aaronjm Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 225 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/24/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1980 Share Posted December 23, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/sc_nm/...ce_evolution_dc How do they even do these "tests?" How can they prove something is 400,000 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2005 Kennedy (in the article) is nothing more than a pompous idiot full of his own glory. For one, what they're leaving out of the DNA test is that chimps are not the only species we share common DNA information with...we are genetically similar to almost all living organisms on this earth. If you compare the genetics of a dog and human, they are similar. In fact, dogs suffer from almost the exact same genetic disorders that humans do...genetic disorders that some chimps are immune from (or havn't been found in their genes). We share 75% of our genes with dogs (granted, not the 96% we do with chimps...which btw...is just one species of ape). Genes prove absolutely nothing in terms of evolutionary science. For one, how did the DNA code shift so drastically as to cause another form of species? Genetic mutations, as shown through the genome project, always lead to deformities. What is so funny is that Kennedy denounces Intelligent Design as "unprovable and untestable" whilst in the same breath upholding the amazing science of genetics. Genetics is proof of intelligent design. Ask any one who has studied it and they can tell you that DNA is a very complex code that is actually written like a computer program. Instead of "0" and "1" it is filled with four letters. Problem is, these letters cannot be changed randomly (or else we get defects) nor can they be subject to natural law (otherwise there is no change). Instead, the change that occurs (when the genes mix) is precise and not random...it is designed (this term being used by even athiestic geneticists). Oh well, let them live on in ignorance. Just to add one more point, I'm tired of it being "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design." That's not the debate at all. It's "Darwinianism vs. Intelligent Design." Both believe in evolution, both use evolution, the difference is in the question of how it all began and progressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiwiw Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2005 Well, nobody can really know for sure 'how it all began' because nobody was there. However, I'm pretty sure that my neighbors are just slightly more developed apes. Anyway, suppose we considar 'intelligent design' how can you be so sure just who the 'designer' is? If popular opinion counts for anything, then 'Hillary Duff is a good actor' and we all know that's just not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjm Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 225 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/24/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1980 Author Share Posted December 23, 2005 I have no doubt in my mind that the Genesis is the correct account of creation, G-d said that his word is true, and without error, and I trust him uncoditionally. Humans leave so much room for error, I can guess with the best of them, but that doesn't make me right. Look at scientology, it baffles me that anyone could follow this, and completely ignore the account of out L-rd Yeshua. There are so many biblical, and non-bilical accounts of the life of Yeshua, if you believe in him, you have to believe in the entire Word, which includes Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2005 Well, nobody can really know for sure 'how it all began' because nobody was there. However, I'm pretty sure that my neighbors are just slightly more developed apes. Anyway, suppose we considar 'intelligent design' how can you be so sure just who the 'designer' is? If popular opinion counts for anything, then 'Hillary Duff is a good actor' and we all know that's just not true. Easy, from the evidence we have. As I showed in my last post, the complext nature of DNA shows that the universe and all life within was designed by an Intelligent source. So designed, in fact, that it shows a very "hands on" approach to creation. We can conclude that Whoever the Designer is, He cared about His creation. If this is true, then we can further tell that if He cared about His creation, it would only suitt that the Christian God could fit into this realm. He eventually died so that His creation could live with Him...thus logic would dictate that the Christian God is the most plausible "Designer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yomotalking Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 154 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,838 Content Per Day: 0.40 Reputation: 19 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/29/1991 Share Posted December 23, 2005 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/sc_nm/...ce_evolution_dc How do they even do these "tests?" How can they prove something is 400,000 years old? They can't. You can only go back as far as 6,000 years...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted December 23, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2005 Three Cheers for UltraLiberal *Censorship Par Excellence! *UltraLiberals Despise All Censorship......Unless of course, It's To Ban Non-Liberals' Viewpoints! Donchajustluvem? Boycott All Off-The-Wall UltraLib Judges! It's quite clear that many, if not most, are off their meds and out of therapy. http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted December 24, 2005 This '96%' is utterly bogus. Two cells from your own body can be tested, and the findings will be that you're not THAT closely related to YOURSELF! Besides, 96% of a Jellyfish is the same material as a watermelon (water), just how 'closely related' are they? See EVOLUTION: THEORY IN CRISIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiwiw Posted December 24, 2005 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2005 It's a fallacy to think that complexity = improvement. If one thinks about this reasonably then they'll realize that: complex organisms burn more fuel faster. Occupy more space and wear down quicker. Are more susceptible to less complex organisms like bacteria and viruses, and are more prone to malfunctions (hence birth defects, for example) As far as 'DNA similarity' goes...sure it's probably bogus. Anyway...as far as that age old "creationism in science classes" there's a simple solution friends: the schools could just offer alternative-science classes, allowing parents the option to sign waivers if they want their kids to be able to sign up for such classes. Sure it'll be a little extra in taxes...but so is every other easy fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiwiw Posted January 1, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 35 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 1, 2006 Evolution has more basis in what can be observed than Creationism (as you call it "intelligent design") Or at least parts of it. And while we may not have 'missing links' one can not observe an animal vegitable or mineral magically appearing out of thin air, ever. However we can observe the life-cycle of a tad-pol. "Intelligent Design" is mythology, and there's mythology electives already in existance, so let's just toss it in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts