Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[blitz143]

---

Funny...
Each side believes they are correct in their opinion... Some says false prophet na ang uban, providing links and figures...

First things first, big bang theory is indeed the closest we can get to THE BEGINNING. A lot is proven and some are disproved.
For example, proven nah nga the center of galaxies are black holes. Supported with scientific evidence...
Second, Evolution theory is indeed flawed. Questions are asked. Doubts are casted. That is science. We asked. We question. While religion get stucked to their faith.

Time to cope up guiz. Try to accept the flaws in ur bible. Kay sa tinuod lang, gabaha ang inconsistencies.
It is not bad believing in God while questioning genesis.
Remember, Genesis was created for story telling (according to bible scholars). It is a legend.

It is funny how we go to school to learn and understand, and yet, we don't accept changes.

[robert_papalid_ece]

@hitch22: the Bible or Jesus Christ never mentioned an "exact" date kanus-a ang Second Coming bru...

Speaking of Revelations, the guy who wrote this apocalyptic vision was John of Patmos. Patmos is a Greek island where John was believed to be in exile. The place is also notoriously known for the abundance of the hallucinogenic mushrooms scientifically named Amanita muscaria. Clark Heinrich, in his book "Magic Mushrooms in Religion and Alchemy" interprets the hallucinogenic mushrooms' consumption by biblical figures such as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, John of Patmos...and surprisingly, Jesus.

now this is what i call speculation... mugna2x... tagna2x... tsismis... to the highest level... himuon man nuong adik ang mga balaang tawo... hahayz... kung mutuo mo ani... ambot na lang...

[robert_papalid_ece]

Seriously, you shouldn't use a religious website to debunk a valid scientific theory. I'm sure the whole scientific community are shaking right now. They should be scrambling for answers, now that a religious website has overturned Darwin's Theory. Last I checked, Darwin's Theory seems pretty secure in its place as the unifying principle in biology.

di ko sure if gibasa ba jud ni sa tanan ang link... so for the sake of everybody... ako na lang ipost diri siguro ang pinaka-importante nga part para nako, then from here... start disproving the fact below:

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.

Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist's generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross

[robert_papalid_ece]

Funny...
Each side believes they are correct in their opinion... Some says false prophet na ang uban, providing links and figures...

First things first, big bang theory is indeed the closest we can get to THE BEGINNING. A lot is proven and some are disproved.
For example, proven nah nga the center of galaxies are black holes. Supported with scientific evidence...
Second, Evolution theory is indeed flawed. Questions are asked. Doubts are casted. That is science. We asked. We question. While religion get stucked to their faith.

Time to cope up guiz. Try to accept the flaws in ur bible. Kay sa tinuod lang, gabaha ang inconsistencies.
It is not bad believing in God while questioning genesis.
Remember, Genesis was created for story telling (according to bible scholars). It is a legend.

It is funny how we go to school to learn and understand, and yet, we don't accept changes.

who are these scholars? are they better than Moses? than Isaiah? than Peter? than John? than Jesus? than God?

i go to school not to study evolution... and yes i accept changes in the field of computers, electronics, robotics, technology in general, etc... human evolution isn't part of the change... and won't be accepted yet... or ever...

[robert_papalid_ece]

last post of the day... kay det2x muna...

naa lang koy i-share nga link sad: Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals - Europe Forum

ug mao ni iya content:

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)

[kenites]

wew! I'm glad kay nin dagan napud ni nga thread

[hitch22]

@robert_papalid_ece:

bai, thanks for taking the time to engage yourself in this discourse.

Once again, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on two counts. First, I did notice that you said matter-of-factly that...

they haven't even gave us yet (or never) the totally convincing link between humans and the ape-like creatures that they're saying... but instead... they gave us the genetic similarities of monkeys and humans... and they are already convinced by it...

I have to discard this argument right away. Of course, we look at genetic similarities when determining common ancestry. What else is there? You have a genetic similarity with your first cousin, which points to a common ancestry: your grandparents. When victims of that Sulpicio tragedy filed for claims, how did the company decide which claimants were genuine? DNA-matching between the deceased and the claimant. If somebody claims to be your half-brother or half-sister and files a suit in court that he/she should get a share of your family's inheritance, how would the court decide this? Again, DNA...to check for genetic similarities. If you have a better method which the rest of us aren't aware of, please do let us know.

di ko sure if gibasa ba jud ni sa tanan ang link... so for the sake of everybody... ako na lang ipost diri siguro ang pinaka-importante nga part para nako, then from here... start disproving the fact below:

What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals)....

When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.

Chimpanzee. Photo copyrighted.What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

You've used this source (a religious website) and another source (a European forum). Come on, what happened to the concept of legitimate sources?

How about if I counter with these sources :
1) Difference Between Humans and Apes Linked to a Missing Oxygen Atom (University of California San Diego)
2) Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says (National Geographic News)
3) Visualizing the Similarity of Human and Chimp DNA (University of California Riverside)
4) Genetic Activity Marks Difference between Brains of Humans and Chimps (Scientific American)

First of all, you don't expect chimps and humans to have 100% genetic similarities. Otherwise, they're not chimps but humans. Secondly, you have to remember that humans diverged from the great apes millions of years ago. So, you should expect that time frame of divergence to be reflected in the genetic differences.

In summary, your source said something like 96% or 97% similar...therefore we can't cross the barrier? Well, what can we expect from a religious writer whose vested interests lie purely in crowbarring into schools the ridiculous pseudoscience called "Intelligent Design" Theory, which is just plain creationism? We can't take this writer's objectivity seriously.

Well, let's take that argument on as well. I'll just paste below the relevant parts from that National Geographic link: Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree.

With the advent of molecular techniques to compare similarities in our DNA starting in the 1960s, most experts have come to accept the fact that humans and chimps are most closely related. Studies indicate that humans and chimps are between 95 and 98.5 percent genetically identical.

Derek E. Wildman, Goodman, and other co-authors at Wayne State argue in their new study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that given the evidence, it's somewhat surprising that humans and chimps are still classified into different genera. Other mammalian genera often contain groups of species that diverged much earlier than chimps and humans did, said Goodman. "To be consistent, we need to revise our definition of the human branch of the tree of life," he said.

Goodman and colleagues used computer methods to analyze the amount of similarity between 97 important human and chimp genes and as many of the same gene sequences as are currently available for less-studied gorillas, orangutans, and Old World monkeys.

The results suggested that within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity. Some previous DNA work remains controversial. It concentrated on genetic sequences that are not parts of genes and are less functionally important, said Goodman.

Tan-awa ra na...they're even putting the degree of similarity to between 95-98.5%...and yet, mo-ingon pa man gani na "it's somewhat surprising that humans and chimps are still classified into different genera." Whereas in that religious website, the religious writer boastfully picks out 96%...mo-ingon kuwang kaayo...and then dismisses the whole common ancestry theory. Nagpa-klaro lang gyud sa vested interest.

Just as a side note, the National Academy of Sciences is the elite community in the scientific field...the crème de la crème. To have your paper reviewed and published by this organization puts a lot of weight into your research/study and analysis. If you've found the debunking arguments that's been reviewed and published by the National Academy...please present them here.

Pero bai...I'm willing to reject the human-apes common ancestry, if given the proper evidence. But...that doesn't mean I'm going to jump aboard creationism. It just means that scientists will just have to work out a new theory or revise the theory. In other words, just because one scientific theory proved to be flawed or incorrect doesn't mean that a pseudo-science becomes credible as a consequence. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, my friend.

[orcgod]

@robert_papalid_ece

wheres the special effects video of you, angels, and your God?.....im waiting...... ni exist man kaha siya?

ang oil spill is caused by us, pero God can make miracles man kaha? turn water into wine, make lazarus come to life. Divide the red sea. these are amazing magic his doing.

how about a simple Oil Spill Clean Up?

[Guitargod]

Di man tingali ni angay lalison.. hahaha.. mkahibaw rta tanan ika patay nato... agree? peace mga bro!! hehehe

[Guitargod]

@robert_papalid_e

how about a simple Oil Spill Clean Up?

OT: mao man tingali ni gi-ingon nga "Lihok tao kay tabangan ko tamo" hehehe....Kita2x rman ang nka spill so kita sad manglimpyo... anyways, nice idea there bro....