JEITO:
you see! This is the challenge with atheist.

Any way, let me ask you: what is you definition of what can be termed "an acceptable proof of the existence of God"? Maybe we can start from there

A proof you giving me a concrete evidence of your god, eveidence that your god created the world,evidence that your god is responsible for good things that happen to humans......Not quotes from books.

alexis:
pesty100



I will assume you have some scientific background; let's be honest and not play semantics. You don't have to go to wikipedia to copy and paste the definition. A scientific law is a proven and tested phenomena that can be observed, tested and replicated. For example, we can test gravity with relative certainty. We can test and observe the laws of thermodynamics and bio-genesis because we can observe them, repeat them with certainty. Evolution is not even a scientific theory because the hypothesis brought forward can't be supported with any empirical data. It is a theory and that is where it ends.

For example, you have stated clearly that you don't know how life began and evolution has no answer either. You are assuming that it began from chemical reactions when you have no empirical data to support this claim. We can't observe this phenomena, neither can we monitor it to deduce any experimental answers. All you are doing is repeating what others are saying; that is why it's called a THEORY; howbeit not a scientific

My friend, you're a classic creationist. You claim to have studied evolution and yet here you are fuming that its take on the origin of life is absurd. Who's doing the flexing here?

Evolution is not abiogenesis. Even if it turned out that a magic rodent was the creator of the universe, the theory of evolution would remain our best explanation, by far, about how life has progressed to this point.

Evolution doesn't say anything about life descending from non living materials. You need a refund for your courses.

pesty100:
well I tried to find truth...

have you found any?

alexis:
Weah96



But it does



Isaiah 7:14: That is from the Torah by the way



Let us deal with what you believe in since you don't believe in spirituality. What is the origin of consciousness? Also, can consciousness be perceived by any of the 5 senses?

Don't just write Isaiah 7:14 after reading the biblical version of it. Fair minded people can see that you're being deceptive.

Here is Isaiah 7:14_16 in the Torah

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. יד. לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל:
15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. טו. חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ יֹאכֵל לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב:
16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
L
Where is the virgin?

Regarding your second question, of course, consciousness can be perceived by the senses.

JEITO:
have you found any?

No

ifeness:


A proof you giving me a concrete evidence of your god, eveidence that your god created the world,evidence that your god is responsible for good things that happen to humans......Not quotes from books.

you are funny I must say. If I ask you to give me proofs that God didn't create the world, what would you give me? Is it not quotes from researches done by others and writings from others that don't believe in God? Do you have any evidence(sourced from you) that justifies the non-existence of God? Or is your claim not based on the inability of a believer to adequately prove to you(by your standard) that God exist and made the whole world?

You are as knowledgeable as the information available to you.

So before I answer your question, I'll like you to help me with something, and it is: what kind of proof from me would be acceptable for you? Is it a pix of God moulding or designing the earth.

The second part of your question that God is responsible for everything good that happens to a person doesn't quite cut it. God is not like a mail man or superman that comes to the rescue of the people of metropolitan weneva there's a danger. It is just like asking if God knows who will win the el-classico next week btw Madrid and Barca. It is quite absurd to think that God doesn't have any more important thing to do than to sit down and watch a football match ahead of time while souls are perishing daily.

Life is governed by principles; if you sow, you'll reap. If you labour, you'll get your due reward etc so when good thing happen to people it doesn't necessarily have to come from God directly. Even though we know God is good and shows mercy on people and thus birth a miraculous deed in their lives. Let's take this example: if a student studies hard and appropriately prepare for an exam, it is expected that he should pass. That is what it means to reap what you sow. In the event that after all the hardwork, he failed, then we will begin to ask questions.

Weah96

Don't just write Isaiah 7:14 after reading the biblical version of it. Fair minded people can see that you're being deceptive.

Here is Isaiah 7:14_16 in the Torah

14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. יד. לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל:
15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. טו. חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ יֹאכֵל לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב:
16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
L
Where is the virgin?

I am not being deceptive; you asked for the verse and I told you. I was careful to ask you specifically where it mentioned there was no virgin birth in the Torah but you refused and instead said it was never mentioned. Can you mentioned the Jewish word that was used to refer young woman and also, can you confirm the Hebrew manuscript you are referring to here so we can look into this some more?

Regarding your second question, of course, consciousness can be perceived by the senses.

Which of the senses can perceive consciousness?

Weah96

My friend, you're a classic creationist. You claim to have studied evolution and yet here you are fuming that its take on the origin of life is absurd. Who's doing the flexing here?

I believe in science and so far the theory of evolution doesn't produce any scientific empirical data or evidence. If there is one, do let me know

Evolution is not abiogenesis. Even if it turned out that a magic rodent was the creator of the universe, the theory of evolution would remain our best explanation, by far, about how life has progressed to this point.

And yet evolution can't answer how life began? Your babbling is not going to change that? Can you explain how our universe came about or how life came about in simple terms with empirical data that we can observe and possibly test?

Evolution doesn't say anything about life descending from non living materials. You need a refund for your courses.

Which evolution are you talking about? Cosmo, macro, micro? Don't be too hasty to show your ignorance

pesty100

I now see where you get it all wrong, evolution doesn't tell us how life began, what it tells us is how life became what it is now.

I think you are being dishonest here - evolution tells us life started billions of years ago and it uses fossils as evidence. So, to claim otherwise is ignorance or dishonesty. Please refer to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

I gave you instances that further strengthened my proposition.
Faith is believing without proof, evolution has proofs... The instance I gave you were enough proof to tell us chemical evolution has a solid standing

If it's proof; why hasn't science made evolution a scientific law? The instances you gave didn't have any links to them for us to review them.

You re the one arguing from the impossibility stand say because it hasn't been done yet, then its impossible... In the case of the empty garage if you work hard for fifty years you will have enough money to put a bmw in the empty garage... Science is working towards chemical evolution, biological evolution has already being proven

That is exactly what faith is - believing in something that hasn't been proven and that is what you are doing.

Evolution definitely comply with science... Or else it would have been discarded a long time ago

Then why isn't it a scientific law? If evolution is 100% accurate and it claims can be proven; why is it just a theory? Why can't scientist say evolution is on the same level with say the law of gravity?

Am not a scientist, but look at malaria you could once treat is with chloroquine, but now malaria is immune to chloroquine... This is where evolution comes in... How did malaria get immune to chloroquine

Adaptation not evolution. Malaria didn't become a virus; it's still malaria but has adapted to chloroquine. Just the same way if I go and live in ice-land, I don't grow fur and become a bear to protect against the cold, I adapt by wearing warmer cloths and I get used to the weather

Expert don't possess blind faith, experts have faith based on what they have experimented on.

Yet no one has experimented on evolution that we can review or test by

alexis:



I think you are being dishonest here - evolution tells us life started billions of years ago and it uses fossils as evidence. So, to claim otherwise is ignorance or dishonesty. Please refer to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

You got what the site is trying to wrong, check what the same site thinks on evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml

alexis:

If it's proof; why hasn't science made evolution a scientific law? The instances you gave didn't have any links to them for us to review them.

You sir don't know what a scientific law means, check this out I copied it om wiki

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they
do not posit a mechanism or explanation of
phenomena: they are merely distillations of the
results of repeated observation. As such, a law is
limited in applicability to circumstances
resembling those already observed, and may be
found false when extrapolated"

alexis:

That is exactly what faith is - believing in something that hasn't been proven and that is what you are doing.

If you are hell bent on saying what I have is faith, when I have tried showing you I believe based on proof, no p then.

alexis:

Then why isn't it a scientific law? If evolution is 100% accurate and it claims can be proven; why is it just a theory? Why can't scientist say evolution is on the same level with say the law of gravity?

You still don't know what a scientific law is.

alexis:

Adaptation not evolution. Malaria didn't become a virus; it's still malaria but has adapted to chloroquine. Just the same way if I go and live in ice-land, I don't grow fur and become a bear to protect against the cold, I adapt by wearing warmer cloths and I get used to the weather

I will post a line from the link you gave me

"Evolution encompasses a wide
range of phenomena: from the
emergence of major lineages,
to mass extinctions, to the
evolution of antibiotic resistant
bacteria in hospitals today."

alexis:

Yet no one has experimented on evolution that we can review or test by

evolution is part of our daily life, you just don't see it

pesty100

You got what the site is trying to wrong, check what the same site thinks on evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml

You can't explain life if you can't explain it's origin. It's like you trying to run for a US president and don't want to produce your birth certificate to prove you were born in America. Also, read the statement posted from the same website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

When did life originate?

Evidence suggests that life first evolved around 3.5 billion years ago. This evidence takes the form of microfossils (fossils too small to be seen without the aid of a microscope) and ancient rock structures in South Africa and Australia called stromatolites. Stromatolites are produced by microbes (mainly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) that form thin microbial films which trap mud; over time, layers of these mud/microbe mats can build up into a layered rock structure — the stromatolite.

So, on one hand evolution claims it doesn't investigate or give empirical data on how life originated but it claims how it knows how life diversified. No matter how hard you twist it; the question is simple - how did we get where we are today? Evolution claims that all species has a common denominator. The question some of us keep asking is how can you trace all living things to the single life organism with evidence.

You sir don't know what a scientific law means, check this out I copied it om wiki

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they
do not posit a mechanism or explanation of
phenomena: they are merely distillations of the
results of repeated observation. As such, a law is
limited in applicability to circumstances
resembling those already observed, and may be
found false when extrapolated"

That is why I have asked you, can you tell me one scientific law that is false. Also, read the definition you posted; it said : RESULTS OF REPEATED OBSERVATION. I can repeat and observe the law of gravity; I can repeat and observe the law of bio-genesis; I can repeat and obeserve the laws of thermo-dynamics. No one can repeat or observe any empirical evidence of evolution.

If you are hell bent on saying what I have is faith, when I have tried showing you I believe based on proof, no p then.

I have asked you to provide the proof; can you please provide verifying proof that I can repeat and observe?

You still don't know what a scientific law is.

Read your definition you posted above and confirm if evolution can provide empirical evidence of life or even how life branched out. Use any case example for us to investigate

I will post a line from the link you gave me

"Evolution encompasses a wide
range of phenomena: from the
emergence of major lineages,
to mass extinctions, to the
evolution of antibiotic resistant
bacteria in hospitals today.

"

Bros, I believe you have a brain and can deduce objectively. Can you explain how humans came from say a fish.

evolution is part of our daily life, you just don't see it

Really, can you site an example that we can observe and repeat?

alexis:


You can't explain life if you can't explain it's origin. It's like you trying to run for a US president and don't want to produce your birth certificate to prove you were born in America. Also, read the statement posted from the same website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

Your illustration is off point... And this is even like saying you can explain how a phone works unless you know its origin

alexis:

So, on one hand evolution claims it doesn't investigate or give empirical data on how life originated but it claims how it knows how life diversified. No matter how hard you twist it; the question is simple - how did we get where we are today? Evolution claims that all species has a common denominator. The question some of us keep asking is how can you trace all living things to the single life organism with evidence.

"Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately
96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in
common with cats ( source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with
mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved
from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common
ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our
genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged"

Source: www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

alexis:

That is why I have asked you, can you tell me one scientific law that is false. Also, read the definition you posted; it said : RESULTS OF REPEATED OBSERVATION. I can repeat and observe the law of gravity; I can repeat and observe the law of bio-genesis; I can repeat and obeserve the laws of thermo-dynamics. No one can repeat or observe any empirical evidence of evolution.

"Bacteria colonies can only
build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is
important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny
few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.
This is because of the random nature of mutations."

Source: same with the one above

alexis:

I have asked you to provide the proof; can you please provide verifying proof that I can repeat and observe?

Check my last post

alexis:

Read your definition you posted above and confirm if evolution can provide empirical evidence of life or even how life branched out. Use any case example for us to investigate

Check the link I gave you above

alexis:

Bros, I believe you have a brain and can deduce objectively. Can you explain how humans came from say a fish.

You said adaptation, I showed you how it is evolution, see what you are asking again.

alexis:

Really, can you site an example that we can observe and repeat?

If you take two different species of the same animal and you allow them mate they would produce another different specie of animal... Evolution has officially taken place in this situation.

JEITO:
you are funny I must say. If I ask you to give me proofs that God didn't create the world, what would you give me? Is it not quotes from researches done by others and writings from others that don't believe in God? Do you have any evidence(sourced from you) that justifies the non-existence of God? Or is your claim not based on the inability of a believer to adequately prove to you(by your standard) that God exist and made the whole world?

You are as knowledgeable as the information available to you.

So before I answer your question, I'll like you to help me with something, and it is: what kind of proof from me would be acceptable for you? Is it a pix of God moulding or designing the earth.

The second part of your question that God is responsible for everything good that happens to a person doesn't quite cut it. God is not like a mail man or superman that comes to the rescue of the people of metropolitan weneva there's a danger. It is just like asking if God knows who will win the el-classico next week btw Madrid and Barca. It is quite absurd to think that God doesn't have any more important thing to do than to sit down and watch a football match ahead of time while souls are perishing daily.

Life is governed by principles; if you sow, you'll reap. If you labour, you'll get your due reward etc so when good thing happen to people it doesn't necessarily have to come from God directly. Even though we know God is good and shows mercy on people and thus birth a miraculous deed in their lives. Let's take this example: if a student studies hard and appropriately prepare for an exam, it is expected that he should pass. That is what it means to reap what you sow. In the event that after all the hardwork, he failed, then we will begin to ask questions.

I cannot proof shongo did not create the world, I cannot proof Zeus did not create the world, I cannot proof Hitler did not create the world neither can you proof i did not create the world. The bible is secondary evidence just as Mythology in general is secondary evidence/referencing.

You idea about god is two faced. You claim your god is no superman who can rescue people. You also said your life is governed by principles of: sowing and reaping,labor and reward etc.... Now to burst your bubbles,your bible claimed your god visited Abraham,eat with Abraham,destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and even demanded human scarifies from Abraham.Your god was busy killing first borns of Egyptians and now cannot predict a simple barca vs madrid match ? I guess your god was very busy at some point and suddenly evaporated into history. My point is,your god is not consistent,seems more of a bipolar who hides under what primitive men wrote.

What activities has your small god been doing lately,nothing! He created the world but cannot control global warming and natural disasters? hmmmm

ifeness:


I cannot proof shongo did not create the world, I cannot proof Zeus did not create the world, I cannot proof Hitler did not create the world neither can you proof i did not create the world. The bible is secondary evidence just as Mythology in general is secondary evidence/referencing.

You idea about god is two faced. You claim your god is no superman who can rescue people. You also said your life is governed by principles of: sowing and reaping,labor and reward etc.... Now to burst your bubbles,your bible claimed your god visited Abraham,eat with Abraham,destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and even demanded human scarifies from Abraham.Your god was busy killing first borns of Egyptians and now cannot predict a simple barca vs madrid match ? I guess your god was very busy at some point and suddenly evaporated into history. My point is,your god is not consistent,seems more of a bipolar who hides under what primitive men wrote.

What activities has your small god been doing lately,nothing! He created the world but cannot control global warming and natural disasters? hmmmm

lol

pesty100

Your illustration is off point... And this is even like saying you can explain how a phone works unless you know its origin

No, what I am saying is you need the manual, you need to know the vendor and core details of the phone. The phone can't tell you anything about itself. The vendor can. For example: the vendor can tell you when it was made; can tell you if a new firmware was upgraded and what features it support; can tell you if it has APIs and how you know every single working and detail of the phone.

My contention is on biological change in DNA of an organism from one kind to another - I think it's not true and there have been no instances to say otherwise. Richard Dawkins said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life - THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. I am not the only one that share such views

The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution. Nor does it explain the existense of the mutating replicator on which it depends. The language of life, the genetic code of life has scarely changed at all. So the question is raised - how did it develop; how did it evolve from a simple organism as you claim to a complex one. You have admitted that science has no answer to the origin of life - not a problem.

Now, let's get down to the simple origin of life - the cell. The cell is an information processor, what we have in the biological mirco-molecules is something that Physics and Chemistry don't know and don't claim to know in the sense that, you have got a signalling system, you have got a code, you have got a translator of the code. Now, in every other area where we see anything like this - the inference up to intelligent design is INSTANT and IMMEDIATE.

It seems to be without going further into it that if you look at the cell as an information processor machine, it then can be simulated by a turing machine which is a kind of an abstract computer and if you know anything about computers, you know this - JUNK IN - JUNK OUT. This is born out of the sophistication of what the cell is and what it does. Now, Chemistry and Physics do not have the capacity to produce these things. You can't produce it by evolution because evolution can't get going until you have a mutating replicator.

"Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately
96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in
common with cats ( source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with
mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved
from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common
ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our
genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged"

Let me take the case of humans and the Chimps to give you some details. Evolutionists believe that the similarity in the DNA sequence of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans is proof that they all share a common ancestor, you sited 96% similarity - I won't debate that as there is some truth in it.

The use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that it represents about 35 million differences! But that is only the beginning. There are 40–45 million bases present in humans that are missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added to or lost from the original sequence.

This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million total separate mutation events that would separate the two species in the evolutionary view. To put this number into perspective, a typical 8½ x 11-inch page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such pages full of text to equal 40 million letters! So the difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 35 million DNA bases that are different, about 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp, and about 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. Go look up Haldane’s dilemma

There are many other differences between chimpanzee and human genomes that are not quantifiable as percentages:

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called telomeres. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10,000 long

There are many others we can discuss. My point is simple - The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play.

"Bacteria colonies can only
build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is
important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny
few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.
This is because of the random nature of mutations."

I am not arguing against mutations - it's a form of adaption and I agree on this. So, there is no controversy here.

Check my last post

You didn't include an authoritative source.

Check the link I gave you above

No empirical data was given

You said adaptation, I showed you how it is evolution, see what you are asking again.

Listen, you haven't shown any proof. All I asked was evidence pointing that we came from a fish. Evidence would be empirical data i.e. each changes showing the lineage from a fish to a human. You can't generalize and say we came from fishes because we share 98% gene with a monkey. But there are millions of things that make us different. It's like saying the fish has blood, humans have blood so we are of the same KIND - that is so unscientific

If you take two different species of the same animal and you allow them mate they would produce another different specie of animal... Evolution has officially taken place in this situation.

I am not debating that and I agree with you on that. The issue is the evolution you are talking about produces a different KIND of animal. A German Shepard dog can mate with an Alaskan Husky and produce another specie of DOG but it's still a DOG - however, the dog doesn't change into another animal - it's still a DOG. That is not the claim evolution is making; evolution is saying that every living organism came from a simple life form and it doesn't provide any empirical evidence that can be tested, repeated or observed.

alexis:


No, what I am saying is you need the manual, you need to know the vendor and core details of the phone. The phone can't tell you anything about itself. The vendor can. For example: the vendor can tell you when it was made; can tell you if a new firmware was upgraded and what features it support; can tell you if it has APIs and how you know every single working and detail of the phone.

When I bought my phone, a manual came with it, have been using this phone for years now and I haven't read the manual. The vendor tell you about upgrades, gives support e.t.c . But are you saying if you see a phone on the ground you won't be able to make sense of the phone unless you have spoken to the phone's vendor or read it manual?

alexis:

My contention is on biological change in DNA of an organism from one kind to another - I think it's not true and there have been no instances to say otherwise. Richard Dawkins said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life - THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. I am not the only one that share such views

If you say richard dawkins was wrong, what then is the is the cause of the existence of the variation of all life

alexis:

The existence of life is not explained by biological evolution. Nor does it explain the existense of the mutating replicator on which it depends. The language of life, the genetic code of life has scarely changed at all. So the question is raised - how did it develop; how did it evolve from a simple organism as you claim to a complex one. You have admitted that science has no answer to the origin of life - not a problem.
[\quote]
Life evolve from a simple organism to a complex one through the variation in the reproduction of organisms over a period of billions of years which essentially is evolution

[quote author=alexis post=27315176]
Now, let's get down to the simple origin of life - the cell. The cell is an information processor, what we have in the biological mirco-molecules is something that Physics and Chemistry don't know and don't claim to know in the sense that, you have got a signalling system, you have got a code, you have got a translator of the code. Now, in every other area where we see anything like this - the inference up to intelligent design is INSTANT and IMMEDIATE.

It seems to be without going further into it that if you look at the cell as an information processor machine, it then can be simulated by a turing machine which is a kind of an abstract computer and if you know anything about computers, you know this - JUNK IN - JUNK OUT. This is born out of the sophistication of what the cell is and what it does. Now, Chemistry and Physics do not have the capacity to produce these things. You can't produce it by evolution because evolution can't get going until you have a mutating replicator.



Let me take the case of humans and the Chimps to give you some details. Evolutionists believe that the similarity in the DNA sequence of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans is proof that they all share a common ancestor, you sited 96% similarity - I won't debate that as there is some truth in it.

The use of percentages obscures the magnitude of the differences. For example, 1.23% of the differences are single base pair substitutions. This doesn't sound like much until you realize that it represents about 35 million differences! But that is only the beginning. There are 40–45 million bases present in humans that are missing from chimps and about the same number present in chimps that are absent from man. These extra DNA nucleotides are called “insertions” or “deletions” because they are thought to have been added to or lost from the original sequence.

This puts the total number of DNA differences at about 125 million. However, since the insertions can be more than one nucleotide long, there are about 40 million total separate mutation events that would separate the two species in the evolutionary view. To put this number into perspective, a typical 8½ x 11-inch page of text might have 4,000 letters and spaces. It would take 10,000 such pages full of text to equal 40 million letters! So the difference between humans and chimpanzees includes about 35 million DNA bases that are different, about 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp, and about 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. Go look up Haldane’s dilemma

There are many other differences between chimpanzee and human genomes that are not quantifiable as percentages:

At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called telomeres. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10,000 long

There are many others we can discuss. My point is simple - The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play.

Read this link

www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html

alexis:



I am not arguing against mutations - it's a form of adaption and I agree on this. So, there is no controversy here.

That isn't mutation, its pure evolution... At this point am not sure you know what evolution means

alexis:

Listen, you haven't shown any proof. All I asked was evidence pointing that we came from a fish. Evidence would be empirical data i.e. each changes showing the lineage from a fish to a human. You can't generalize and say we came from fishes because we share 98% gene with a monkey. But there are millions of things that make us different. It's like saying the fish has blood, humans have blood so we are of the same KIND - that is so unscientific

You say an evidence is empirical if each changes shows our lineage from a fish to am human yet the site I gave you said; we share
"96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in
common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with
mice, and so on"
And yet you say the site gives no empirical data; it either you are an hypocrite or you don't know what empirical means.

alexis:



I am not debating that and I agree with you on that. The issue is the evolution you are talking about produces a different KIND of animal. A German Shepard dog can mate with an Alaskan Husky and produce another specie of DOG but it's still a DOG - however, the dog doesn't change into another animal - it's still a DOG. That is not the claim evolution is making; evolution is saying that every living organism came from a simple life form and it doesn't provide any empirical evidence that can be tested, repeated or observed.

. Did you check the link I gave you at all?

alexis:
Weah96



I believe in science and so far the theory of evolution doesn't produce any scientific empirical data or evidence. If there is one, do let me know



And yet evolution can't answer how life began? Your babbling is not going to change that? Can you explain how our universe came about or how life came about in simple terms with empirical data that we can observe and possibly test?



Which evolution are you talking about? Cosmo, macro, micro? Don't be too hasty to show your ignorance

What are you arguing now? You began by saying that evolution is hogwash because it suggests that life originated from non living materials.

I replied by saying that evolution says nothing of the sort, that it is the study of how life has progressed, not how it began.

What is your latest argument now?

pesty100:

When I bought my phone, a manual came with it, have been using this phone for years now and I haven't read the manual. The vendor tell you about upgrades, gives support e.t.c . But are you saying if you see a phone on the ground you won't be able to make sense of the phone unless you have spoken to the phone's vendor or read it manual?

A palm tree is more closely related to a mango tree than to a human being. One doesn't need to know how everything began to recognize that.

Your homeboy has run out of arguments.

Weah96

What are you arguing now? You began by saying that evolution is hogwash because it suggests that life originated from non living materials.

Bros, perhaps you should read more. Evolution does make such claims.

I replied by saying that evolution says nothing of the sort, that it is the study of how life has progressed, not how it began.

Really, tell that to Richard Dawkins. He said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life

What is your latest argument now?

You have jumped from Isaiah 7:14 to evolution. Concentrate on that first

pesty100

When I bought my phone, a manual came with it, have been using this phone for years now and I haven't read the manual. The vendor tell you about upgrades, gives support e.t.c . But are you saying if you see a phone on the ground you won't be able to make sense of the phone unless you have spoken to the phone's vendor or read it manual?

The phone doesn't tell you anything about itself. For example, you pick up the phone and turn it on and it asks you for a password; you try all the passwords in the world you know and it doesn't allow you in - what will you do next?

If you say richard dawkins was wrong, what then is the is the cause of the existence of the variation of all life

I am not the one saying He is wrong; His fellow professor John Lennox is telling him he is wrong.

Read this link - www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html

Please do some justice to my response and provide an appropriate answer instead of referring me to a link. You posted and said we are 96% similar to apes - I didn't deny that. I responded and told you that you should also recognize the core difference in our DNA that separates us from apes. There are over 125 million DNA differences between us and apes - that is HUGE

That isn't mutation, its pure evolution... At this point am not sure you know what evolution means

Then define what evolution is and give us a simple practical example. If your meaning of evolution is my meaning of adaptation; then we are talking of the same thing using different terms. My interpretation of evolution is that we all originated from a single cell organism and evolution is responsible for life as we have it.

You say an evidence is empirical if each changes shows our lineage from a fish to am human yet the site I gave you said; we share
"96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with
mice, and so on" And yet you say the site gives no empirical data; it either you are an hypocrite or you don't know what empirical means.

I didn't deny this - I said there are differences that you are ignoring as well. In the case of apes and men - we have over 125 million DNA differences and it is those differences that makes us humans and they apes. It is those differences that confirm why we can't cross breed. Apes are unique to their kind and humans are unique to their kind. We are separate and unique. So, sharing 96% gene doesn't make any case of evolution if we can't cross breed.

So, your empirical data doesn't say anything about the differences; it only talks about the similarities. How does evolution account for the 125 million DNA differences?

Did you check the link I gave you at all?

Do some justice and answer the question - you didn't provide a link here. You claimed that two of the same KIND of animals with a different specie will produce another specie. You didn't include any link. My response was that the animals don't change; their KIND is the same. Evolution is saying their KIND changes i.e. dog to cat? or Apes to men

Weah96

A palm tree is more closely related to a mango tree than to a human being. One doesn't need to know how everything began to recognize that.

Are you daft? Who is denying this fact? However, you can't plant palm kernel and expect mangoes - there are differences that separate the two and as evolutionist, you should recognize that as well.

Your homeboy has run out of arguments

Is it you talking or are the fairies helping you out here

alexis:
pesty100



Richard Dawkins said evolution is the explanation for the existence and the variation for all of life - THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE. I am not the only one that share such views

Richard Dawkins didn't say that evolution knows how life began. You're making a big deal out of nothing. You've heard of natural selection. It does explain the existence and variation of life.

Weah96:


Richard Dawkins didn't say that evolution knows how life began. You're making a big deal out of nothing. You've heard of natural selection. It does explain the existence and variation of life.

Dude - why do you insist on being stu.pid. Go read his book and confirm it or not. Stop opening your mouth and saying trash you haven't confirmed

alexis:


Dude - why do you insist on being stu.pid. Go read his book and confirm it or not. Stop opening your mouth and saying trash you haven't confirmed

You posted the quote and assigned your meaning to his words. Why did you post the quote instead of referring everyone to his book?

Weah96:


You posted the quote and assigned your meaning to his words. Why did you post the quote instead of referring everyone to his book?

Are you daft - I clearly wrote in bold that I disagreed with his view point; not only I but some of his fellow professors. Instead of you to review his book and verify if I am misquoting or quoting the man - you come here and start talking crap - why do you always insist on being stupi.d?

alexis:


Are you daft - I clearly wrote in bold that I disagreed with his view point; not only I but some of his fellow professors. Instead of you to review his book and verify if I am misquoting or quoting the man - you come here and start talking crap - why do you always insist on being stupi.d?

Post as many insults as you want, this remains a public forum and fair minded people will draw their own conclusions. You clearly have nothing else to say.

Weah96:


Post as many insults as you want, this remains a public forum and fair minded people will draw their own conclusions. You clearly have nothing else to say.

You are entitled to your own opinion. However, don't be dishonest and said I misquoted someone when you didn't care to look up what I said. You left the Isaiah 7:14 question when I asked you for the Hebrew manuscript you mentioned about the Jesus birth not coming from a Virgin, now you are here saying something that you can't back up. That is why I usually make fun of you because I have learned not to take you serious.

alexis:


You are entitled to your own opinion. However, don't be dishonest and said I misquoted someone when you didn't care to look up what I said. You left the Isaiah 7:14 question when I asked you for the Hebrew manuscript you mentioned about the Jesus birth not coming from a Virgin, now you are here saying something that you can't back up. That is why I usually make fun of you because I have learned not to take you serious.

Misquoted? Who said anything about a misquotation? You posted a quote from Richard Dawkins and then went on to tell us what he meant. That was not what that quotation said, you assigned your own meaning to a relatively benign comment. Nobody said anything about a misquote.

As far as Isaiah, I showed you a passage from Jewish scriptures and the word virgin was not mentioned. Isaiah was written in ancient Hebrew, and the word "almah" was used in chapter 7 verse 14. Almah has both a feminine form and a masculine form, both of which refer to youth not sexual experience.

In fact, Isaiah DOES refer to VIRGINS specifically in Isaiah 23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; and 62:5. He uses a different word.

In genesis 34:2-4, Dinah, who was raped, is called an Almah, which the bible CORRECTLY translates as a damsel or maiden.

Should I post the original parchment with the ancient Hebrew? Is that what you expect me to do?

Weah96

Misquoted? Who said anything about a misquotation? You posted a quote from Richard Dawkins and then went on to tell us what he meant. That was not what that quotation said, you assigned your own meaning to a relatively benign comment. Nobody said anything about a misquote.

I didn't assign any meaning - I said he made a statement in his book and I don't agree with it. If you cared to look up the statement you would have been able to state if I was mis-representing Richard or not. I asked you to confirm but instead you kept going around in circles as always.

As far as Isaiah, I showed you a passage from Jewish scriptures and the word virgin was not mentioned. Isaiah was written in ancient Hebrew, and the word "almah" was used in chapter 7 verse 14. Almah has both a feminine form and a masculine form, both of which refer to youth not sexual experience. In fact, Isaiah DOES refer to VIRGINS specifically in Isaiah 23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; and 62:5. He uses a different word. In genesis 34:2-4, Dinah, who was raped, is called an Almah, which the bible CORRECTLY translates as a damsel or maiden. Should I post the original parchment with the ancient Hebrew? Is that what you expect me to do?

I wanted you to post the source so we can refer to it. I will do mine:

Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos" not the more generic Greek word for "young woman."

The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

The source I have quoted is the Septuagint; this manuscript was compiled by Jews and Hebrew scholars 200 years before Christ so there were no Christians then and Matthew wasn't even born.

alexis:
Weah96



I didn't assign any meaning - I said he made a statement in his book and I don't agree with it. If you cared to look up the statement you would have been able to state if I was mis-representing Richard or not. I asked you to confirm but instead you kept going around in circles as always.



I wanted you to post the source so we can refer to it. I will do mine:

Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos" not the more generic Greek word for "young woman."

The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

The source I have quoted is the Septuagint; this manuscript was compiled by Jews and Hebrew scholars 200 years before Christ so there were no Christians then and Matthew wasn't even born.

It would have been nice if you had attached some quotation marks to your comment, since the entire thing was copied directly from a website.

For a second, I thought you had paraphrased, at least. But no matter, back to the nitty gritty.

You do raise an interesting point, but I'm afraid that I haven't the time to post the length reply required to address it.

You can find a refutation of your contention at the link below:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html

Btw, I'm noticing a sudden reverence for the translators of the septuagint. Pray tell, how come the bible you carry around is missing about 20 of the books that they translated?

Weah96

It would have been nice if you had attached some quotation marks to your comment, since the entire thing was copied directly from a website. For a second, I thought you had paraphrased, at least. But no matter, back to the nitty gritty.

Not from a website; I researched 3 sites actually. I never claimed that the response was personally mine

You do raise an interesting point, but I'm afraid that I haven't the time to post the length reply required to address it.

I didn't expect much from you on the matter. You raised objections but when we reviewed one of the earliest sources - it has given clarity on the matter.

Btw, I'm noticing a sudden reverence for the translators of the septuagint. Pray tell, how come the bible you carry around is missing about 20 of the books that they translated?

Is it missing Isaiah 7:14?