very argument. When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.

This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.

Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.

A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes

or

B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.


I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....

 

[cbirch2]

Already have,you may not like the answer but that does not prove we diverged from the ape family. You don't remember the response ?

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?

Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.

Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?

So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.

So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.

 

[cbirch2]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

Our bigger brains.

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

 

[cbirch2]

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

PLoS Biology: Accelerated Evolution of the ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion
ScienceDirect - Cell : Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens
Genetic links between brain development and brain evolution : Abstract : Nature Reviews Genetics
Murine Otx1 and Drosophila otd genes share conserved genetic functions required in invertebrate and vertebrate brain development
Reconstructing the evolutionary history of microcephalin, a gene controlling human brain size
ScienceDirect - Gene : Molecular evolution of the brain size regulator genes CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ
SpringerLink - Development Genes and Evolution, Volume 209, Number 1
ScienceDirect - Current Opinion in Cell Biology : Cytoskeletal genes regulating brain size

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

Um jesus turned water into wine. He violated the law of conservation of energy and mass. Im not sure what your definition of science is but it doesnt support the biblical view in the slightest.

You can believe that jesus turned water into wine, you just have to also disagree with the law of conservation of energy and mass.

To use someone elses words...."science disagrees with what is written in the bible"

 

[Woyzeck]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution? And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

You give me a list where science disagrees with what is written in the bible and i will do this one more time.

I pointed out that we weren't directly descended from neanderthals. This is one of the posts you never replied to earlier.

I just replied to your list of science facts with actual scientific knowledge. Please stop wasting my time with your same old tired arguments.

 

[Woyzeck]

I am still waiting for someone to show morphological changes that was due to mutations that was a benefit to the organism ?

Our bigger brains.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to a few of my posts. I would think you'd be most interested in telling me why precisely I'm wrong with my criticisms of the 'science facts' in the Bible.

While we are waiting for you,this is another site that disagrees with you.

Science and the Bible: Does the Bible Contradict Scientific Principles?

And that site falls into the same trap that your lazy copy and paste article did. Would you please stop repeating yourself and offer some actual responses, or do you not wish to be taken seriously?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.

Which is actually my very argument. When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.

This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.

Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.

A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes

or

B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.


I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....

If i use your reasoning,i have to assume all organisms are related which they clearly are not.

But using your line of reasoning it makes more sense to believe in creation. Because God created all things of similar substances and the bible says we all were created from the ground. If you reason out we all came from ingredients of the earth how did we become so diverse ? That sounds like design not random mutations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"that does not prove we diverged from the ape family"

The simple fusion of a chromosome doesnt prove that we descended from apes. It does prove that we descended from something non-human, though. Human ancestors had 48 chromosomes and therefore were a different species.

But in all reality chromosome two is outstanding evidence of just exactly how we evolved. The sequence of genes and the structure of the chromosomes exactly match the supposition of two adjacent chimpanzee chromosomes, and those chromosomes are in the same location as they are in the human genome. How much more evidence do you really need?

Human chromosome 2 is an exact supposition of chimpanzee chromosomes 2 and 3, usually called 2q and 2p for that very reason.

You really just reject all genetics??

A hare has 46 chromosomes but what does this prove or suggest ?

Actually, hares have 48. But thats irrelevant.

Would you agree that humans, with 46 chromosomes, are a different species from some hypothetical human-like animal with 48 chromosomes?

So would I! Because thats part of the definition of species. A group of animals with 48 chromosomes cant reproduce with a group of animals that have 46. So they are different species. this is the common definition of a species, animals that cannot interbreed.

So chromosome two is indisputable proof that humanity was descended from some other human-like primate with 48 chromosomes, rather than 46, and therefore descended from another species.

You're assuming ancestry because of similarity,that view is based on imagination.

You ignore how vastly diiferent we from each other your main argument is because we supposedly went from from 48 to 46 chromosomes but ignore the information difference. not to mention the diffence in the genome.

Oh and eventually you will get more of a difference between chimps and humans once they learn more of the differences in the genome. There were admitted things not figured in to their equations..

Mark my words, eventually,you and i will be discussing that we were further apart from from chimps then previously thought.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our bigger brains.

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

No,neanderthals could have been just a product of bad genetics or inbreeding who knows.

It is very hard to say anything with certainty when no one was there.

Neanderthals did have bigger brains,how would you explain that ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our bigger brains.

Oops i guess you didn't realize that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,is this another case of de-evolution?

Its actually not the size of our brains its the dense layer of cells covering its surface called the cerebral cortex and the amount of surface area provided by the gryi and the sulci.

Besides, doesnt the very existence of neanderthals disprove the young earth creationist view of the world?

And you still didn't offer proof that our bigger brains over chimps was the result of mutations.

^^Clear disregard for all genetics

Your claiming that the formation of a cerebral cortex and a highly folded brain isnt due to genetics.

Thats like claiming our 4 chambered heart isnt due to genetics.

What i am saying is neanderthals brains were the result of the possibility of deformity,maybe from inbreeding.

 

[cbirch2]

No i don't,there is no human that has ever possessed 48 chromosomes.

Which is actually my very argument. When our ancestors possessed 48 chromosomes they werent human, by the very definition of what it means to be human. But yet chromosome two is indisputable proof that modern humanity is descended from an organism with 48 chromosomes. Hence the need for a speciation event in which chimpanzee chromosome 2q and 2p either fused or failed to fully separate, and this mutation persisted throughout human history.

This is a very weak argument to try and prove ancestry.

Actually its a very strong argument. You just clearly cant comprehend it. You really only have two choices.

A) Reject the so far indisputable fact that human chromosome two is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes

or

B) Accept that at some point in humanity's common ancestry, we all descended from a similar group of animals that had 48 chromosomes.


I have yet to see you attempt to disprove the fusion of the chromosome so i assume your taking stance B....

If i use your reasoning,i have to assume all organisms are related which they clearly are not.

But using your line of reasoning it makes more sense to believe in creation. Because God created all things of similar substances and the bible says we all were created from the ground. If you reason out we all came from ingredients of the earth how did we become so diverse ? That sounds like design not random mutations.

No...you just have to understand human reproduction....your missing the entire point...

maybe it helps to think of it like this.

You have 46 chromosomes! Your dad contributed 23, your mom contributed another 23. It has been like this all throughout human history, i assume even creationists agree on this. its simple 7th grade biology.

Well, imagine we look at YOUR chromosomes. We do a little cheek swab, place the cells under a microscope, and view the chromosomes. What we see, is that chromosome 2 is very obviously two chromosomes fused together. If we looked at your parents, or grandparents, DNA, we would see the same thing.

And that makes sense, because your DNA is just a copy of certain parts of your mother and fathers DNA, with minute mistakes in the process, and they had the same fused chromosome. And this copying process has gone on over and over through the generations. So if we trace YOUR LINEAGE back far enough we get to a point where a mutation was introduced into a population of people with 48 chromosomes. These people werent "human" technically, because the species homo sapien has 46 chromosomes. But this mutation was the fusion of two adjacent chromosomes among a few people. It had some advantage, some genes dealing with brain exist on chromosome 2.

At that point, when the two chromosomes fused during meiosis in the testes or ovaries of that 'humanoid', the lineage of "mankind" experienced a speciation event that led to the number of chromosomes we have today.