Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

In <jason-3112051729560001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

You asked my opinion so I will give it to you. The same God made apes and
mankind. He used similar body parts and organs in apes and mankind. That's
the reason the DNA is similar.

Why would this "god" use "similar body parts and organs" in two different
species? And even if this "god" did use "similar body parts and organs,"
why would the DNA be similar at all?

and why would he do it as a nested heirachy, why would the only animals
with three inner ear bones also have other totally unrelated organs in
common that are also only found in this group of animals?

In article <oi2er1hi8h78l00me12p77du61r2folrvg@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:25:39 -0800,

In article <XwAtf.18787$5v1.11606@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <1ovbr1htil08l82qptctt3bld6n80gtjvr@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:38:11 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

In article <82ubr19m323v05d6bp5bi0uv2q2dkbhvvs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:58:42 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

In article <1135988750.122357.152320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Thanks for your post. My point was that there is more than one

theory to

explain why the DNA in great apes and humans is similar. You

assume that

there is a common ancestor. I assume there was not a common

ancestor.

Neither of us have proof.

You don't have proof. You don't have evidence. You don't

even have a

scientific theory. All you have is blind faith if you believe
everything was created as the Bible claims.

OTOH, science has 150 years of accumulated scientific evidence and a
scientific theory which explains it all, which is testable,

and which

has passed every single test to which it has been put.

Science does not deal in absolutes as religion claims to do, but the
Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. And you can
blindly believe there are other rational explanations as to why a
chimpanzee and a human are practically identical, but you cannot
explain your blind belief. You cannot explain why a god would

make two

ostensibly different beings almost exactly the same.

You cannot explain why a god would do this, knowing humans would
misinterpret his work, and then take no steps whatsoever to

clue us in.

You cannot explain why a god who had all eternity in which to

work, and

infinite resources at his command, would **MAKE THE SAME

MISTAKES** in

the chimpanzee DNA as exist in ours (or vice-versa):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

In short, you can say little green faeries made everything one

second

ago with history and memories and a rationalizing "logic" already up
and running. Sure, it "explains all the facts", but is it

intelligent?

No. Is it worth consideration? Not any more than I just gave it.

Budikka

The only proof we have is written evidence (the first three

chapters of

the Bible)

The Bible is not evidence of any sort. The first three chapters of
Genesis are known to be wrong as history.

and fossil evidence which is discussed in detail in this book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

But the fossils, among other things, prove that 'creation science' is
false.

Dr. John Morris, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Steven Austin and Dr. Duane Gish
would all disagree with you.

I have carefully evaluated samples of their work. I would not be happy
to have them agree with me. They are liars.

I respect all of them. I don't believe they are liars. They are advocates
of creation science so as a result, they evaluate evidence and

established

facts

What about the documented lies we have shown you and the refusal to
retract mistakes long after they became aware of them, something you
acknowledged they have done?

If ICR staff members intentionally tell lies--it would upset me. I would
feel the same way that I hope you felt after the editor of the National
Geographic magazine published a picture of the fake Archaeoraptor fossil
in the magazine.

National Geographic isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal and
doesn't pretend to be. And you're quite mistaken if you think they
haven't paid a price for rushing the Archaeoraptor story to print so
prematurely. Their credibility has most certainly suffered.

And now, since you ignored this very small sampling the last time I
posted it, here's take two:


The Claim: Analysis of fetal hemoglobin shows humans closer to horses
than chimps.

The Fact: Human and chimpanzee hemogobin both have two alpha
globins and two gamma globins, each with 146 amino acids. They are, in
fact, identical. Horses don't even have gamma globins.


The Claim: Tear enzymes place humans closer to chickens than chimps.

The Fact: The enzyme in question is lysozyme. Chicken lysozyme differs
from human lysozyme by 51 out of 130 amino acids. Chimpanzee lysozyme
is identical to human lysozyme.


The Claim: Analysis of albumin shows humans more closely related to
bullfrogs than chimps (the infamous Duane Gish Bullfrog Affair).

The Fact: Human and chimpanzee albumin differ by an insignificant 6
out of 580 amino acids. Bullfrog albumin is so dissimilar to either
that it doesn't even cross-react in immunology tests.


The Claim: Blood protein analysis places humans closer to, of all
things, butterbeans, than to chimps.

The Fact: Butterbeans do contain complex sugars that will react with
substances such as Luminol, but since, like any other plant,
butterbeans don't have blood, it should be obvious to all but the most
feeble-minded among us (i.e. creationists) that they don't have blood
proteins.


The Claim: Cholesterol analysis put humans closer to snakes than to
chimps.

The Fact: Cholesterol is a simple lipid and its structure doesn't vary
across species. Biological relationships cannot be determined by
cholesterol analysis.


Now, Jason, what to you have to say about these examples of
**documented creationist lies?**

And there are plenty more where these came from. Would you like me to
post a few more?

Hello,
Where did you find the above information?
I seem to recall seeing the same information several times before.

You asked my opinion so I will give it to you.
The same God made apes and mankind. He used similar body parts and organs
in apes and mankind. That's the reason the DNA is similar. Perhaps God
should not have made apes so as not to confuse evolutionists.
The people that made the claims would have to defend their claims. I am
not going to try to defend the above claims since I did not make them--I
will only defend claims that I have made.

In article <oi2er1hi8h78l00me12p77du61r2folrvg@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

You asked my opinion so I will give it to you.
The same God made apes and mankind. He used similar body parts and organs
in apes and mankind. That's the reason the DNA is similar. Perhaps God
should not have made apes so as not to confuse evolutionists.

In article <oi2er1hi8h78l00me12p77du61r2folrvg@4ax.com>, John Baker
<nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 13:25:39 -0800,

In article <XwAtf.18787$5v1.11606@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <1ovbr1htil08l82qptctt3bld6n80gtjvr@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:38:11 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

In article <82ubr19m323v05d6bp5bi0uv2q2dkbhvvs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:58:42 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism

In article <1135988750.122357.152320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Thanks for your post. My point was that there is more than one

theory to

explain why the DNA in great apes and humans is similar. You

assume that

there is a common ancestor. I assume there was not a common

ancestor.

Neither of us have proof.

You don't have proof. You don't have evidence. You don't

even have a

scientific theory. All you have is blind faith if you believe
everything was created as the Bible claims.

OTOH, science has 150 years of accumulated scientific evidence and a
scientific theory which explains it all, which is testable,

and which

has passed every single test to which it has been put.

Science does not deal in absolutes as religion claims to do, but the
Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. And you can
blindly believe there are other rational explanations as to why a
chimpanzee and a human are practically identical, but you cannot
explain your blind belief. You cannot explain why a god would

make two

ostensibly different beings almost exactly the same.

You cannot explain why a god would do this, knowing humans would
misinterpret his work, and then take no steps whatsoever to

clue us in.

You cannot explain why a god who had all eternity in which to

work, and

infinite resources at his command, would **MAKE THE SAME

MISTAKES** in

the chimpanzee DNA as exist in ours (or vice-versa):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

In short, you can say little green faeries made everything one

second

ago with history and memories and a rationalizing "logic" already up
and running. Sure, it "explains all the facts", but is it

intelligent?

No. Is it worth consideration? Not any more than I just gave it.

Budikka

The only proof we have is written evidence (the first three

chapters of

the Bible)

The Bible is not evidence of any sort. The first three chapters of
Genesis are known to be wrong as history.

and fossil evidence which is discussed in detail in this book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

But the fossils, among other things, prove that 'creation science' is
false.

Dr. John Morris, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Steven Austin and Dr. Duane Gish
would all disagree with you.

I have carefully evaluated samples of their work. I would not be happy
to have them agree with me. They are liars.

I respect all of them. I don't believe they are liars. They are advocates
of creation science so as a result, they evaluate evidence and

established

facts

What about the documented lies we have shown you and the refusal to
retract mistakes long after they became aware of them, something you
acknowledged they have done?

If ICR staff members intentionally tell lies--it would upset me. I would
feel the same way that I hope you felt after the editor of the National
Geographic magazine published a picture of the fake Archaeoraptor fossil
in the magazine.

National Geographic isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal and
doesn't pretend to be. And you're quite mistaken if you think they
haven't paid a price for rushing the Archaeoraptor story to print so
prematurely. Their credibility has most certainly suffered.

And now, since you ignored this very small sampling the last time I
posted it, here's take two:


The Claim: Analysis of fetal hemoglobin shows humans closer to horses
than chimps.

The Fact: Human and chimpanzee hemogobin both have two alpha
globins and two gamma globins, each with 146 amino acids. They are, in
fact, identical. Horses don't even have gamma globins.


The Claim: Tear enzymes place humans closer to chickens than chimps.

The Fact: The enzyme in question is lysozyme. Chicken lysozyme differs
from human lysozyme by 51 out of 130 amino acids. Chimpanzee lysozyme
is identical to human lysozyme.


The Claim: Analysis of albumin shows humans more closely related to
bullfrogs than chimps (the infamous Duane Gish Bullfrog Affair).

The Fact: Human and chimpanzee albumin differ by an insignificant 6
out of 580 amino acids. Bullfrog albumin is so dissimilar to either
that it doesn't even cross-react in immunology tests.


The Claim: Blood protein analysis places humans closer to, of all
things, butterbeans, than to chimps.

The Fact: Butterbeans do contain complex sugars that will react with
substances such as Luminol, but since, like any other plant,
butterbeans don't have blood, it should be obvious to all but the most
feeble-minded among us (i.e. creationists) that they don't have blood
proteins.


The Claim: Cholesterol analysis put humans closer to snakes than to
chimps.

The Fact: Cholesterol is a simple lipid and its structure doesn't vary
across species. Biological relationships cannot be determined by
cholesterol analysis.


Now, Jason, what to you have to say about these examples of
**documented creationist lies?**

And there are plenty more where these came from. Would you like me to
post a few more?

Hello,
Where did you find the above information?
I seem to recall seeing the same information several times before.

You asked my opinion so I will give it to you.
The same God made apes and mankind. He used similar body parts and organs
in apes and mankind. That's the reason the DNA is similar. Perhaps God
should not have made apes so as not to confuse evolutionists.
The people that made the claims would have to defend their claims. I am
not going to try to defend the above claims since I did not make them--I
will only defend claims that I have made.

Have a happy new year,
Jason

In article <XwAtf.18787$5v1.11606@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Ash
<ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

In article <1ovbr1htil08l82qptctt3bld6n80gtjvr@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:38:11 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051938110001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <82ubr19m323v05d6bp5bi0uv2q2dkbhvvs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:58:42 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051858430001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <1135988750.122357.152320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Thanks for your post. My point was that there is more than one

theory to

explain why the DNA in great apes and humans is similar. You

assume that

there is a common ancestor. I assume there was not a common ancestor.
Neither of us have proof.

You don't have proof. You don't have evidence. You don't even have a
scientific theory. All you have is blind faith if you believe
everything was created as the Bible claims.

OTOH, science has 150 years of accumulated scientific evidence and a
scientific theory which explains it all, which is testable, and which
has passed every single test to which it has been put.

Science does not deal in absolutes as religion claims to do, but the
Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. And you can
blindly believe there are other rational explanations as to why a
chimpanzee and a human are practically identical, but you cannot
explain your blind belief. You cannot explain why a god would make two
ostensibly different beings almost exactly the same.

You cannot explain why a god would do this, knowing humans would
misinterpret his work, and then take no steps whatsoever to clue us in.

You cannot explain why a god who had all eternity in which to work, and
infinite resources at his command, would **MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES** in
the chimpanzee DNA as exist in ours (or vice-versa):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

In short, you can say little green faeries made everything one second
ago with history and memories and a rationalizing "logic" already up
and running. Sure, it "explains all the facts", but is it intelligent?
No. Is it worth consideration? Not any more than I just gave it.

Budikka

The only proof we have is written evidence (the first three chapters of
the Bible)

The Bible is not evidence of any sort. The first three chapters of
Genesis are known to be wrong as history.

and fossil evidence which is discussed in detail in this book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

But the fossils, among other things, prove that 'creation science' is
false.

Dr. John Morris, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Steven Austin and Dr. Duane Gish
would all disagree with you.

I have carefully evaluated samples of their work. I would not be happy
to have them agree with me. They are liars.

I respect all of them. I don't believe they are liars. They are advocates
of creation science so as a result, they evaluate evidence and established
facts

What about the documented lies we have shown you and the refusal to
retract mistakes long after they became aware of them, something you
acknowledged they have done?

If ICR staff members intentionally tell lies--it would upset me.

I would
feel the same way that I hope you felt after the editor of the National
Geographic magazine published a picture of the fake Archaeoraptor fossil
in the magazine.

In article <1ovbr1htil08l82qptctt3bld6n80gtjvr@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:38:11 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051938110001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <82ubr19m323v05d6bp5bi0uv2q2dkbhvvs@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:58:42 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051858430001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <1135988750.122357.152320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

Jason wrote:

Thanks for your post. My point was that there is more than one

theory to

explain why the DNA in great apes and humans is similar. You

assume that

there is a common ancestor. I assume there was not a common ancestor.
Neither of us have proof.

You don't have proof. You don't have evidence. You don't even have a
scientific theory. All you have is blind faith if you believe
everything was created as the Bible claims.

OTOH, science has 150 years of accumulated scientific evidence and a
scientific theory which explains it all, which is testable, and which
has passed every single test to which it has been put.

Science does not deal in absolutes as religion claims to do, but the
Theory of Evolution explains the fact of evolution. And you can
blindly believe there are other rational explanations as to why a
chimpanzee and a human are practically identical, but you cannot
explain your blind belief. You cannot explain why a god would make two
ostensibly different beings almost exactly the same.

You cannot explain why a god would do this, knowing humans would
misinterpret his work, and then take no steps whatsoever to clue us in.

You cannot explain why a god who had all eternity in which to work, and
infinite resources at his command, would **MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES** in
the chimpanzee DNA as exist in ours (or vice-versa):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

In short, you can say little green faeries made everything one second
ago with history and memories and a rationalizing "logic" already up
and running. Sure, it "explains all the facts", but is it intelligent?
No. Is it worth consideration? Not any more than I just gave it.

Budikka

The only proof we have is written evidence (the first three chapters of
the Bible)

The Bible is not evidence of any sort. The first three chapters of
Genesis are known to be wrong as history.

and fossil evidence which is discussed in detail in this book:
"Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow

But the fossils, among other things, prove that 'creation science' is
false.

Dr. John Morris, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Steven Austin and Dr. Duane Gish
would all disagree with you.

I have carefully evaluated samples of their work. I would not be happy
to have them agree with me. They are liars.

I respect all of them.

I don't believe they are liars.

They are advocates of creation science so as a result, they evaluate
evidence and established facts
in a different way than you would do those same things.

The articles that
they write about evidence and established facts are not lies.

I realize
that you probably are not able to understand the point that I am making.

It's much easier to just say and think--"they are liars"--than to
understand the the correct way of looking at this situation.

Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.

Really?

THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:

1. Observe what happens.

2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.


Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.

Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.

Really?

THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:

1. Observe what happens.

2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.


Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.

Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.

Really?

THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:

1. Observe what happens.

2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.


Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.

Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.

Really?

THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:

1. Observe what happens.

Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.