gray wolf Posted March 6, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'm afraid Enoch has a point Jerry. You need to beef up your assertions with a bit more explanative narrative or references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted March 6, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 6, 2014 Persons should be able to add music to their thread. Like here in the background we should hear the Aba Daba Honeymoon, sung by Debbie Reynolds: Aba daba daba daba daba daba dab Said the chimpie to the monk Baba daba daba daba daba daba dab Said the monkey to the chimp All night long they'd chatter away All day long they were happy and gay Swingin' and singin' in their Honky tonky way Aba daba daba daba daba daba dab Means monk I love but you Baba daba dab in monkey talk Means chimp I love you too Then the big baboon one night in June He married them and very soon They went upon their aba daba honeymoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 6, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'm afraid Enoch has a point Jerry. You need to beef up your assertions with a bit more explanative narrative or references. Wolf, Enoch's weak assertions have been refuted so many times they are not worth the effort to refute again...a simple search of the web will give you multiple cited refutations. I suggested a couple books he could read to at least understand the evolution side of things (even if he did not agree with that side he should understand it), and his answer was that he would burn the books I recommended. He hasn't a clue regarding science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollkiller Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 249 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/07/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted March 7, 2014 Just a comment from the peanut gallery.....this 'discussion' has turned into the usual schoolyard sniping. I've yet to read ANY actual evidence from either side....which would be of great interest to me and, I'm sure, many others reading this thread. Now....back to your regularly scheduled argument. So true morning. Can you guys not contribute to a thread in a civilised, informative manner without resorting to behaviour normally reserved for teenage girls( who would probably make more sense). A little bit of information nicely presented would be amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Just a comment from the peanut gallery.....this 'discussion' has turned into the usual schoolyard sniping. I've yet to read ANY actual evidence from either side....which would be of great interest to me and, I'm sure, many others reading this thread. Now....back to your regularly scheduled argument. So true morning. Can you guys not contribute to a thread in a civilised, informative manner without resorting to behaviour normally reserved for teenage girls( who would probably make more sense). A little bit of information nicely presented would be amazing. =============================================================== Well the OP was comprehensively dealt with here: As for the overall point you both made concerning sniping and behavior....I couldn't agree more. Maybe this will help explain a little since you are new. Because this is a message thread and not face to face interactions it lends itself to a less restrained atmosphere where the base behaviors and peoples Pride obfuscate and get in the way of sound reason. Now couple that with topics that deal with peoples deeply held beliefs (some from childhood) that shape their World Views that they live by and which everything is filtered through..... well, that's an explosive combination. This is the Scenario that happens invariably on Every Single Thread here in Science vs Faith...... Postulates and/or Sweeping Generalizations are put forward, in the OP or other places in the Thread, the majority of those without Cited Support/Logical Reasoning and or Critical Thinking Skills applied and which are most often attempting to Undermine the WORD of GOD. These are then challenged (MOST ASSUREDLY!!) systematically by a few DEFENDERS. When these frivolous conjectures are confronted and exposed (quite easily) for what they truly are and because there is no support from the Tenets mentioned above... What's left? : The Last Port in The Storm (Tactics): 1. "This is harmful to the Body of Christ": (from "Believers" but have decided to let their hermeneutics be filtered through science or their "a priori" convictions). 2. Muddy the Waters or Quibbling: over insignificant points to get the initial subject mired in Background Noise and Irrelevancy. 3. Conjured Ill-Conceived Insults: Manufactured Arrogance or Condescending Attitude projected onto and designed to emotionally manipulate the situation. 4. Overt/Implied Insults. Then throw into the milieu stated above, Logical Fallacies (Strawmen, Ad Hominems, Reductio Ad Absurdums, et al) and a Walk Down each of the Steps of Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Techniques. Rinse Repeat Rinse Repeat Rinse Repeat. Aspects are most assuredly related to Cognitive Dissonance: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive%20dissonance If you think this is contrived and you want to TEST (and if you're bored or have a Predisposition to Finding Truth via Evidence), I ask you to pull up random threads (5 should convince you....hopefully) start with the OP (or anywhere in the thread for that matter). Pull out a Pen and Paper and List the names of people involved in the first 20 posts in one column. List the Various Ports In The Storm (SEE: Above) in a Second Column. Now place check marks associated with those "Last Ports In The Storm" by each respective name and tally them up. You're not done yet : Go through the people with the check marks and find their original Postulate or Sweeping Generalization and attempt to find any semblance of support (SEE: Tenets of support above). It's Like Paint By Numbers. GOOD? There's a method to my Madness This should @ the very least make you hesitate or stop YOU from posting Sweeping Generalizations without Support and Identify the SPECIFIC PERPETRATORS so as to protect yourself from: Throwing The Baby Out With The Bath Water/Shotgun Approach and maybe FOCUS your poignant conclusions @ the Source/Sources. This should eliminate the Hit and Run Color Commentaries and Lesson "YOUR": conjured, self assigned, pretentious forum "etiquette" watchdog guru status Savvy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted March 7, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted March 8, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,362 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) "How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?" I've asked this question several times to YEC proponents and have not gotten the right answer. I believe, if you are going to debate science, you should understand the current consensus even if you do not believe it, otherwise how can you disprove it. Most here do not believe we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps, but do not understand what evolution actually states. So, anyone have the answer? Hi Jerry, You said, “I believe, if you are going to debate science, you should understand the current consensus even if you do not believe it” Technical insight into these methods is unnecessary for the debate. The numbers themselves are only ancillary to the main argument – which is; Do the numbers presented provide exclusive support for the Common Ancestry/inheritance paradigm, or can they also rationally be interpreted to support the paradigm of a common Designer? Secular propaganda implies (often states as “fact”) that these high percentage comparisons represent unequivocal “proof” of Common Ancestry – based on the inherent assumption that genetic similarities can only be derived through inheritance. But the numbers are also consistent with the supposition that a single Creator, using the same information system, designed a variety of creatures to live in the diverse environments found on earth (which He also created); i.e. with similar creatures living in similar environments generally utilising similar (and to a degree; identical) information in their design. “"How do scientists determine we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps?" I've asked this question several times to YEC proponents and have not gotten the right answer.” That’s because there is no single “right answer”. Over time, many different methods have been utilised to give variations on this figure. Nevertheless, I agree that looking into these methods actually benefits the creationist position; namely by examining the inherent flaws and biases contained in these methods. For example; the “99%” figure is based on the earliest (Reassociation Kenetics) method – which doesn’t even use sequenced DNA fragments. Most of the sequence-based methods prescreen which sequences are used and compared in the studies; so that only those which align the best (between the species) are used – which are unsurprisingly the ones which have the most in common. Most of them also pre-bias the analysis by only using transcriptomes from single-copy genes – thereby omitting the larger portion of the genome. They also have a tendency to omit non-aligning fragments (indels) from the analysis and results (i.e. alleles present in one species, but not the other & v.v.). To make matter worse, chimp gene libraries are often built around the human DNA scaffold (based on the assumption of Common Ancestry) – so the comparisons are between human DNA and combined chimp/human DNA – which also inserts Common Ancestry bias into the research. A recent Study (Longo et. al. 2011, PLoS ONE, Vol. 6) demonstrated that allot of non-primate genetic research had suffered from contamination of human DNA. So there is a possibility that earlier chimp/human genetic research has also been contaminated. Given the advent of low cost next generation sequencing techniques, it is disappointing that no true genome-wide study between the two species has been performed (at least none I could find). Edited March 8, 2014 by Tristen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts