Atheists and their jargon of insults

[Eli G]

Why are you flooding the thread with some weird dialog out of place?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't need to be an expert on any matter if I know the basic and can reason by myself.

There are many people who are so immersed in a topic that they lose common sense. I prefer to know a little about each thing, and be able to have a general idea of everything, instead of such extensive knowledge of a single thing and failing to understand reality from a broader point of view. Others do not have to agree with this approach of mine.

Actually, there is certain called "knowledge" that is not that at all.

You don't know the basics.

 

[Eli G]

Have you noticed that some forum members believe that saying that humans are apes is an insult to believers?

If humans share 80% of their DNA with mice, it doesn't matter what they do with that information ... if they want to say that humans are mice , who cares?

It's not that true information isn't increasing; It's that with each passing day people are becoming more idiotic, and they don't know what to do with what they discover.

 

[Pogo]

Why are you flooding the thread with some weird dialog out of place?

Are you talking to yourself or @Laniakea ?

 

[Nakosis]

Ok, I understood better now. Yes, I can agree with that.

If Neandertal and modern human can have fertile offspring, are they a same species?

PS: I read "infertile" instead of what you wrote. My bad.

We now know from the same kind of genomic research that many other species of mammal interbreed with each other - for example different kinds of baboons (genus Papio), wolves and wild dogs (Canis), bears (Ursus) and large cats (Panthera). In addition, one recent estimate suggests that at least 16% of all bird species interbreed with each other in the wild
Are Neanderthals the same species as us?

The problem is this is an out of date definition of species.

 

[Eli G]

We now know from the same kind of genomic research that many other species of mammal interbreed with each other - for example different kinds of baboons (genus Papio), wolves and wild dogs (Canis), bears (Ursus) and large cats (Panthera). In addition, one recent estimate suggests that at least 16% of all bird species interbreed with each other in the wild
Are Neanderthals the same species as us?

The problem is this is an out of date definition of species.

Interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said I was rude, and I ask you when, and you call that an attack.
I'm ready to hear your "facts" you offered to get back to.

I have pointed them out many times. You simply ignore or deny them. Don't worry, you will do the same again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you noticed that some forum members believe that saying that humans are apes is an insult to believers?

If humans share 80% of their DNA with mice, it doesn't matter what they do with that information ... if they want to say that humans are mice , who cares?

It's not that true information isn't increasing; It's that with each passing day people are becoming more idiotic, and they don't know what to do with what they discover.

Your claim about information is being lost has never been supported properly. And in fact Sanford's claim, he is the one who came up with "Genetic entropy" has been refuted with a peer reviewed paper. If you ask me nicely I can give you a link to it. In fact if anyone asks me I will present a link to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. Thanks for your honesty.

That is odd, that is pretty much what I said.

 

[McBell]

That is odd, that is pretty much what I said.

Isn't that poster "ignoring" you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you noticed that some forum members believe that saying that humans are apes is an insult to believers?

If humans share 80% of their DNA with mice, it doesn't matter what they do with that information ... if they want to say that humans are mice , who cares?

It's not that true information isn't increasing; It's that with each passing day people are becoming more idiotic, and they don't know what to do with what they discover.

I see that you still have almost no understanding of biology at all.

We are not mice because we can show that there are significant differences between us. Dentition (teeth) alone demonstrate that. But when it comes to man and other great apes we are extremely similar. There is not a biological trait that all of the other great apes share that we do not have too. Unless you count the number of chromosomes and we can show where our Number 2 chromosome is the result of a fairly recent join of two other chromosomes. Look at your hands and look at a chimp's hands. The differences are rather minor. Look at your shoulder and that of other great apes, it is actually slight different from other primates, but all of us share the same one. Look at our dentition. If you ever go to the dentists office and they are checking your teeth and one person is writing and the other is measuring the numbers and descriptions of the teeth are the same. We have the same molars, we have the same incisors, we have the same bicuspids as other great apes.


Our shared DNA with other animals shows how far back our common ancestor was. We have a common ancestor with a mouse, but that ancestor was neither a mouse or a human. But it was a mammal. Are you going to try to deny that you are a mammal too?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't that poster "ignoring" you?

Darn! I forgot. That is so embarrassing. I guess I will have to go hang my head in shame.

 

[Eli G]

The reasoning of some evolutionists is often very incoherent.

It does not matter whether or not chimpanzees share a high percentage of DNA with humans or look similar... Chimpanzees have never been considered ancestors of humans, because they are, according to evolutionists, very distant cousins.

Who knows who the uncles and aunts that have never existed are.

So they will never know the reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reasoning of some evolutionists is often very incoherent.

It does not matter whether or not chimpanzees share a high percentage of DNA with humans or look similar... Chimpanzees have never been considered ancestors of humans, because they are, according to evolutionists, very distant cousins.

Who knows who the uncles and aunts that have never existed are.

So they will never know the reality.

No, it is your ability to reason that is flawed here. It is creationists that claim that scientists claim that we are descended from chimps. I was trying to make it clear that that is not the case. We do have extremely strong evidence, so much evidence that you are in effect claiming that God is a liar when you deny it, that we are apes. That we share a common ancestor with chimps.

Perhaps we should start with the Flood myth. That is both easier to understand and less threatening to creationists. Would you like to discuss how we know that there was no flood of Noah instead?

 

[Pogo]

The reasoning of some evolutionists is often very incoherent.

It does not matter whether or not chimpanzees share a high percentage of DNA with humans or look similar... Chimpanzees have never been considered ancestors of humans, because they are, according to evolutionists, very distant cousins.

Who knows who the uncles and aunts that have never existed are.

So they will never know the reality.

Talk about incoherent, are you that ignorant of how you get cousins? Do you have any cousins, did they have parents that were brothers or sisters of your ancestors? Sorry I have to ask this, but it appears your education has been rather lacking.

 

[Eli G]

Saying that one animal and another are related just because they look a little alike and share a certain amount of DNA is the silliest thing anyone can consider serious.

Just because someone looks like someone else doesn't mean they're related...not even if they share the same fingerprint. DNA reveals things when the relationship is close, but who can assure that the conditions thousands of years ago were similar to those of now?

Just because a banana has 60% human DNA does not mean it is a relative. Or we would be cannibals, LOL.

 

[Pogo]

Saying that one animal and another are related just because they look a little alike and share a certain amount of DNA is the silliest thing anyone can consider serious.

Just because someone looks like someone else doesn't mean they're related...not even if they share the same fingerprint. DNA reveals things when the relationship is close, but who can assure that the conditions thousands of years ago were similar to those of now?

Just because a banana has 60% human DNA does not mean it is a relative. Or we would be cannibals, LOL.

If you can tell us how mammalian reproduction might have changed, then you might not be as silly as this comment makes you look.

 

[Eli G]

To conclude that the fact that animals, plants and humans share DNA means that they all have a common ancestor is ridiculous. How does a "coincidence" determined (or a chance choose) a simple ancestral particle (presumed LUCA) to give life to plants, animals and humans, after an explosion that would supposedly offer an infinite number of possibilities?

I would say that they share certain percent of DNA because they all have the same Creator, so He, conscientiously and with a smart purpose, considered that functions common to all of them such as feeding, reproduction, etc., would have the same components. For that reason He placed similar information on their first parents ancestrally, so that they could develop similar functions that would sustain the continuity of the life he created, and they could pass that information on.

 

[Pogo]

To conclude that the fact that animals, plants and humans share DNA means that they all have a common ancestor is ridiculous. How does a "coincidence" determined (or a chance choose) a simple ancestral particle (presumed LUCA) to give life to plants, animals and humans, after an explosion that would supposedly offer an infinite number of possibilities?

I would say that they share certain percent of DNA because they all have the same Creator, so He, conscientiously and with a smart purpose, considered that functions common to all of them such as feeding, reproduction, etc., would have the same components. For that reason He placed similar information on their first parents ancestrally, so that they could develop similar functions that would sustain the continuity of the life he created, and they could pass that information on.

You can make that argument, but then it requires that you accuse your God of faking the evidence for a common ancestor. It is a lot more than just "similar design" there are little changes that are unnecessary if you are just reusing designs and viral insertions that serve no purpose, but do reinforce the phylogenetic tree. And then there are the errors that fit the conclusion too.
But hey, you want to call your God a deceiver, fine with me.

We know your answer is going to be Nuh uh because you refuse to look at the evidence, but denial doesn't make it go away.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Making people believe that all plants and animals are cousins is the stupidest thing anyone will ever hear ... If some of them say that humans are apes, what else can you expect from them ... Apes becoming humans is a delicious topic for a scy-fantasy movie ... Evolutionists do not have the slightest proof that an animal becomes a different one ... Saying that one animal and another are related just because they look a little alike and share a certain amount of DNA is the silliest thing anyone can consider serious ... Just because a banana has 60% human DNA does not mean it is a relative

You seem to want to let others know that you don't believe the science. It's OK that you reject all of this. As I said, it doesn't matter to anybody else except your church and its members what you believe.

sorry if I hurt someone's sensibilities.

You're dealing with humanists. It's theists like you who start threads like these about being offended that wear their hearts on their sleeves.

Any supposed atheistic explanation of the origin of the universe is just philosophy.

No, it's science, which is undergird with philosophy (skepticism, empiricism, logic) but transcends it with its empirical component.

What you believe is closer to philosophy, but it's not even that: "philosophy - the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." The study of things only believers believe, which is my definition of theology, and which excludes academic pursuits such as the Bible as literature or comparative religions, is not an academic pursuit.

Someone has made evolutionists believe that because a butterfly comes out of a cocoon and a frog comes out of a tadpole, cows come out of whales.

Elsewhere you wrote, "I don't need to be an expert on any matter if I know the basic and can reason by myself."

You've already been told that you don't know the basics, and here's evidence for that. Frog: tadpole as caterpillar: butterfly (not cocoon), and that is not evolution except in the most general sense of the word as in any change

And evolution doesn't claim that cows come out of whales.

The limit is engraved in the initial genetics that organisms were endowed with when they were created.

So much for understanding the basics. There is no argument that what you call microevolution cannot become what you call macroevolution. You've invented a fictional barrier to that and offered no explanation for why whatever it is you are referring to limits evolution.

one of them even say that there is not different on the intelligence of humans and animals. Can someone say such a ridiculous thing and consider themselves literate in something?

That *is* ridiculous, but my money is on you either making that up or misunderstanding what you read. It sounds like your comment about butterflies and cows.

And this is the emotionalism to which I referred that characterizes many creationists but virtually no humanists. Look at how you argue. Look at how many times have you implied that an idea is just too extreme for you. Look at the first quote from you above, where I collected assorted comments you have made in this thread recently. They're all in this tone: stupid, silly, ridiculous. It's typical of the culture of creationist apologetics, and of comments like, "I don't a have enough faith to be an atheist."

I prefer the academic temperament. It's Mr. Spock ("fascinating") to your Dr. McCoy (dammit, you green-blooded, pointy-eared so-and-so!).

It does not matter whether or not chimpanzees share a high percentage of DNA with humans or look similar... Chimpanzees have never been considered ancestors of humans, because they are, according to evolutionists, very distant cousins.

You're wrong there. Perhaps you have heard of a forensic science technique called genetic genealogy: "Genetic genealogy is the use of genealogical DNA tests, i.e., DNA profiling and DNA testing, in combination with traditional genealogical methods, to infer genetic relationships between individuals. This application of genetics came to be used by family historians in the 21st century, as DNA tests became affordable."

It's the degree of similarity in genotypes that allows law enforcement to capture a perp using only his DNA and a data base of DNA sequences corresponding to known donors. If his aunt and cousin are in their files, or father or sister, they know that the perp is part of the same family.