Why do the God-haters persist?

[Mephisto]

The correct Genome numbers for Dna similarity between chimps and humans has been adjusted to 4% this comes from the Genome project. That does not sound like much but if you consider 3 billion base pairs of Dna that is a huge difference.

Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome 2
De Grouchy J (August 1987). "Chromosome phylogenies of man, great apes, and Old World monkeys". Genetica 73 (1–2): 37–52. PMID 3333352.

In December 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, are different in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior

By comparing human and chimp genes to the genes of other mammals, it has been found that genes coding for transcription factors, such as forkhead-box P2 (FOXP2), have often evolved faster in the human relative to chimp; relatively small changes in these genes may account for the morphological differences between humans and chimps. A set of 348 transcription factor genes code for proteins with an average of about 50 percent more amino acid changes in the human lineage than in the chimp lineage.

The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B.

From now on ,please provide your source.

I am not talking about the supposed chromosome fusing from ape to human. I am talking about the Genome being mapped. They use to claim 1% to 2% genetic difference and it is now at a 4% difference. It could go higher because they also found that Junk Dna is no longer considered junk Dna, it has a function.

There ya go princess...

Chimp Genome Assembled; Draft Sequence Aligned With Human Genome -- ScienceDaily

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals. For more on the scientific rationale for sequencing the chimp genome, go to: http://www.genome.gov/Pages/Research/Sequencing/SeqProposals/ChimpGenome2.pdf. For more on comparative genomic analysis, go to: http://www.genome.gov/10005835.

Google...it's your friend.

 

[Boss]

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.

And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.

Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!

You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!

 

[Mephisto]

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.

And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.

Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!

You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!

The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong. The earth was flat till it was proved wrong. The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.

chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong. The bible is not a scientific book.

 

[GISMYS]

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.

And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.

Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!

You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!

The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong. The earth was flat till it was proved wrong. The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.

chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong. The bible is not a scientific book.

"SCIENCE" so called facts change almost day to day!!! THE BIG BANG THEORY IS IN QUESTION NOW. THE THEORY THAT LIFE STARTING IN OCEAN SLIM IS IN QUESTION NOW AS NOW THE THEORY IS THAT FIRST LIFE CAME HERE ON ROCKS FROM OUTER SPACE(NOT EVEN A THEORY WHERE THAT LIFE STARTED OR HOW) WHAT A JOKE!!! JUST BELIEVE GOD'S WORD!! REAL WISDOM STARTS THERE!!!

 

[Boss]

Chimpanzees are the most closely related species to humans. Consequently, comparative analysis of the human and chimp genomes can reveal unique types of information impossible to obtain from comparing the human genome with the genomes of other animals.

And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.

Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!

You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!

The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong. The earth was flat till it was proved wrong. The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.

chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong. The bible is not a scientific book.

That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!

 

[Mephisto]

And yet another example of "similarity" passed off as if it's conclusive scientific evidence of something.

Hey Einstein... we also have two eyes like a frog, does that mean we're related to them too? Well, what a silly question.... if everything living emerged from a single cell organism, of course we are!

You people have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to refute God's creation. NONE! All you have is speculation heaped upon more speculation, passed of as conclusion and fact when it's simply NOT!

The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong. The earth was flat till it was proved wrong. The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.

chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong. The bible is not a scientific book.

That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!

In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.

But please...go on.

 

[GISMYS]

"SCIENCE" so called facts change almost day to day!!! THE BIG BANG THEORY IS IN QUESTION NOW. THE THEORY THAT LIFE STARTING IN OCEAN SLIM IS IN QUESTION NOW, AS NOW THE THEORY IS THAT FIRST LIFE CAME HERE ON ROCKS FROM OUTER SPACE(NOT EVEN A THEORY WHERE THAT LIFE STARTED OR HOW) WHAT A JOKE!!! JUST BELIEVE GOD'S WORD!! REAL WISDOM STARTS THERE AND IGNORE AND LAUGH AT MAN'S SILLY IDEAS AND OPINIONS!! I DO!!! LOL!

 

[HUGGY]

Again, another "because I say so" argument.

And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.

The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.

But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.

This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.

My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.

You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.

but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.

And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.

Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... "LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!" Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.

Ya...JUST LIKE !!! HaHaHaHa.... you make me laugh longtime...

 

[Boss]

The the beauty of science...it's a fact till its proved wrong. The earth was flat till it was proved wrong. The earth was the center till it was proved wrong.

chimps and humans are related until it's proved wrong. The bible is not a scientific book.

That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!

In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.

But please...go on.

The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.

Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.

When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Again, another "because I say so" argument.

And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.

The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.

But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.

This follows your own "because I say so" argument of talking to your own personal vision of god and having communication with it that is real, though you have also said it has no particular interest in you.
The only thing that can not be denied is man has always had the need to fill in the blanks where his knowledge has failed him. You believe that indicates a spiritual connection, but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there. All that can be confirmed is the need, not the object of the need.
You are descending into your typically ugly rhetoric of name calling which always makes me wonder what higher plain your god challenges you to attain.

My personal connection to God is not a "because I say so" argument because all but a slim minority of humans have always spiritually connected. I've not said that God had no particular interest in me, I don't know if God has interests. I do know if I follow spiritual guidance from God, I receive great benefits and blessings from it. This is not always easy but it's well worth my efforts.

You have REPEATEDLY stated your vision of god has no personal interest in you. Then you repeatedly tell us how interactive your relationship is. It's this continuous intellectual disconnect you have. One of many.

You want to again introduce your "god of gaps" meme, and we've been over this already. Believing in God doesn't fill in any gaps of knowledge. It doesn't answer unanswered questions or rectify the unknown. Now, if that is why you claim man invented God, then we'd have realized how stupid that was very quickly, because it doesn't do what you claim it's supposed to do. Furthermore, when we invented Science to explain the unknown and fill in the gaps of knowledge, people would have realized they didn't need God anymore for that, Science was better at it, and we'd have completely abandoned God. That hasn't happened.

Not at all. The gap appears in the "why" questions, not the scientific "what's" and "how's". These are where man feels unfulfilled and imagines the spiritual to find comfort. Science never touches these questions so has no effect on the fears that prey on man's heart. The essence of that fear is that there may be no "why".

but there is no indication that you or anyone else is connecting to anything that is actually there.

And it's because you idiotically continue to look for material physical evidence of God, a spiritual entity. Sometimes you indicate that you understand science can only evaluate physical evidence, and other times you act as if science should be able to do more.

Let me pose this analogy... We use the telephone to communicate with others... would there be a telephone in almost every home if they didn't work, if you weren't actually able to communicate with others on it? What if some moron came along and said... "LOOK! There is no human in your phone speaking to you, it's all in your head, you are imagining you make connection because you want to believe it so badly!" Knowing that was ridiculous, what would you say about that? You see, just as humans overwhelmingly use the telephone to communicate to each other, humans have also (for much longer) used their ability to spiritually connect to talk to God.

With all due respect, which is very little, your analogy sucks.
No one is saying that the majority of people don't cope with the "why" by imagining that they have connected to that answer, and no one is saying that the belief isn't a useful tool or doesn't have psychic benefits. That is the very nature, the purpose of rationalizations. They help us cope with what we can't face.
The telephone actually connects two entities that can actually be determined.
You are talking on a toy phone that is not plugged in the wall.

 

[BreezeWood]

Those without spiritual connection are often the misfits in society who push back against morality and attempt to live immorally. Take away God and society would crumble into immoral chaos.

Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.


Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.


truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.

.

 

[GISMYS]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. JOHN 1:1-5

 

[Mr. H.]

I don't hate "God" - whatever that may be, but I am becoming increasingly displeased the GYBLET.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I don't hate "God" - whatever that may be, but I am becoming increasingly displeased the GYBLET.

AKA Jism Eyes.

 

[Mephisto]

That's where you are just fundamentally wrong, bucko. NOTHING in science is fact! That's why science calls it's predictions of probability "theories" and not "facts!" The earth was flat was NEVER a scientific theory. The earth was the center, never a scientific theory. Chimps and humans being related is a scientific theory, not a concluded FACT! But you aptly demonstrate the basis of your FAITH in disbelief. You ignorantly think that science theory is fact when it's NOT FACT!

In science, a "fact" is a careful observation or measurement, also called empirical evidence. Facts are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.

But please...go on.

The instant you conclude something is proven fact... science ceases to be of any value or relevance. Science can only examine, ponder or investigate possibilities. It can't do a thing with a "concluded fact." Once a "concluded fact" has been established, there is no more science involved from that point onward. There can't be, there is nothing else science can ever do because all other possibility is eliminated and a fact has been determined. Once this "concluded fact" has become that, the thing you must rely on instead of science is called "faith." You must adhere to faith in your belief that [whatever] is indeed a fact.

Now "faith" is a fine thing to have, I think we all rely on faith, even when it comes to science. We faithfully depend on the properties of physics to work tomorrow as they did today and yesterday. We have faith that gravity will predictably function as well. It's justified for us to have this kind of faith because we have pretty good evidence to support our faith, but it still remains faith.

When we move to the spiritual from the physical we find that people have faith there as well. And again, their faith is based upon pretty good evidence from their perspective. You don't accept their evidence because it's spiritual and not physical, but that's why you can't have their same faith. However, their faith is no different than yours, it's just about a different thing.

So do you have faith that gravity work? Of course not it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

I don;t accept their faith, because it's not a fact that can be proven by the science. Mainly because...a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, Religion is about as far from objective as you can get.

 

[Boss]

it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

 

[Boss]

a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation

No it's not. An objective and verifiable observation may support a predicted probability, it doesn't mean it's fact.

You guys are swinging and missing with this one, go read a Science 101 textbook and get back to me. Science doesn't determine FACTS. Science predicts probability. That's all science can ever do. YOU have determined something is a "fact" because you have "FAITH" in an observation.

 

[Hollie]

it's a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

If this were true, we'd have never been able to launch a rocket into space. I don't believe Voyager has ever came down, it certainly went up though. So it's not a scientific fact that what goes up must come down.

You announce your limitations regarding science with every silly blunder you introduce.

This will get you started on definitions of theory and fact:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Boss]

You have REPEATEDLY stated your vision of god has no personal interest in you. Then you repeatedly tell us how interactive your relationship is. It's this continuous intellectual disconnect you have. One of many.

I have NEVER stated God has no personal interest in me. That said, I don't believe God has personal interests. God is not a human, it's a spiritual energy. It guides me on the path I need to follow to attain benefit. Does it "care" if I follow it? Nope.... it's not a human, it doesn't care. Now... does the electric outlet "care" if you stick your finger in there? Nope... it's not a human, it doesn't care. BUT... there is a consequence to pay... not because the electricity cares one way or the other, but because that is the nature of electricity and grounded human beings. The same with the soul, God doesn't care one way or the other, but if you don't maintain spiritual fidelity and follow the path of positive spiritual energy, your soul will pay the consequence when you die.

Not at all. The gap appears in the "why" questions, not the scientific "what's" and "how's". These are where man feels unfulfilled and imagines the spiritual to find comfort. Science never touches these questions so has no effect on the fears that prey on man's heart. The essence of that fear is that there may be no "why".

Now you are trying to change the goal posts. Man feels unfulfilled because he has an intrinsic awareness of something greater than self. There is no "gap" here, other than the one between your ears.

With all due respect, which is very little, your analogy sucks.
No one is saying that the majority of people don't cope with the "why" by imagining that they have connected to that answer, and no one is saying that the belief isn't a useful tool or doesn't have psychic benefits. That is the very nature, the purpose of rationalizations. They help us cope with what we can't face.
The telephone actually connects two entities that can actually be determined.
You are talking on a toy phone that is not plugged in the wall.

With all due respect, you can fuck right off. My analogy nailed it and now you're sputtering. LOL... "psychic benefits?" Man... talk about doing a tapdance on the head of a pin to keep from acknowledging spirituality, that's a good one!

What humans can't face is a reality where nothing greater than self exists. It's because they intrinsically are aware that something greater does exist. This is why you don't see other creatures having nervous breakdowns over coping with what they can't face.

The telephone does connect two entities, so does human spiritual nature. That's why most people have a telephone and most people are spiritual. Again, the spiritual connection can easily be determined by those who make the connection, they will testify to you all day long about it. You don't accept their testimony, the same as someone who would ignorantly claim there isn't a "magic person" inside the telephone and it's all in your head. It is totally ridiculous to someone who is making the connection.

 

[Hollie]

I don't hate "God" - whatever that may be, but I am becoming increasingly displeased the GYBLET.

Go easy on the boy. An outlet such as a message board has some potential benefits. Thrashing away at his keyboard keeps him in a confined space and isolated from the public.