Jerry, might I suggest reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.
JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jerry Bergman
I do have a problem with an overly literalistic interpretation of scripture that seeks to validate the Universe’s origin as it was imagined by a human some thousands of years ago, even if this requires selective vision and brute force. an overly literalistic interpretation of scripture I take an historical position, not a literalistic position as do most creationists. that seeks to validate the Universe’s origin as it was imagined by a human some thousands of years ago It is rather hard to accept Christianity without believing God had some roll in the creation of life and the universe is it not??
-
Jerry Bergman
Jerry, might I suggest reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. I did, several times (this is an all time favorite with creationists and ID people alike). I quote him often. Dawkins is so extreme (and honest) that it is easy to refute him. I have every book he has ever written. I bet many of his sales are to creationists.
-
Jerry Bergman
I see this all the time (he is a Professor of Physics) I was once a devout agnostic-atheist and was as antagonistic to Christianity as Dawkins is now. However, I slowly returned to the faith of my youth. Then about twenty years ago, I began to have the faith that with God's help, I could actually solve some of the physics problems that I had become obsessed with. I then resumed research on one of the frontier problems of physics. In the course of wandering through the mathematical wilderness, I often prayed and asked God for guidance. When I was really stuck, I would be led to certain scriptures which revealed surprising relationships related to the problems I was trying to solve. Here are a couple of these surprising relationships which may mean nothing but are interesting: The ratio of the volume of the Holy City of New Jerusalem to the volume of the Ark of the Covenant is equal to the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the Hydrogen atom. The ratio of the area of a side of the Holy City to the Planck area is 2^266, which is the theoretically calculated number of protons in the SSM universe. [The Planck area is defined, here, as the square of the Planck wavelength, i.e. the wavelength of a Planck energy photon.]
-
Realist
jerry,
they can be made to interbreed in the zoo or lab but they can't interbreed in nature. and they usually don't produce fertile offspring.
PS:
I was once a devout agnostic-atheist and was as antagonistic to Christianity as Dawkins is now. However, I slowly returned to the faith of my youth. Then about twenty years ago, I began to have the faith that with God's help, I could actually solve some of the physics problems that I had become obsessed with. I then resumed research on one of the frontier problems of physics. In the course of wandering through the mathematical wilderness, I often prayed and asked God for guidance. When I was really stuck, I would be led to certain scriptures which revealed surprising relationships related to the problems I was trying to solve. Here are a couple of these surprising relationships which may mean nothing but are interesting: The ratio of the volume of the Holy City of New Jerusalem to the volume of the Ark of the Covenant is equal to the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the Hydrogen atom. The ratio of the area of a side of the Holy City to the Planck area is 2^266, which is the theoretically calculated number of protons in the SSM universe. [The Planck area is defined, here, as the square of the Planck wavelength, i.e. the wavelength of a Planck energy photon.]
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is the funniest thing i ever heard!!!! PPS: you are not really serious with this are you??? by the way....what was your field of expertise....quantum mechanics or general relativity??? -
Abaddon
Jerry, I'm off to my Dutch lesson in a minute, so I'll keep this brief;
The ratio of the volume of the Holy City of New Jerusalem to the volume of the Ark of the Covenant is equal to the ratio of the Planck mass to the mass of the Hydrogen atom. The ratio of the area of a side of the Holy City to the Planck area is 2^266, which is the theoretically calculated number of protons in the SSM universe. [The Planck area is defined, here, as the square of the Planck wavelength, i.e. the wavelength of a Planck energy photon.]
Could you show your workings please? I am specifically interested in what value you used for the ancient measurements, and where you got these values from. Please also specify whether you are using h or h-bar and why.
Second; you ask me to post evidence you were 'nasty', I did, you completely ignored the evidence posted.
I get so bored with this level of evasion...
-
rem
Wow, now we are getting into numerology!
Jerry, people who accept evolution as the current best theory of our origins are not all atheists.
rem
-
plmkrzy
has been banned from the Institute's WebSite for spreading his view about Evolution.
ROTFLMAO!
A scientist being banned for thought!
-
ThiChi
""ThiChi, I don't think anyone appreciates your "tactic" of posting an inordinant amount of information that no one possibly has time to go through and refute every sentence for you. You then probably view that lack of effort as additional support for your argument""
Right! Let’s just take your words as gospel and go home! Get real!
-
Jerry Bergman
I guess we will need antidiscrimination laws against chimp discrimination.
NewScientist.com
Chimps are human, gene study implies
22:00 19 May 03
Jeff Hecht
The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.
The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.
The closeness of relationship between chimps and humans has become an important issue outside taxonomy, becoming part of the debate over the use of chimps in laboratory experiments and over their conservation in the wild.
Traditionally chimps are classified with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans, in the family Pongidae, separated from the human family Hominidae. Within Hominidae, most paleoanthropologists now class virtually all hominid fossils in three genera, Homo, Australopithecus, or Ardipithecus.
On the basis of the new study, Goodman would not only put modern humans and all fossils back to the human-chimp divergence into Homo, but would also include the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo (Pan paniscus).
"The third chimpanzee"
It is not the first time such a suggestion has been made - in 1991 physiologist and ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee". But subsequent genetic comparisons have yielded varying results, depending on how the genotypes are compared.
Goodman compared published sequences of 97 genes on six species, including humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys. He looked only at what he considered the most functional DNA, bases which cannot be changed without a consequent change in the amino acid coded for by the gene.
Among these, he found that 99.4 percent were identical in humans and chimps. He found a lower correspondence for bases that could be changed without affecting the amino acid, with 98.4 percent identical for chimps and humans and the same for the "junk" DNA outside coding regions. Goodman believes the differences are larger for non-coding DNA because their sequences are not biologically critical.
Split date
His correlations are much higher than the 95 per cent similarity reported in 2002 by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology. Goodman does not disagree with those results, he told New Scientist, but points out that the differences analysed by Britten are not important to gene function because 98 percent of the DNA did not code for proteins.
The small difference between genotypes reflects the recent split between chimps and humans, says Goodman, who dates the divergence to between five and six million years ago.
But Sandy Harcourt, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis, believes chimps and humans split six to 10 million years ago. "That's an awful long time to be in the same genus," he told New Scientist.
Classifying chimps as human might raise their conservation profile, but Harcourt hopes that is not the only way to get people to worry about them. "I'd prefer to go the other way, and consider more things that aren't human" as important for conservation, he says.
Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1232172100)
22:00 19 May 03
Return to news story