In the Right

Let’s delve a little deeper.

1. As I’ve already stated, correlation does not equal causation. Just because two things seem similar does not mean they are related. This is not proof of evolution.

2. Oh, look at this, statistics to support my point:

Here’s [sic] some other common animals [sic] and our genetic similarites [sic] (these numbers are consistent across all reliable sources):

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75%
Fruit Fly: 60%
Banana: 50%

3. “Fact” was in quotation marks, because of reasons relating to this scientist’s admission:

It really depends on what you mean by comparing DNA of one species to another. If you mean directly comparing the whole of one genome to another then the figures for similarity are very low, if you mean the similarities between the genes that code for proteins then the figure is very high! Don’t forget that the vast majority of mammalian DNA does NOT code for proteins it was at one point thought to be “junk DNA” though we now realise it all has a role to play - we are just not entirely sure of the details yet.

Do you comprehend how much room for “data adjustment” (read: fudging data or giving insufficient detail into the methods used to achieve the statistic) that creates? Do you have any idea how easy it is to create and propagate misleading statistics? I don’t think you do.

bootylover333:

Men more evolved? Their Y chromosome is

in-the-right:

A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp’s, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Really? REALLY? Scientists are finding more and more parts of us that are DIFFERENT from chimpanzees and other primates, and their only conclusion is that those parts have CHANGED FASTER?! How much of a brainwashed dope can you be to come to that conclusion without even the slightest inkling that maybe humans and chimps have different genetics because they are DIFFERENT ORGANISMS WITH NO COMMON EVOLUTIONARY ANCESTOR. BECAUSE MACROEVOLUTION DOESN’T EXIST.

There were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren’t on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the Whitehead Institute.

WHOA, HUMANS AND CHIMPANZEES ARE DIFFERENT! Unfortunately, this conclusion says nothing about the level of their difference in the past. Which means the assumption that humans were more similar to chimps in ages past has absolutely zero legs to stand on from a genetic perspective.

While all human and chimp chromosomes have been mapped, only two chimp chromosomes have been examined in great detail: Y and chromosome 21. Yet, there’s still enough known to make the claim that the Y is the speediest evolver, Hughes and Page said.

Oh, good, that means you’re going to explain—nope, that’s where the paragraph ends. No explanation, just, “We’re sure about this hunch, guys; trust us.” So you’ve only examined two chromosomes in detail… Then how did you get the “2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp’s” statistic? You people are absolutely shameless frauds.

“The story is not as cut and dried as many would have liked to predict,” Hughes said. “It’s kind of fun to say that men are going to die out, but the science is proving — now that we’ve got data — that that’s not true at all.”

Page agreed. “The Y chromosome has many more tricks up its sleeve than it was given credit for,” he said.

Oh, good, men are not going to die out! I was afraid of that! …But seriously, do you guys not see that evolutionists are puppeteering both sides of this drama? They “predict” (read: pull out of their rears) that the Y chromosome is shrinking, and men are going to die out, oh no! Ah, but no, MORE RESEARCH has shown that Y chromosome is crafty and thus fights well for its survival! Thank Evolution; we’re saved! Translation: “We shocked you all into believing an exciting myth under the deceitful guise of ‘science’, and now that our scary ‘research’ has proven totally false, we’re going to spin it to make it look like our advancements have proven the ‘evolutionary’ intricacies preventing this disaster we totally made up.”

Disgusting. Absolute propaganda machine slimeballs.

One is that it stands alone and isn’t part of a pair like 44 other chromosomes. So when there are mutations there’s no matching chromosome to recombine and essentially cover up the change, Hughes said.

Yes, and how many positive changes have come from Y’s susceptibility to transferring genetic mutations? Bueller? Compared to all the male-biased diseases and malformations caused by this weakness which enables natural selection to work precisely against the theory of evolution?

“Wow,” said R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City. “That result is astounding.”

I can’t believe this isn’t considered a parody.

So alright, yeah this article is kind of written awfully (many reporters don’t know science, many scientists can’t write a good news story, the results are just bad for everyone), let’s take a look at your objections.

Scientists are finding more and more parts of us that are DIFFERENT from chimpanzees and other primates, and their only conclusion is that those parts have CHANGED FASTER?

Well yeah, that would be the reasonable conclusion.  We’ve still got something like 96% or so of genetic code that’s the same, saying “but this part is really different” doesn’t change the majority similarity.  If we don’t have a common ancestor, there’s no reason for the number to be anywhere near that high.

hich means the assumption that humans were more similar to chimps in ages past has absolutely zero legs to stand on from a genetic perspective.

Well… yeah, that’s entirely true.  Fortunately we’ve got, y’know, fossil evidence of early human being pretty damn similar to chimps and other great apes.  A neat thing about evolution is that it doesn’t rely on a single source of information for all of it’s conclusions.

So you’ve only examined two chromosomes in detail… Then how did you get the “2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp’s” statistic? You people are absolutely shameless frauds.

You don’t have to do an in-depth examination of each specific chromosome for an overall comparison of two genetic codes, that just straight-up isn’t how it works.  The in-depth comparisons are just more detailed looks at specific sections of the overall comparison.

Translation: “We shocked you all into believing an exciting myth under the deceitful guise of ‘science’, and now that our scary ‘research’ has proven totally false, we’re going to spin it to make it look like our advancements have proven the ‘evolutionary’ intricacies preventing this disaster we totally made up.”

You’re making it sound like every scientist is part of some giant cabal that all espouse the same thing and then change their minds when proven wrong a few years later.  In actuality, the researcher who proposed the idea that the Y chromosome is dying out is still clinging steadfastly to her hypothesis, despite numerous counterarguments and growing evidence to the contrary.  The entire scientific community never agreed with her, and they still don’t.  Heck, the entire scientific community may not agree with the findings of this study!  It’s a little early to gauge that response though.  One paper being published, or one idea being put forth, does not mean that there has suddenly been a complete 180 in scientific thought; if it did, ICR would have led the way to a glorious bible-based understanding of our past with a single publication.

Compared to all the male-biased diseases and malformations caused by this weakness which enables natural selection to work precisely against the theory of evolution?

You’ve made this argument before and I’m still not entirely convinced you know what you’re talking about, so I’m gonna break it down here:

Natural Selection:  Positive mutations get passed along because their bearers have some advantage over the rest of the populations, they are selected for.  Negative mutations get weeded out because their bearers have a disadvantage compared to the rest of the population, they are selected against.  This is a cornerstone of evolutionary biology, I really don’t understand what part of it ‘works precisely against the theory of evolution.’  If you’re saying that there are more negative mutations than positive ones, you’re absolutely correct (note: neutral mutations outnumber both of those combined), but the number and proportion of mutations present doesn’t have anything to do with natural selection.  It will just favor the good and disfavor the bad because nature, *shoehorns in capitalism reference* like the free market, only supports innovation if it has a positive impact on the organism/company.

I can’t believe this isn’t considered a parody.

Yeah no that guy sounds pretty dumb, we’ve known about major differences between human and other primate Y chromosomes since at least 1998.

Well yeah, that would be the reasonable conclusion.  We’ve still got something like 96% or so of genetic code that’s the same, saying “but this part is really different” doesn’t change the majority similarity.  If we don’t have a common ancestor, there’s no reason for the number to be anywhere near that high.

Who says? “I can’t think of (or accept) any other reason, so this must be it,” is not a logical argument. There actually are other explanations, but apparently the fact that you won’t accept them makes you right. Who says things can’t be genetically similar without being blood related? Because last time I looked, correlation does not equal causation.

Fortunately we’ve got, y’know, fossil evidence of early human being pretty damn similar to chimps and other great apes.

Because some of the few, if any, fossil “evidences” that haven’t been debunked look similar to other fossils? Since when do creatures that look alike have to be related? ‘Das racist. Again, correlation does not equal causation.

The in-depth comparisons are just more detailed looks at specific sections of the overall comparison.

And without these looks at specific sections, how can you tell how much of it differs from chimps?

This is a cornerstone of evolutionary biology, I really don’t understand what part of it ‘works precisely against the theory of evolution.’  If you’re saying that there are more negative mutations than positive ones, you’re absolutely correct (note: neutral mutations outnumber both of those combined), but the number and proportion of mutations present doesn’t have anything to do with natural selection.

But no, really, how many positive mutations have come from the Y chromosome’s mutation? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t think of any. That means Y helps evolution zero percent, at best, from any evidence we have. Its weakness is more often a detriment, so why would evolution have even developed the gene in this way? Furthermore, not all of the population dies off from negative mutations, as natural selection is not foolproof and exact. That means (and reality seems to back me up here) that negative mutations persist far more often and carry on their genes to consecutive generations. That’s why we still have congenital diseases in the first place. If evolution worked with natural selection the way you say, in that it slowly purifies the species of bad traits and improves it via good traits, we would not be in the reality we are in.

The latter are extra disappointing because their responses are so wordy and involved, and they generally expect similar responses, which of course will make no difference whatsoever to their blindness and is generally a huge waste of time. But with the former, you just get to sit and laugh. Take a load off.

Both of them act the fool and have the most nonsensical ideas, but it’s easier to identify in SJWs, considering they don’t have the “god” of pseudoscience and blind reliance upon evolutionary scientist priests to back them up. Liberalism is so much more dangerous when they actually try to make their BS look like logic.

You wanted me to explain to you how any human being can create an accurate replica of a triceratops if they have never seen one and are just running on random imagination…well, let me say that those supposed “ancient artifacts” are not accurate replicas of triceratops but simply vague carvings and statues of mythical creatures. Even if it was a dinosaur, it isn’t that accurate so you could interpret it in many many ways. Now, it’s not just running on random imagination, but it is very mythical. These artifacts are quite probably from some very old civilizations, I have no doubt about that. But they are quite probably as I said simply depictions of monsters and stuff like that from those times. They are not dinosaurs and this is not evidence of co-existence. That is just your interpretation on these artifacts (and a pretty loose one too). You cannot really claim that this is evidence when there is overwhelming evidence against your claim and when the evidence itself is questionable. You also say how because this “evidence” was found from many unaffiliated people, it means it is certain that this is evidence. Buuuuut this also begs the point that pretty much every culture has stories and myths of monsters and creatures so it only shows that many cultures made carvings out of them. And you can’t say that all the carvings are the same or anything either because even a quick glance will tell you that these carvings are all remarkably different.

Hopefully this adds to this explanation. And please don’t say that if this was support for evolution, I would be all over it. Evolutionary evidence usually comes from the ground in the form of fossils and things like that that we’re able to date (usually they’re very old). But not in the form of old vases.

And again you mentioned that I was simply dissing your “evidence” because it doesn’t “fit” with evolution and that that was wrong. You said

“No, you cannot defend, “What is right in front of my eyes can’t be possible because evolution says no.” This does not discount the artifact. It discounts the theory of evolution.”

But evolutionary evidence such as dinosaur bones and ancient fossils would suggest that the earth is much older than 6000 years and has aged billions of years and that dinosaurs died long before human existence. There is lots of evidence to this so I’m not bashing the evidence in question because of a theory alone. I’m bashing it because there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what you are claiming. It’s my evidence against your evidence. But as I also said, the fact that your evidence is, in fact, evidence in the first place is merely a perceived interpretation of what is there.

What I’m saying is, I’m not just saying that “what is right in front of my eyes can’t be possible because evolution says no”, what I’m saying is “what is right in front of my eyes can’t be possible because evolution and all of the overwhelming evidence on it’s side says no.”

You might be getting quite mad here so let me assure you also that this website with this evidence was also put together by a bunch of conservative Christians who want to promote their poor interpretation of the bible on a sketchy website. It seems to be pretty biased.

Now, on to Dr. Cuozzo…

First off, it would be better if he knew a thing or two about theology or philosophy because then although he wouldn’t be any better at examining the artifacts, he would be much better at interpreting them in a biblical context. It’s not just enough to know how to look at ancient artifacts but you need to also know what they mean and how they fit into everything else. You posted a long quote spanning his life and history after that. I have no problems with his degree in dentistry or archaeology but the fact remains that he has a few weird quirks from what I can see that would make people question one’s qualifications. In his book, although his archaeology work was fine, he also wrote about the evil “evolutionists” who were following him for a time. He describes how they followed him around paris and how they even nearly broke into his room. They were apparently trying to “destroy the evidence”…now I don’t know about you, but I start to question someone if they tell me the evil “evolutionists” are after them and they need to hide so they don’t find the evidence and take over the world…

what I’m trying to say is..I’m sure he’s very smart, but he’s also kind of a paranoid nut. But all of this matters because what I’m trying to show here is that the people this website are quoting to be experts on their site do in some degree have a bit of questionable backgrounds. And although I realize the article was about dinosaurs in ancient civilizations, if this were proved it would also mean dinosaurs lived in ancient bible times as well. It’s pretty much the same thing and besides most of the people who helped make that site are conservative Christians anyway so I think you can probably guess what they’re really trying to prove.

I’ll skip my explanation of the theory of evolution just for now but I’ll come back to it later…

The peppered moth theory

I would like to see evidence to why it is false from an unbiased source please, not from www.bible.ca. Obviously that website is totally biased to the theory and would try and disprove it by any means necessary. I’m sorry but I just don’t have the time to read that ridiculous amount of writing and all those stupid random statistics. Show me an objective and unbiased source disproving the peppered moth theory and why it should not be in our textbooks and then I’ll discuss that with you. As far as I’m concerned, if it is in our school textbooks, it is probably safe to say that it truthful. But I’m not going to take that bible website as evidence against it. I would rather read a textbook than that sketchy bible website which clearly has a biased objective other than simply to help people learn objectively and engage in critical thinking.

You also say you look at Genesis with a viewpoint of critical discernment but I am not so sure. Now let me remind you here that although God did influence to some degree what was written in Genesis, please do not forget that it was Moses who wrote it. God did not hypnotize Moses or any other biblical author to control what they wrote but did allow them to write the books themselves. God doesn’t put people in trances for the purposes of writing the bible. I say this because you made the point that God would not use specific language unless he meant it for that specific purpose. He would not have said day unless he meant a literal day. Please remember that there was a real author to Genesis and that this author does deserve some credit themselves. Now in terms of the actual word use for day, I don’t think you can fairly say that it infallibly means a literal day in its context. Do you read ancient Hebrew? I’m guessing not seeing as most people don’t. Speaking of ancient languages, please also remember that these books were also written in ancient languages and were, in fact, written to a completely different culture than our own. So with this, I do not think that the 7 day creation story represents our seven day week as they did not have our seven day week back then. Why would they write it to mean a literal seven day week if they didn’t have a seven day week? That would make no sense. We must always remember that although the bible was written for us, it was never written to us.

Also, when you ask why would God uselessly spend billions of years evolving the earth when he could have made it outright, the counter question must be asked “If carbon dating and ancient fossilization show that the earth is billions of years old, and the rocks and layers of the earth show that it has been evolving for a very long time, why would God say the earth was created 6000 years ago? But if the earth WAS made 6000 years ago, why would God make it look like it’s very old?” (I admit this is two questions). The young earth theory of the world is problematic because it makes God seem like a great deceiver. He created the world 6000 years ago but he just made it look like it was really old, probably to fool us. You ask why God would uselessly waste so much time making the earth and evolving things. But this is how the world and the universe works and it’s how God created it. Which would you rather believe, the idea that God created a very simple world that just appeared out of nowhere, or that God made an incredibly diverse and complex universe that is filled with amazement and wonder.

I thank you for stating that I was right in the next part, for I do believe I was. But you misunderstood me. When I said Genesis is not a scientific textbook, I also meant that it is not a history book (by the way, I hope we understand that when I say Genesis, I only mean the first 11 chapters, not the rest of the book). IT IS NOT A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE. This is what I meant when it is another form of literature. The opening of Genesis is not to tell how the world was created. It was to tell, through carefully made stories, who our God is, what he is like, what we are like, and why we our special and why our God is special and not like any of the other gods that were around in culture at that time. Don’t forget that most other ancient nations had some sort of creation myth at that time. The point of Genesis was to show God’s people, why our God is the God and why he is so special.

Again, your next point was defending your evidence as true evidence and not just interpretation. I would like however for you to show me these supposed sources that co-existence did happen. Of course, when I ask for evidence please give me something objective and unbiased. I really don’t want www.bible.ca as evidence.

And finally, I have already explained why the animals in the bible are not dinosaurs. You cannot just say I am relying on an unfounded theory, this is something that is very credible and widespread with overwhelming evidence to support it. As I also said before, please try applying some proper biblical exegesis to those passages with those supposed dinosaurs and maybe you will find what they really are or mean.

If there’s anything I missed with this please let me know and I’ll be happy to address it if I can.

Thanks again,

Josh

Your logic on the replicas of dinosaurs makes no sense, as I’ve stated before. You yourself admitted it doesn’t come from pure imagination. Accurate or not (and most would admit it’s pretty accurate for ancient civilian models and art), it represents their expression of something they’ve seen before. Every culture has these depictions of their experiences. Call it not-a-dinosaur, call it an “ancient lizard,” call it monsters, but THOSE ARE THE DINOSAURS WE ARE REFERRING TO.

But evolutionary evidence such as dinosaur bones and ancient fossils would suggest that the earth is much older than 6000 years and has aged billions of years and that dinosaurs died long before human existence.

But they DON’T suggest that. Old-earthers interpret the evidence that way. Young-earthers obviously also think it fits in perfectly with their worldview. Your opinion is not undeniable fact just because your side believes it to be so. You said my evidence is “merely a perceived interpretation of what is there”. Yours is just as much. And all of your dating methods are bunk in various self-fulfilling ways. So you basically have no leg up whatsoever on young-earthers.

what I’m saying is “what is right in front of my eyes can’t be possible because evolution and all of the overwhelming evidence on it’s side says no.”

Again, that’s not true. And furthermore, you do NOT throw away evidence just because it’s contrary to the conclusions you have made previously. If you find something that is contrary, you analyze to see WHY it is contrary. Perhaps tweak or even throw out your previous theory. This is what evolutionists have utterly failed at. You rely on faith that, “What is right in front of my eyes can’t be possible because our previous conclusions have already dictated otherwise.” You assume and hope against what is presented to you, which are the basics of faith. Therefore, both evolutionists and creationists rely on faith to explain what they don’t know or understand. The only difference is evolutionists have faith in the powers of fallible man to figure it out, and creationists have faith in a perfect God who has made it all a part of his plan.

You might be getting quite mad here so let me assure you also that this website with this evidence was also put together by a bunch of conservative Christians who want to promote their poor interpretation of the bible on a sketchy website. It seems to be pretty biased.

Why exactly would you think this quip would make me less mad?

now I don’t know about you, but I start to question someone if they tell me the evil “evolutionists” are after them and they need to hide so they don’t find the evidence and take over the world

Really? Would you really be surprised if some people who zealously support evolution want to destroy evidence to the contrary and eventually cause the whole world to believe in evolution? Let’s turn this around. Think about those of a worldview you disagree with for a moment. Have there not been widely-believed rumors about the crusades and the knights templar doing similar things? Yeah, let’s all try to think with a little less bias.

And although I realize the article was about dinosaurs in ancient civilizations, if this were proved it would also mean dinosaurs lived in ancient bible times as well.

Precisely, you’ve got it! As I’m pretty sure I have already mentioned on this blog, yes, the dinosaurs existed during the time of the Bible. Which is why the Bible mentions a couple of them. This also perfectly matches with the evidence we have that they were wiped out during or died soon after the Flood. You know, all those quickly-deposited layers and evidence of masses of animals dying instantly within a similar timeframe—all that stuff evolutionists either discard or would like to forget.

conservative Christians anyway so I think you can probably guess what they’re really trying to prove.

You’re just not going to stop being close-minded, are you. Let’s repeat this together—“conservative Christians are not necessarily wrong about everything just by being conservative Christians.” There, that’s better. YES, we’re trying to prove creationism. The same as EVOLUTIONISTS are trying to prove EVOLUTION. Tell me that they don’t start their tests with the presupposition that evolution is the answer and let me watch your pants catch on fire.

Obviously that website is totally biased to the theory and would try and disprove it by any means necessary. I’m sorry but I just don’t have the time to read that ridiculous amount of writing and all those stupid random statistics.

… Evolutionists, ladies and gentlemen. “I have logic right in front of me, but I don’t like who wrote it, and I don’t feel like bothering spending my time reading it.” No, we’re done. Please refrain from “bothering” me with any further discussion on this topic, as you obviously don’t care to pay attention to my rebuttal. Unless of course, you have a change of heart and actually will listen to what I have to say with an open mind.

The bottom line of this discussion shows this: Evolutionists argue by discrediting the messenger and giving arbitrary judgments. Creationists argue by discrediting methods and interpretations and showing evidence to the contrary.