There is no God...???

Sam Vimes

tro81 wrote: »

ill take that bet

Allow me to add context to his post. His bet is not literally that you will never be seen again; when read metaphorically and in the ancient Greek it translates as: tenner says tro81 will not address any of the points put to him.

tro81

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Allow me to add context to his post. His bet is not literally that you will never be seen again; when read metaphorically and in the ancient Greek it translates as: tenner says tro81 will not address any of the points put to him.

well you all made lots of points, which all need taking time to research what you are all indivuial on about. just watch a video that someone posted for me. Looked at much of this evidence before. One of the suprising things of course is to see some of the skulls they show comparing one form changing over time into another. The biggest shame about these diagrams is the carpare the skull at the same size. Giving the illusion that they are alike and just suttle changes from one to the other. When in reality is the vast change is size from on to the other. IT be like a kitten going to a full grown lion then back to a kitten again then to a baby mouse back to a full grown lion again.
My point is often fact put forth are put to us in away to fit a preconsieved idea. Much like a legal case. 2 side with the same facts but slanting them in such away to fit their already preconsieved ideas. It up to us as the jury to deside which case best fits the facts.
Makes it easier thou when we are presented the cold hard fact with out the twist.

tro81

anyway back to look up some of the points you all made.
by the way someone mention that all the species are 99.9% genticly the same. He was suggesting this proved we all had a common ancester billions of years ago. Does any one know of a resent paper or jornal that presents these facts. (thats for 99.9% part)

MagicMarker

tro81 wrote: »

anyway back to look up some of the points you all made.
by the way someone mention that all the species are 99.9% genticly the same. He was suggesting this proved we all had a common ancester billions of years ago. Does any one know of a resent paper or jornal that presents these facts. (thats for 99.9% part)

Can you quote the post that said this?

Sam Vimes

tro81 wrote: »

anyway back to look up some of the points you all made.
by the way someone mention that all the species are 99.9% genticly the same. He was suggesting this proved we all had a common ancester billions of years ago. Does any one know of a resent paper or jornal that presents these facts. (thats for 99.9% part)

Em, they're not. Our DNA is about 95% similar to chimpanzees I think it is but about 50% different to a banana. I can't give you a paper but I can give you this tree of life that someone posted here a few weeks ago: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=127806&stc=1&d=1284651883

tro81 wrote: »

Looked at much of this evidence before. One of the suprising things of course is to see some of the skulls they show comparing one form changing over time into another. The biggest shame about these diagrams is the carpare the skull at the same size. Giving the illusion that they are alike and just suttle changes from one to the other. When in reality is the vast change is size from on to the other. IT be like a kitten going to a full grown lion then back to a kitten again then to a baby mouse back to a full grown lion again.
My point is often fact put forth are put to us in away to fit a preconsieved idea. Much like a legal case. 2 side with the same facts but slanting them in such away to fit their already preconsieved ideas. It up to us as the jury to deside which case best fits the facts.
Makes it easier thou when we are presented the cold hard fact with out the twist.

Where did you get the information that they're comparing the skulls like that? They might well be but if you got that information from a creationist website there's about a 99% chance that it's a lie. Anything you find on one of those websites that's true is only by accident.

Improbable

With regard to genetic similarity, I think one of the most compelling arguments to the layman is the difference in chromosome number between humans and the other great apes. Don't think there is a "spin" to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project#Genes_of_the_Chromosome_2_fusion_site

tro81

Shenshen wrote: »

Just out of sheer curiosity... how do you explain the big flaws in some of the designs? Inverted light-sensitive cells in our eyes, for example?

And why would you think somebody (divine or otherwise, whichever you believe) would design creatures to look very different, yet make them share up to 99% of their DNA as though they were very close relatives?

this is the oringinal quote. On closer looks he say upto 99%.

Shenshen

tro81 wrote: »

this is the oringinal quote. On closer looks he say upto 99%.

I'm a she.
And if you look even closer, I do NOT claim that all living beings share 99% of their DNA.
I asked why two creatures would be created to look entirely different, yet share up to 99% of their DNA.
And you haven't answered that question, I notice.

So, why would human share such close genetic relations with apes? Why would dolphins be closer related to deer than to tuna? Why would bats be mammals rather than birds?

tro81

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm a she.
And if you look even closer, I do NOT claim that all living beings share 99% of their DNA.
I asked why two creatures would be created to look entirely different, yet share up to 99% of their DNA.
And you haven't answered that question, I notice.

So, why would human share such close genetic relations with apes? Why would dolphins be closer related to deer than to tuna? Why would bats be mammals rather than birds?

to be honest thats like asking why does an artist who has a peticular style yet paint very different things.
and if we are being correct then you'll see i was asking for more infor about some of the points some of you raised. i wasnt trying to miss quote you

MagicMarker

tro81 wrote: »

to be honest thats like asking why does an artist who has a peticular style yet paint very different things

Erm.. it's really not.

tro81

Where did you get the information that they're comparing the skulls like that? They might well be but if you got that information from a creationist website there's about a 99% chance that it's a lie. Anything you find on one of those websites that's true is only by accident.[/QUOTE]


As i pointed out before i dont follow much of what creationist say i certainly dont go wasting my life looking at their websites. but im sure if you looked into the skulls and the scale of many of the fossil they compare you would see that the scale they use in text books is not correct. Im not saying they lied it would be just handy that they point this fact out when they teach this at school and colledge

tro81

still not got used to this partial quote thing

Dades

tro81 wrote: »

still not got used to this partial quote thing

Just make sure everything you want to quote starts with:

[QUOTE ] and ends with [/QUOTE]

And don't be surprised if people don't want to elabourate on old quotes of theirs in older threads!

Shenshen

tro81 wrote: »

to be honest thats like asking why does an artist who has a peticular style yet paint very different things.
and if we are being correct then you'll see i was asking for more infor about some of the points some of you raised. i wasnt trying to miss quote you

Not really... it would be more akin to asking an artist who has a palette with all the colours and shades imaginable why he insists on doing everything in black and white, especially when painting rainbows.