creation is proved false

[jgredline]

Well, it apears my beliefs in the account of Gen have been wrong all these years. Here are some of the missing links that prove eviloution is right.. These are some of the latest findings ''that prove it''.
Well, I may as well pull my kids out of the Christian school they attend and send them to public school.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060921/D8K8U6PO0.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&n ... 0416c20174

http://www.cdnn.info/news/science/sc060919.html

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/ol ... 0000000001

http://www.acm.cs.rpi.edu/~lansil/blog/deankitty.jpg




NOT 8-)

 

[ChristineES]

If they really do "prove it" someday, we will be the first to know. :

 

[Poke]

Humans evolved from mice, not monkeys.

"Mice... share 99% of their genes with humans." Wikipedia

Where do you think the vestigial appendix came from? Not from chimps or any other higher primate.

 

[Lewis]

Man those evolutionist' need to stop, and that picture of the ape women in that second link up there is just ludicrous as well as just plain old lunacy. Sometimes I have to laugh at how much of a idiot mankind can be.

 

[Poke]

Man those evolutionist' need to stop, and that picture of the ape women in that second link up there is just ludicrous as well as just plain old lunacy. Sometimes I have to laugh at how much of a idiot mankind can be.

That picture reminds me of something from an old National Geographic.
Here's probably what Lucy really looked like:

Really, the only thing that separates Lucy from other apes is supposedly her skeleton shows modifications for upright walking. Still, many anthropologist don't believe either that she normally walked upright or that her species is in the line of human ancestors.

 

[peace4all]

many YEC anthropologists. And there evidence isn't "its not possible from science" its "Its not possible because of the bible, and the bible IS science"

 

[Quath]

Humans evolved from mice, not monkeys.

"Mice... share 99% of their genes with humans." Wikipedia.

That depends on how you measure differences. Here are a quote from National Institute of Health:

The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

 

[jgredline]

Man those evolutionist' need to stop, and that picture of the ape women in that second link up there is just ludicrous as well as just plain old lunacy. Sometimes I have to laugh at how much of a idiot mankind can be.

That picture reminds me of something from an old National Geographic.
Here's probably what Lucy really looked like:

Really, the only thing that separates Lucy from other apes is supposedly her skeleton shows modifications for upright walking. Still, many anthropologist don't believe either that she normally walked upright or that her species is in the line of human ancestors.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

 

[jgredline]

More evidence of EVILoution
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&n ... 436e11d7f7
:-D :-D :-D

NOT

 

[MrVersatile48]

This links 5/6 exciting, entertaining & informative threads of solid http://www.creationism.org & http://www.discovery.org/csc evidence that God did indeed create the universe:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... highlight=

Neo-Darwin drivel is mere philosophical interpretation

Hundreds of top scientists, from micro-bilogy to astronomy, see SOOOOOOOOOOOO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject the atheist brainwashing of uni's & colleges etc

Academia prides itself on freedom of thought

The censorship of all challenges to Goo-to-you, microbes-to-men madness is most sinister, in light of decades of moves to impose one-world Govt, ready for Antichrist to impose the worst global tyranny ever

Much Bible prophecy in this 1 film post:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... highlight=

& this lyric:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18604

& this one:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=19055

So do see Endtimes/Bible Prophecy Forum too:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewforum.php?f=17

Must go

Enjoy the weekend! 8-)

Ian :-D

 

[Quath]

Hundreds of top scientists, from micro-bilogy to astronomy, see SOOOOOOOOOOOO much evidence of Intelligent Design that they reject the atheist brainwashing of uni's & colleges etc

I would have to disagree with you. From the studies I have seen, 95% of all scientists in all fields believe in evolution. If you just restrict to life sciences, you get over 99% of scientists believe in evolution.

So people that are more educated and study the field in detail are more likely to conclude that evolution is real. I think the implications of this are pretty obvious.

 

[Poke]

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

In other words, all those years we were told that chimps and humans have 98/99% identical DNA, we were lied to. They knew they were just comparing the similarity of shared genes, rather than of all genes, but that's not what they told the public. They lied. What is the similarity of mice and human DNA, when no measured in a way that comes to 99%?

But, you do agree, speaking of shared genes, mice are as similar to humans as chimps are to humans. I'll go on to guess that when comparing genes, there is no trace of evolutionary relationships between mammals.

 

[Poke]

I would have to disagree with you. From the studies I have seen, 95% of all scientists in all fields believe in evolution. If you just restrict to life sciences, you get over 99% of scientists believe in evolution.

Considering the intolerance Evolutionists have to skeptics, it's a safe bet that there are many closeted skeptics in the science community, especially in the life sciences.

 

[peace4all]

probably not. Scientists make their name by being diffrent, radical, and exposing new truths, ideas, and theorys. Not by being yes-men.

 

[Quath]

In other words, all those years we were told that chimps and humans have 98/99% identical DNA, we were lied to. They knew they were just comparing the similarity of shared genes, rather than of all genes, but that's not what they told the public. They lied. What is the similarity of mice and human DNA, when no measured in a way that comes to 99%?

They didn't lie, there are just different ways to make comparisons. This happens all the time. For example, income for a state may go up, but income per capita may go down because the population increased in the state. They are both true numbers.

But, you do agree, speaking of shared genes, mice are as similar to humans as chimps are to humans. I'll go on to guess that when comparing genes, there is no trace of evolutionary relationships between mammals.

The article I quoted said "the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse." So there is a factor of 60.

Considering the intolerance Evolutionists have to skeptics, it's a safe bet that there are many closeted skeptics in the science community, especially in the life sciences.

About 40 to 45% of the scientists admitted to believing in a god. If what you say is true, then the number of scientists who admit to a god should be about the same number as admit to evolution. After all if they give in on one subject, why not other controversial subjects?

probably not. Scientists make their name by being diffrent, radical, and exposing new truths, ideas, and theorys. Not by being yes-men.

In my experience that is true. A scientists will be polite about it and let a person recant bad conclusions. However, if the person does not then they will go prove them wrong with the data.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I don’t believe we evolved from monkeys because I have run into quite a few people who look and act like monkeys. :-D

 

[Poke]

They didn't lie, there are just different ways to make comparisons.

For years, we were told that chimps and humans shared nearly 99% of their DNA. It doesn't matter how you measure it, this is not true. They knew they were leaving out genes unique to either chimps or humans, but they left out this information to deceive the public about the similarity between chimps and humans.

The article I quoted said "the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse." So there is a factor of 60.

I don't find that credible.

About 40 to 45% of the scientists admitted to believing in a god. If what you say is true, then the number of scientists who admit to a god should be about the same number as admit to evolution. After all if they give in on one subject, why not other controversial subjects?

Confessing belief in God isn't going to be a road block to someone in the life sciences. Disputing Evolution can be a career killer.

 

[Quath]

For years, we were told that chimps and humans shared nearly 99% of their DNA. It doesn't matter how you measure it, this is not true. They knew they were leaving out genes unique to either chimps or humans, but they left out this information to deceive the public about the similarity between chimps and humans.

It is not a deliberate deception. Sometimes one measurement is just easier to perform than another. It is similar to saying that diamonds and graphite are 100% alike in atoms and they are 0% alike in their molecular bonding (double versus single bonds). It is all how you measure it. Here is anotehr article that mentions it. If it was a deception, they would not be showing both numbers.

Science Daily: The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

[quote:4b084]The article I quoted said "the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse." So there is a factor of 60.

I don't find that credible.[/quote:4b084]
Is it just because you don't want it to be true or you just don't trust scientists to do science?

Confessing belief in God isn't going to be a road block to someone in the life sciences. Disputing Evolution can be a career killer.

But what about the other sciences. If 95% of all scientists believe in evolution, most are not in the field where evolution is useful. So they could just as easily admit believing in God as in Creationism.

Your belief system seems to work by assuming that the most educated people studying a problem are too dumb to understand the science they dedicate their lives to.

 

[Poke]

It is not a deliberate deception. Sometimes one measurement is just easier to perform than another.

The earlier DNA methods didn't lend themselves to anything but comparing the same genes. But, the fact remains that in the countless places where the 99% was published, the reader was not informed that this was necessarily inflated, because the measurement excluded unique genes.

Is it just because you don't want it to be true or you just don't trust scientists to do science?

Given that both chimps and mice are both nearly 99% similar to humans in their shared genes, I find it difficult to believe that unique genes will result in a DNA difference 60 times greater for mice than for chimps. The math doesn't add up and your source is not authoritative on that point. If chimps differ from humans in 4% of their DNA, 60x4 is 240%.

Your belief system seems to work by assuming that the most educated people studying a problem are too dumb to understand the science they dedicate their lives to.

I realize that most people are more indoctrinated than education. Even when people are right about something, it's usually just a coincidence. I also know that Evolutionists are highly intolerant of skeptics. Academic institutions provide numerous examples.

 

[CrimsonCross]

Even my pea brain can accept God. It is simple, Live your life withut confusion people.. Run, Run away with a smile on your face. Share it with your brothers and sisters. Don't be afraid of the tight rope.