warri0r45

3) Scientists are desperate to disprove the need for a God because they don't want to have any accountability for how they've lived their lives so they come to hasty conclusions about common ancestry :P I know you're joking but I woudn't mind if you answered my question straightly. Is this not a fair assessment? I can't know if I'm missing something if people brush by what I post either all together or by using jokes.

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative. I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do). I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only. Now all you need is the justification part and you're there. You can of course believe whatever you wish. I hear that all the time and it's not novel or interesting to me any more. Justify and I may understand your position better.

Hours of wealth by Opeth. Incredible. The vocals of Mikael Akerfeldt made me just stop everything I was doing, then I got this odd feeling of warmth go through me. The solo at the end just tops this song off. Incredible. Sexy. Wow.

I think atheists are largely misunderstood in the broader community (especially in the U.S.). I personally see no need in defending myself as an atheist or being an apologist for atheism (because, of course, there's nothing to apologise for), so all you'll hear me doing is challenging misrepresentations. The quote from the former president of the U.S. obviously wouldn't have helped things along in terms of atheists being an accepted group of U.S. society. I dislike him and his son. Him for condoning state sponsored theism and his son for condoning intelligent design. I could obviously word my dislike of them more strongly but that would just take this thread off the rails.

Just to reiterate the sentiment from another topic, I'll post these lines of evidence for evolution in response to the doubters among us. Feel free to comment. Chromosome - Bundles of DNA (bound by special protiens) encompassing one's genome. Genome - The genetic material of an organism. Every nucleotide which makes up all of your DNA. Nucleotide - The monomer subuints which make up DNA. There are four. Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), and Cytosine ©. Telomere - The end terminus of a chromosome. In vertebrates, it is comprised of the repeat sequence 'TTAGGG' which is repeated around 1000 times. Easily recognisable in the genome. Centromere - The central structure of a chromosome. Comprised of segments of simple repeat DNA 171 nucleotides in length. Easily recognisable in the genome. ----------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the video - 1) Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes all have 48. 2) It is then hypothesised that the common ancestor we and the great apes shared had 48 chromosomes, like the other great apes currently do. 3) Two primate chromosomes must then have fused into one human chromosome. 4) Chromosome 2 fits the bill; it has two centromeres, one deactivated and the other still functional. It also has telomere sequence in it's center, where it dosen't belong (remember telomeres are only found on the terminus ends of chromosomes). These two facts clearly indicate a fusion event occured. 5) Human chromosome 2 is also highly similar in sequence to two chimpanzee chromosomes. This clearly indicates common ancestry between us and chimps. Further reading: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Just one of many examples of clear evidence for common ancestry between us and chimps. We didn't evolve from them. They are evolved creatures just like us. We share a common ancestor. ======================================================================== ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ======================================================================== http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254 Endogenous Retrovirus - The genome of a now defunct virus permanently inserted into one's genome. This occurs when a retrovirus makes its way into germ line cells (sperm or egg) and recieves a knockout mutation thereafter (to stop it's adverse effects). ---------------------------------------------- Explanation of the quote - 1) There are many human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) found in the human genome. 2) Most of these families of HERVs are found in other primates, at the same site of integration or loci, suggesting all those who share HERVs, including humans, inherited them from our most recent common ancestor. The mathematical probability of a multitude of HERVs inserting in all primates in thier precise locations and harbouring the same knockout mutations is staggering. Further reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses ------------------------------------------------------ Another line of evidence to corroborate with the aformentioned.

It looks like some sort of interaction between microwave radiation and some sort of metal in the wrapper (if there is any). Speculation on my part. Not sure. Whatever it is, it's bloody cool. :)

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254 Endogenous Retrovirus - The genome of a now defunct virus permanently inserted into one's genome. This occurs when a retrovirus makes its way into germ line cells (sperm or egg) and recieves a knockout mutation thereafter (to stop it's adverse effects). ---------------------------------------------- Explanation of the quote - 1) There are many human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) found in the human genome. 2) Most of these families of HERVs are found in other primates, at the same site of integration or loci, suggesting all those who share HERVs, including humans, inherited them from our most recent common ancestor. The mathematical probability of a multitude of HERVs inserting in all primates in thier precise locations and harbouring the same knockout mutations is staggering. Further reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses ------------------------------------------------------ Another line of evidence to corroborate with the aformentioned. Again, I can only reasonably conclude one of two things: 1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true. 2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us. Is this not a fair assesment?

Oh not another person who gets their internet life mixed up with their social life! :P Just Joking. :--) By the way on topic, a lot of athiest out there don't respect people's religions, in fact a lot even despise the thought of someone believing in their faith and rejecting the world's way of thinking. Just another bit of hypocrisy, when they expect us to believe their theories are fact, even when they aren't proven. Please, eels, don't mix atheism with science. The two are completely different. Just because atheists often accept science dosen't make science atheistic. Don't even bring science into it. That's just a way for one side to justify themselves over the other. Both sides believe in science, for Pete's sake. And science belongs to neither 'side'. I was responding to eels use of the phrase 'thier theories.' The theories he is presumably talking about aren't atheistic any more than gravitation or the germ theory of disease is.

True, though I make the division when I look at the basic statements of each. Basically, between 1) I lack belief in a god and 2) I don't know, you don't know, and neither of us ever will I prefer the second choice. Hate referencing the accursed, abominable SAT's, but it's like those questions that have two right answers, and you have to pick the one that's more right. That's what I'm doing- both descriptions describe my point of view, but strong agnosticism does it better :P . Fair enough.

Now, eels, from the above post of mine I can only reasonably conclude one of two things: 1) Common ancestry of us and chimps is true. 2) Common ancestry is not true, your god exists, and he is trying to trick us. Is this not a fair assesment?

As a strong Agnostic speaking, yes, that's the point of view we hold. The credo I stand by is thus: I don't know, and neither do you. I'm open-minded to both sides of the debate, but as the strongest kind of Agnostic I find no purpose in examining the supernatural, at least beyond the extent of daydreaming and randomly pondering about the subject. Yeah that is what agnostics really believe in. I think what he was saying was that in a perfect world everyone would be agnostic. But that would be boring :P . And for that matter, I find that weak atheism is just as good as agnosticism, I just hold a higher preference for the latter. I am basically the same as you in reference to my 'label.' It is true, however, that you, like me, are a weak atheist too. Either that or you actually believe in a god, which is fine, of course. Any lack of belief in any god equates to a weak atheism in reference to that god. All Christians are at least weak atheists of all gods but the judeo-christian god. As Dawkins states, "I just go one further."

Chromosome - Bundles of DNA (bound by special protiens) encompassing one's genome. Genome - The genetic material of an organism. Every nucleotide which makes up all of your DNA. Nucleotide - The monomer subuints which make up DNA. There are four. Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), and Cytosine ©. Telomere - The end terminus of a chromosome. In vertebrates, it is comprised of the repeat sequence 'TTAGGG' which is repeated around 1000 times. Easily recognisable in the genome. Centromere - The central structure of a chromosome. Comprised of segments of simple repeat DNA 171 nucleotides in length. Easily recognisable in the genome. ----------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the video - 1) Humans have 46 chromosomes, while the other great apes all have 48. 2) It is then hypothesised that the common ancestor we and the great apes shared had 48 chromosomes, like the other great apes currently do. 3) Two primate chromosomes must then have fused into one human chromosome. 4) Chromosome 2 fits the bill; it has two centromeres, one deactivated and the other still functional. It also has telomere sequence in it's center, where it dosen't belong (remember telomeres are only found on the terminus ends of chromosomes). These two facts clearly indicate a fusion event occured. 5) Human chromosome 2 is also highly similar in sequence to two chimpanzee chromosomes. This clearly indicates common ancestry between us and chimps. Further reading: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html ------------------------------------------------------------- Just one of many examples of clear evidence for common ancestry between us and chimps. We didn't evolve from them. They are evolved creatures just like us. We share a common ancestor.

+ 1?! A PWNED Stick?!! :roll: The General Board is calling, you don't belong on Off Topic. And no evolution can't be proved, it hasn't and there's no evidence saying it can be. And therefore its not a fact, and no I'm not trying to say that Christianity is a fact. Its a religious belief, atleast Christians don't get mixed up with the difference between a fact and a theory, unlike most believers of evolution out there. Evolution can be proved, and it has been because there is evidence. The theoretical aspects still remain just like the theoretical aspects of the movement of celestial bodies, but no one doubts the factual nature of the earth revolving around the sun because of the overwhelming and one sided evidence. I'll be happy to provide an example of said evidence to demonstrate why many scientists consider common ancestry as fact. It's important to realise that facts are not only found in the form of raw data. Evidence can allude to unknown or not so immediately evident facts. At one point in time, it seemed rediculous to many that the earth revolved around the sun. Today, this is evident to the extent which it is called a fact, and we move on to bigger and better things. I'd personally not go so far as to call common ancestry fact, although many scientists do. I don't have the knowlege or access to the evidence and tests they do, obviously.

Oh not another person who gets their internet life mixed up with their social life! :P Just Joking. :--) By the way on topic, a lot of athiest out there don't respect people's religions, in fact a lot even despise the thought of someone believing in their faith and rejecting the world's way of thinking. Just another bit of hypocrisy, when they expect us to believe their theories are fact, even when they aren't proven. Please, eels, don't mix atheism with science. The two are completely different. Just because atheists often accept science dosen't make science atheistic.

(1) No, they think they know. There is a crucial difference. (2) There is no such thing as a test to disprove god; it's an unfalsifiable concept. People don't normally go around disproving anything, that's backwards thinking. We usually back up our claims with proof for them, not proof against others. (3) Total and utter misrepresentation of atheism. Not all atheists believe that god does not exist. Many, like me, are weak atheists and simply lack belief in the idea that god does exist. It's through an utter lack of faith that I'm at this position as a skeptic, I don't have faith that god does not exist because I do not at all believe that he does not. a - without, lacking, not theism - the belief in the existance of a god or gods Thus, atheism - being without, lacking or not having belief in the existance of a god or gods. Lack of belief for is not positive belief against. (4) If you exclude god entirely and look at creationism by it's natural faculties, it fails miserably. The neglect of some facts and manipulation of others isn't honest science and leads to a one sided view of the evidence at hand which is at odds with facts already known to be true. It's not an honest science and you can easily see this by it's preoccupation with trying to disprove evolution. If it were at all honest, it would stick to it's own guns. If you like, feel free to show me an unbiased, honest reference which has no occupation with childishly badmouthing evolution. (5) Firstly, I'd have to completely ignore "creation scientists believe god..." Aside from that, you say perhaps some animals had information for different hair lengths in thier genome and they used which ever one was needed for the climate. That's not how variation works at all. We know for a fact that microevolution occurs, and that's what gives us the variation within a species. There are generally only ever 2 variations of a trait within any given individual: one from mum, one from dad. Any new traits, then, must be selected for via mutations on old traits. That's how you get variation. We can see brand new information being expressed that wasn't present before via a mutational event. I think this covers what you suggested.

double post

What orifice did you pull this number out of? Here in Texas we don't even bother teaching. The science teacher says "Some people believe in evolution, some in Creation." and we move on to what we actually know. (1) If you say that Creation should not be taught in schools for the reason that it is not proven, then you are barking up the wrong tree. (2) Evolution has not been proven, ever, in a laboratory setting. (3) Therefore making it not verified by the scientific method. All it has been is speculation from day one. Evolution has never gone the full gamut of the scientific method. In fact, a large part of the scientific community do not believe in the man from monkey phenomenon. (4) By saying 99% of scientists, you are making the asinine claim that every scientist from cosmetics to dentistry believes in evolution, which is a ridiculous and completely unfounded claim. (5) Yes, adaptation does occur, but we have never observed a complete species change as a result, only improvement of the original species. (6) Before you dare say Creationism is a completely bunk theory, then give me intangible proof that interspecies evolution happens. Do it. (1) Firstly, it's not science. Make it science then you can teach it. If you do, you'll have to make it encompass more data than evolution if it's to be considered over evolution for teaching. That's the way the system works. No fairness, no appeasing one's religious belief, just a weight of evidence and the ability to explain data. That's what get's a scientific theory a place in school curriculum. Also, it's not that creationism is unproven, it's that it contorts known facts or neglects facts to suit it's agenda and is, by it's very nature, unprovable. (2) Yes, it's impossible to test billions of years of evolution in a laboratory. If you think that's the only way to test something you're sadly mistaken. A test is not just mixing chemicals in test tubes. (3) Sorry, the method is used and has worked out on evolution. Observe phenomena (genome data), hypothesise (common ancestry), test (look for common genome data). If we don't find what we should, evolution would be a totally unfounded and bunk idea. Evidently, all major observations support evolution. See the molecular biology evidence I presented on page 2. (4) Sorry, my wording was off. More like 99% of biologists. Those who work in relevant fields. Here we go. (5) Speciation has been observed. Pre tell, how does a man made definition prevent a natural mutation? If I draw a conceptual line in the sand, will nature keel to my concept and prevent mutations beyond that point? No. (6) Firstly, it's not even science. Really, it's not. I'll explain later if you doubt that it isn't. As for evidence of evolution, see my post on page 2 and read through the links. Your logic is faulty here too. The credentials of creationism don't rest on the failures of evolution to explain things.

By an absence of measured data I suppose.

(1) Ok, I'll put it this way. Scientists (evolutionists in other words, as 99%+ of all scientists accept evolution) look at the evidence from the perspective of a naturalistic method. It's assumed that the evidence supports a natural formation of life on earth and it does. The key here is that this perspective can be tested. Certain things must happen for this to be the case and these things can be affirmed or denied by testing. Creationists, on the other hand look at the evidence assuming that supernatural ideas can explain it. As these ideas are untestable, they are assumptions. (3) Why add the supernatural baggage? I don't get it. People try to reconcile belief with science by adding these baseless assumptions. God must have had a hand in it, right? How can you test that? How does anyone know if god even exists? People speculate all the time and have done for millenia yet no one has actually known, hence why it's a belief requiring faith, right?. Science is about what we can know via observations, hypothesis and testing. If it dosen't fit into this framework, why add it and try and call it science?

Yeah, heard that one on the radio. Don't mind it at all. :)

(1) To answer this you must ask yourself for what reason an evolutionist would be biased. If they are actually scientists, they should have no reason to be so. I consider myself a scientist (student) and thus honestly would not give a toss if evolution were to be proven wrong. I'm much more interested in accountability, the evidence and science working without religious convictions getting involved. If, however, someone is an evolutionist only because they dispise religion, they are possibly biased and I would dearly like to slap them up the side of the head and tell them to stop abusing science. They use it to push an agenda just like creationists and thus I'm not fond of them either. (2) Naive, yes. Just don't be willfuly so or argue through your naivety as if you know and you'll get no problems from me. In an ideal world we'd all know everything but we don't. I, just like anyone else, am ignorant of the majority of everything. Thus, I don't argue the majority of everything; only the things I do know. (3) I think I see what you're saying. Chromosome numbers are equal within a species but even in closely related species chromosome number can vary drastically (in some cases). An example I remember from a lecture is that one muntjac deer species has 3 pairs of huge chromosomes (with the X fused to one of the homologues in a pair) and a small Y chromosome, while another almost identical looking muntjac deer species has 23 pairs of smaller chromosomes. Perhaps you could elaborate on the reaoning behind your response here.

Isn't that what space is anyway? Also isn't there a slight difference between a hole and a void? A void is surely just empty space and a hole suggests an actual physical tearing that one can move through, at least to me - space science is most definitely NOT my area of expertise. *waits for warrior to put it into stupid man talk for me* Haha, astronomy/cosmology isn't my thing really. Biology is more to my liking. The odd thing about this void seems to be it's scale - 1 billion light years across aparrantly. Bloody huge.

(1) This is precisesly why we have peer review. Real scientists don't give a toss about thier presuppositions, they strive for accountability (though sure, they aren't perfect). Creationism is based on an infalliable book which is already true and therefore accountability or any notion that it may be wrong is thrown out the window. You can't reliably compare the two on the basis of presuppositions in my opinion. Ask yourself, why is it that the only people who accept creationism are biblical literalists? Another aspect of science which negates subjectivity is a simple test. Take the example of human chromosome 2 I presented. The hypothesis is that we and chimps share a common ancestor. To test this, we ought to see similarities in our genomes. We do, yet we have 2 fewer chromosomes than them and the 2 other great ape species (gorillas, orangutans). This presents the problem and we must then ask why this is and how could a common ancestor with 48 chromosomes evolve to produce us, with 46 chromosomes? One of two things could have happened - the deletion of an entire chromosome (as in a homologous pair of chromosomes) or the fusion of two chromosomes. It's known that the deletion of an entire chromosome is lethal, therefore if evolution is true -- if we share a common ancestor with chimps and the other great apes -- then we must have one chromosome which is a fusion of two of thiers. Low and behold, it's chromosome 2. How do we know this? Well, we see that the two halves of said chromosome align nicely to two chimp chromosomes, of course. But that's not all. Here's the clincher - in the center of human chromosome 2, we find the obvious repeat sequence 'TTAGGG', which is the sequence of a unique chromosome structure called a telomere found in all vertebrate chromosomes. But why is this special? Because telomeres are sequences of DNA at the termination of a chromosome (at the end), not in the middle. Thus, we have telomeres where they are never found. How would one explain this? That's not all. Also found in human chromosome 2 are 2 centromeres, but one is deactivated (i.e. unused). So? This is another clincher because chromosomes only ever have one centromere. How would one explain this? How would one explain that human chromosome 2 is not only strikingly similar in sequence to two chimp chromosomes, but that it contains telomeres where they don't belong and two centromeres, one of which is deactivated? Now how would creationism look at this? "That's the way god made us." Well, boys and girls, I think god, if you happen to believe in him, is either trying to tell us that we divirged from a common ancestor shared with chimps, or he's a deviant bastard that's trying to trick us. In the interests of what is purely science, the phenomenon of the sequence of human chromosome 2 gives foolproof support of common ancestry. (2) Do you mean Christian creationism or the idea that a creator had part in our existance? The latter is utterly unfalsifiable and thus impossible to prove or disprove. The former is contradicted by the unbiased (as in not religiously motivated), objective mainstream science. EDIT: I see you edited your post. Based on that, at present I can't see how creationism can explain human chromosome 2, as I devulged above. Always open to hear those who feel they do have an explanation, though.

Sounds spooky. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this pans out or how they explain it.

Blackwater Park by Opeth Epic.