The 10 most ridiculous things people believe.

I just found this article stating 10 most ridiculous things people belive. Do you belive in any of them? Let's have some fun:

Copy-pasta for those super lazy of you:

"

Noah's Ark
Upwards of 60% of Americans believe in the story of Noah's Ark, word by word. Meaning that more than half of this country believes that a guy built an ark, put all of the world's animals in there (including all of the fish and sea creatures), told them not to kill each other, fed them who-knows-what during the flood, and then put each animal (and dinosaur?) in the specific climate in which they would prosper (and didn't put any apes on the north pole just to screw with people).

Rapture
More than half of Americans believe that the "prophecies of The Book of Revelations," including the idea that we will have a "rapture" and Jesus will return to take the faithful. Meanwhile, atheists pray (pun intended) that the "Faithful" are right, and that they will disappear and get out of the way of humanity's progress.

Creation/Humans and Dinosaurs
Around half of the people in the United States believe that God created earth somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. They believe this despite the fact that they receive an education (except in Kansas) that continually explains to them evolution, and the age of the earth. Why even go to school if you don't believe the multiplication table.
The juiciest part of this belief is the explanation for dinosaur bones -"God" put the dinosaur fossils in Earth to test our faith." Yup, and he put "young boys" to test his Priests celibacy

New Testament, Old Testament
To put all of this in perspective, around half of Americans do not know that Judaism came before Christianity. So, despite the fact that Jesus was a Jew, nearly half of Americans believe that Christianity is older than Judeism. As Bill Maher put it, "half of Americans look at the Old Testament and the New Testament and do not know which came first."

Truthers
One-third of all Democrats in the United States believe that George Bush helped plan or at least knew all about the attack on the World Trade Center before September 11.
This would mean that numerous other people and the people that planned the attack also know this and are not saying anything. So countless people from within the Administration revealed the faulty Iraq intelligence and torture but not one person has disclosed the fact that the President committed the single worst crime that the United States has ever seen.

Birthers
Similarly, one-third of Republicans believe that despite the fact that Barack Obama's birth certificate is on file in Hawaii, that he was actually born in Kenya. Really? So the The "Powers That Be" had an evil plan to set up an election, and then decided to get a guy from Kenya to become President as opposed to say simply going with someone from the United States? Odd.

Obama is a Muslim
Ten percent of Americans, and more than 20% of Americans in Texas, as well as all the Rascist in both Texas and Florida, believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
This belief would almost be okay if those same people did not get on Obama about his radical Christian preacher whose church he attended for ten years. So what is it – Christina w/ a racist preacher or Muslim with a racist complainer?

lluminati
It is not officially known how many Americans believe in The Illuminati as the official "New World Order", pollsters cannot read their minds through their tin foil hats.
What we do know, is that there are millions of people who believe that a cartel of very rich and powerful people control the entire world, using world leaders as puppets. Some even believe that the Illuminati are an alien Lizard race – and that George Bush is one of them! . . .and you thought the visitors were our friends.

Saddam/9/11
Despite the existence of these silly little things called facts, more than 30% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was directly behind the September 11 attacks. In other news, more than 30% of Americans haven't picked up a newspaper in the last five years. . .and if they did, who knows if they could read anyway?

Fake Moon Landing
Around 10% of people believe that the moon landing was staged, and another 20% have doubts that we actually went to the moon.
Have you seen the special effects in pre-Star Wars films? Do you really think a non-George Lucas run government could have pulled something like that off?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, how high did you score? :D

shinian

The title was "The 10 most ridiculous things people believe" not "The 10 most ridiculous things Americans believe" every paragraph had "Americans" in it. There are people outside of America. and the Noah's Ark thing isn't ridiculous, it's someone else's belief.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

That's pretty weak..especially since he likes to make nearly everything else public...and he didn't meet with any religious leaders...like previous presidents had done...he's really not doing much to make people truely beleive that he is "Christian"..it seems as if he is Christian in name only...and again i said it SEEMS...i am not saying that he definitely isn't..

tocool340

The largest religion in the US is Christianity, practiced by the majority of the population (76% in 2008 )..i would think he would want the support of 76% of the population..

I just have to say a couple of things on this subject:

1) The "Rapture" is nowhere in the Bible. It was made up by the Catholic church.

2) Noah's Ark has actually been physically located. You can look at it on Google Earth. I'm not saying that every single species of animal that ever existed was on that Ark, saved from the flood.. but the evidence of a large Ark is there. And it's right where the Bible said it came to rest (Mt. Ararat). Not to mention that many ancient civilizations have a record and/or story of a great deluge that wiped out mankind thousands of years ago.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]I'd like some proof of that..and signing a document isn't exactly recognizing the event per say.. and i would think he would like to gain more support amongst Christian/Catholics...also, he can't have a public event for that..but he can have a parties on the white house lawn...really..stopping and praying for the public for even a few minutes would be THAT much of a hassle?Xx_Hopeless_xX

I don't know what CNSnews is, but it documents it. Signing that document was recognizing the day, that's why he signed it. He may just like to pray in private for all we know. The whole public meeting debate isn't really necessary, he recognized the National Prayer Day, like that reality or not.

That's pretty weak..especially since he likes to make nearly everything else public...and he didn't meet with any religious leaders...like previous presidents had done...he's really not doing much to make people truely beleive that he is "Christian"..it seems as if he is Christian in name only...and again i said it SEEMS...i am not saying that he definitely isn't..

He's a president, not a priest. So his religion doesn't matter at all.

And you can be a christian without being a devout strict one.

I think #11 should be believing that article.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

I don't know what CNSnews is, but it documents it. Signing that document was recognizing the day, that's why he signed it. He may just like to pray in private for all we know. The whole public meeting debate isn't really necessary, he recognized the National Prayer Day, like that reality or not.

Pixel-Pirate

That's pretty weak..especially since he likes to make nearly everything else public...and he didn't meet with any religious leaders...like previous presidents had done...he's really not doing much to make people truely beleive that he is "Christian"..it seems as if he is Christian in name only...and again i said it SEEMS...i am not saying that he definitely isn't..

He's a president, not a priest. So his religion doesn't matter at all.

And you can be a christian without being a devout strict one.

I never said you couldn't...i'm just wondering why he wouldn't show that he supports his fellow Christians by appearing for a few moments and praying..

I also need to add that most Christians and believers in Creationism that I've ever met do not believe that the dinosaur fossils are fake. They are real, and the Bible only tells the story from the start of mankind (humans as we know them). There's nothing in the Bible that precludes the possibility of other species and/or civilizations on the planet BEFORE humans as we know ourselves.

When you take into account the many ancient texts that exist, many of which contain historical records.. you also have to take into account that we are depending on modern interpreters and translators to put it all into English. Do you have any idea how many inaccurately translated words and ideas there must be from the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Egyptian, Mayan, and other texts? As we all know, if you change one or 2 words in a sentence, you can change the whole idea of what's being said.

My belief is that all of the ancient "Holy" texts fit together to tell the same story from different points of view. Obviously, there are differences since each writer and the society that they lived in didn't experience exactly the same things as the others- but there are striking similarities. The story of the flood of Noah's day is one of the greatest examples. The tale of Gilgamesh should be enough to convince us of that..

One item that I feel should be on this list is the idea that the ancient Egyptians built the original Great Pyramids at Giza. So few people realize that those Pyramids were build over 500 years before all other Egyptian pyramids, and the quality of construction is still unsurpassed to this day. No other pyramids built afterwards were as large, precisely-built, or complex. Nor have any of the others withstood the test of time nearly as well. Did you know that even TODAY, we still can't figure out how to reproduce the mortar-like substance that holds those original pyramids together? Humans as we know them did not build those.

I just have to say a couple of things on this subject:

1) The "Rapture" is nowhere in the Bible. It was made up by the Catholic church.

2) Noah's Ark has actually been physically located. You can look at it on Google Earth. I'm not saying that every single species of animal that ever existed was on that Ark, saved from the flood.. but the evidence of a large Ark is there. And it's right where the Bible said it came to rest (Mt. Ararat). Not to mention that many ancient civilizations have a record and/or story of a great deluge that wiped out mankind thousands of years ago.

hartsickdiscipl

The idea that someone built a boat to save themselves isn't that far fetched.

The idea that a man built a boat large enough to host two of every animal and insect in the world and then managed to travel all over the world capturing two of every kind and getting them back to the boat in an age without any sort of fast travel (planes, cars) and then convinced all the animals not to kill him or each other is, I'm sorry to say, ludicrous.

This would be impossible by one person in this day and age let alone in Noahs time.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

That's pretty weak..especially since he likes to make nearly everything else public...and he didn't meet with any religious leaders...like previous presidents had done...he's really not doing much to make people truely beleive that he is "Christian"..it seems as if he is Christian in name only...and again i said it SEEMS...i am not saying that he definitely isn't..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

He's a president, not a priest. So his religion doesn't matter at all.

And you can be a christian without being a devout strict one.

I never said you couldn't...i'm just wondering why he wouldn't show that he supports his fellow Christians by appearing for a few moments and praying..

Maybe he isn't Christian. Maybe he doesn't like praying in public. Maybe he doesn't care about the event. Could be any number of reasons and none of those reasons seem important.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

He's a president, not a priest. So his religion doesn't matter at all.

And you can be a christian without being a devout strict one.

Pixel-Pirate

I never said you couldn't...i'm just wondering why he wouldn't show that he supports his fellow Christians by appearing for a few moments and praying..

Maybe he isn't Christian. Maybe he doesn't like praying in public(that makes no sense..he likes talking in public and such...why not praying..). Maybe he doesn't care about the event(that would relate to your first reason as well i would think..). Could be any number of reasons and none of those reasons seem important.

The article stated he was and people who thought otherwise were ridiculous...

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I just have to say a couple of things on this subject:

1) The "Rapture" is nowhere in the Bible. It was made up by the Catholic church.

2) Noah's Ark has actually been physically located. You can look at it on Google Earth. I'm not saying that every single species of animal that ever existed was on that Ark, saved from the flood.. but the evidence of a large Ark is there. And it's right where the Bible said it came to rest (Mt. Ararat). Not to mention that many ancient civilizations have a record and/or story of a great deluge that wiped out mankind thousands of years ago.

Pixel-Pirate

The idea that someone built a boat to save themselves isn't that far fetched.

The idea that a man built a boat large enough to host two of every animal and insect in the world and then managed to travel all over the world capturing two of every kind and getting them back to the boat in an age without any sort of fast travel (planes, cars) and then convinced all the animals not to kill him or each other is, I'm sorry to say, ludicrous.

I think that people take some parts of the Biblical translations too literally. Of course Noah didn't get EVERY species onboard the Ark. But he probably got all of the species that lived in his immediate vicinity. We also have to remember- he wasn't alone. He had his large family helping him with the whole project, according to the Bible. As for being able to get them safely onto the Ark and through the flood. There are 2 possible theories that may work for you depending on your faith. We have zoos with animals that naturally prey on each other, no? A well-enough constructed cage is all you need to manage that issue. Christians tend to believe that God blessed his whole operation, so the animals were docile enough to manage. I'm not sure which of these is true, but the fact is.. there was an Ark, and the remains are sitting in the area of Mr. Ararat to this day. The details can be debated endlessly.

While I normally question statics, I would not be surprised if those statics were true. What can I say? There is lot of ignorant people out there.

I just have to say a couple of things on this subject:

1) The "Rapture" is nowhere in the Bible. It was made up by the Catholic church.

2) Noah's Ark has actually been physically located. You can look at it on Google Earth. I'm not saying that every single species of animal that ever existed was on that Ark, saved from the flood.. but the evidence of a large Ark is there. And it's right where the Bible said it came to rest (Mt. Ararat). Not to mention that many ancient civilizations have a record and/or story of a great deluge that wiped out mankind thousands of years ago.

hartsickdiscipl

On the issue of Evolution versus Creationism- I feel that Darwin was missing something. He drew many conclusions about creatures evolving from other species, and based much of his evidence on similarities between the species. While many of the points that he made do seem very convincing.. consider this--

Have you ever been to a mass-production plant for any type of product? Let's say... a car manufacturing plant. The same plant may make 10 different models, but they almost all share common parts. Whether it's an engine, a transmission, a steering-wheel, or just the knobs for the heating and AC systems, they do all share common parts. Any time you have multiple different products (or species) coming from the same environment and system of "production," you are going to see shared traits and even parts that seem to indicate that one may have come from the other. Is it logical to think that God would have started completely from scratch with each new species he created, with no shared parts or traits? No.. So of course we have many shared genes and traits with Monkeys.

EDIT: Oops. :P

I agree with most of that.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I just have to say a couple of things on this subject:

1) The "Rapture" is nowhere in the Bible. It was made up by the Catholic church.

2) Noah's Ark has actually been physically located. You can look at it on Google Earth. I'm not saying that every single species of animal that ever existed was on that Ark, saved from the flood.. but the evidence of a large Ark is there. And it's right where the Bible said it came to rest (Mt. Ararat). Not to mention that many ancient civilizations have a record and/or story of a great deluge that wiped out mankind thousands of years ago.

BumFluff122

Thanks for the link. I had already read that page in my research within the past couple of years. Based on my own Bible readings, as well as photographic evidence that can be readily found from any search engine (as well as on Google Earth itself), I found that this article was pretty meaningless. The very fact that there was, and still is a "legend," and existing photographic evidence near Mt. Ararat does far more to prove the Ark's existence than this article does to disprove it.

• Anything dealing with religion and gods
• Illuminati, Freemasons, secret world controlling governments
• Mars is forested, and they're covering it up, like it would really matter if Mars is forested or not, it doesn't help us, the people who think it is. Why does it matter, are you going to make a space ship
• Rappers are freemasons, Jay-Z is mason
• Chem Trails are poison
• Jews run the media and control the world
• Any one race is superior

On the issue of Evolution versus Creationism- I feel that Darwin was missing something. He drew many conclusions about creatures evolving from other species, and based much of his evidence on similarities between the species. While many of the points that he made do seem very convincing.. consider this--

Have you ever been to a mass-production plant for any type of product? Let's say... a car manufacturing plant. The same plant may make 10 different models, but they almost all share common parts. Whether it's an engine, a transmission, a steering-wheel, or just the knobs for the heating and AC systems, they do all share common parts. Any time you have multiple different products (or species) coming from the same environment and system of "production," you are going to see shared traits and even parts that seem to indicate that one may have come from the other. Is it logical to think that God would have started completely from scratch with each new species he created, with no shared parts or traits? No.. So of course we have many shared genes and traits with Monkeys.

hartsickdiscipl

yea...I don't beleive in any of those 10 things.

Thanks for the link. I had already read that page in my research within the past couple of years. Based on my own Bible readings, as well as photographic evidence that can be readily found from any search engine (as well as on Google Earth itself), I found that this article was pretty meaningless. The very fact that there was, and still is a "legend," and existing photographic evidence near Mt. Ararat does far more to prove the Ark's existence than this article does to disprove it.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

On the issue of Evolution versus Creationism- I feel that Darwin was missing something. He drew many conclusions about creatures evolving from other species, and based much of his evidence on similarities between the species. While many of the points that he made do seem very convincing.. consider this--

Have you ever been to a mass-production plant for any type of product? Let's say... a car manufacturing plant. The same plant may make 10 different models, but they almost all share common parts. Whether it's an engine, a transmission, a steering-wheel, or just the knobs for the heating and AC systems, they do all share common parts. Any time you have multiple different products (or species) coming from the same environment and system of "production," you are going to see shared traits and even parts that seem to indicate that one may have come from the other. Is it logical to think that God would have started completely from scratch with each new species he created, with no shared parts or traits? No.. So of course we have many shared genes and traits with Monkeys.

BumFluff122

Really? So just because a couple of species on this planet have undergone a few changes, that means that we came from Apes? And you think we have enough evidence from what.. 300 years of observation to say that these species are truly "evolving?" I think that if you examine the details of the argument you just made, you actually made just as good an argument for my "shared-parts" theory as you did for Darwin. What's to say that God didn't create many different, but somewhat genetically similar species? If you had raw materials to work with, wouldn't you share them between different creations of your design?

Just because you can look at a bunch of similar species, and point to one variation that seems to be the root of all of them due to it's genes doesn't mean that they all came from that one. It just means that they share similar parts. But different enough so that not all of the variations work together. I can look at a Nissan 350z, and see that it came from the same family as a Nissan Murano, and share many identical parts. That doesn't mean that every part on them is interchangeable, or that I can take the ECM out of one and have it work in the other. Look at the whole genetic picture as a pool of parts to work with. If you were creating a whole world, wouldn't you share parts between your creations?

I beleive 0 out of 10 of those. All those are ridiculous in my book and anyone who beleives them needs to get their mind out of the gutter.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Thanks for the link. I had already read that page in my research within the past couple of years. Based on my own Bible readings, as well as photographic evidence that can be readily found from any search engine (as well as on Google Earth itself), I found that this article was pretty meaningless. The very fact that there was, and still is a "legend," and existing photographic evidence near Mt. Ararat does far more to prove the Ark's existence than this article does to disprove it.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="shinian"]>iginlawasup

The title was "The 10 most ridiculous things people believe" not "The 10 most ridiculous things Americans believe" every paragraph had "Americans" in it. There are people outside of America. and the Noah's Ark thing isn't ridiculous, it's someone else's belief.

lol. good thread! +1

my favorite is the "fake moon landing" People that actually believe it was staged are nuts. and A TON of the stuff in the bible (or any other book written by somebody that heard god speaking) is extremely outlandish. You heard about some of the stuff Mormons believe? LOL

Talldude80

Really? So just because a couple of species on this planet have undergone a few changes, that means that we came from Apes? And you think we have enough evidence from what.. 300 years of observation to say that these species are truly "evolving?" I think that if you examine the details of the argument you just made, you actually made just as good an argument for my "shared-parts" theory as you did for Darwin. What's to say that God didn't create many different, but somewhat genetically similar species? If you had raw materials to work with, wouldn't you share them between different creations of your design?

Just because you can look at a bunch of similar species, and point to one variation that seems to be the root of all of them due to it's genes doesn't mean that they all came from that one. It just means that they share similar parts. But different enough so that not all of the variations work together. I can look at a Nissan 350z, and see that it came from the same family as a Nissan Murano, and share many identical parts. That doesn't mean that every part on them is interchangeable, or that I can take the ECM out of one and have it work in the other. Look at the whole genetic picture as a pool of parts to work with. If you were creating a whole world, wouldn't you share parts between your creations?

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Thanks for the link. I had already read that page in my research within the past couple of years. Based on my own Bible readings, as well as photographic evidence that can be readily found from any search engine (as well as on Google Earth itself), I found that this article was pretty meaningless. The very fact that there was, and still is a "legend," and existing photographic evidence near Mt. Ararat does far more to prove the Ark's existence than this article does to disprove it.

DazedDarkness

It looks like dirt/rocks/sediment formed around a solid object in a very specific shape. Metal rivets and other signs of metallic fasteners? 5000 years can take a quite a toll on wood, but not quite as much on the metals used.

[QUOTE="Talldude80"]

lol. good thread! +1

my favorite is the "fake moon landing" People that actually believe it was staged are nuts. and A TON of the stuff in the bible (or any other book written by somebody that heard god speaking) is extremely outlandish. You heard about some of the stuff Mormons believe? LOL

lightleggy

Mormons believe that Jesus came to North America. I'd call that different.

That looks like a huge dirt/rock formation to meDazedDarkness

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Really? So just because a couple of species on this planet have undergone a few changes, that means that we came from Apes? And you think we have enough evidence from what.. 300 years of observation to say that these species are truly "evolving?" I think that if you examine the details of the argument you just made, you actually made just as good an argument for my "shared-parts" theory as you did for Darwin. What's to say that God didn't create many different, but somewhat genetically similar species? If you had raw materials to work with, wouldn't you share them between different creations of your design?

Just because you can look at a bunch of similar species, and point to one variation that seems to be the root of all of them due to it's genes doesn't mean that they all came from that one. It just means that they share similar parts. But different enough so that not all of the variations work together. I can look at a Nissan 350z, and see that it came from the same family as a Nissan Murano, and share many identical parts. That doesn't mean that every part on them is interchangeable, or that I can take the ECM out of one and have it work in the other. Look at the whole genetic picture as a pool of parts to work with. If you were creating a whole world, wouldn't you share parts between your creations?

BumFluff122

There's a big difference between genetic mutation to combat a foreign virus and the idea that no species started as the same basic thing it is today.

Not everyone that believe in creationism believes in Humans living with dinosaurs. In fact I don't know any that do. :?

Pirate700

Come on Pirate, you've been on this site long enough to know that "creationism" and "young earth creationism" are used interchangedly. :P

There's a big difference between genetic mutation to combat a foreign virus and the idea that no species started as the same basic thing it is today.

hartsickdiscipl

if you are claiming that, while these specific animals can evolve, humans can not. What evidence do you base this off of given that I have posted occurrences of current evolution within humans?

Really? So just because a couple of species on this planet have undergone a few changes, that means that we came from Apes? And you think we have enough evidence from what.. 300 years of observation to say that these species are truly "evolving?" I think that if you examine the details of the argument you just made, you actually made just as good an argument for my "shared-parts" theory as you did for Darwin. What's to say that God didn't create many different, but somewhat genetically similar species? If you had raw materials to work with, wouldn't you share them between different creations of your design?

Just because you can look at a bunch of similar species, and point to one variation that seems to be the root of all of them due to it's genes doesn't mean that they all came from that one. It just means that they share similar parts. But different enough so that not all of the variations work together. I can look at a Nissan 350z, and see that it came from the same family as a Nissan Murano, and share many identical parts. That doesn't mean that every part on them is interchangeable, or that I can take the ECM out of one and have it work in the other. Look at the whole genetic picture as a pool of parts to work with. If you were creating a whole world, wouldn't you share parts between your creations?

hartsickdiscipl

Technically speaking, we didn't come from apes; we are apes, taxonomically speaking.

If you want to reject that idea, then here's a question to answer, and I'm honestly curious what your response is. All of the great apes have twenty-four pairs of chromosomes - all except humans. Humans have twenty-three. If you take human chromosome #2, there are two chromosomes in chimpanzees that, when put together at one end, are exactly identical to that one single chromosome in humans. Human chromosome #2 has a compound in its middle that is only found at the ends of all other ape chromosomes. The obvious conclusion scientists reach from this is that chromosome #2 was created through the fusion of two ape chromosomes together to form one large chromosome sometime after the evolutionary split between chimpanzees and humans.

Therefore, the question: if humans and chimpanzees did not have a common ancestor, then provide an alternate explanation for this fact.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's a big difference between genetic mutation to combat a foreign virus and the idea that no species started as the same basic thing it is today.

BumFluff122

if you are claiming that, while these specific animals can evolve, humans can not. What evidence do you base this off of given that I have posted occurrences of current evolution within humans?

I guess you didn't read the end of the article where it says that they had yet to confirm that this was the result of a real genetic change. That it could be a plastic response.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Really? So just because a couple of species on this planet have undergone a few changes, that means that we came from Apes? And you think we have enough evidence from what.. 300 years of observation to say that these species are truly "evolving?" I think that if you examine the details of the argument you just made, you actually made just as good an argument for my "shared-parts" theory as you did for Darwin. What's to say that God didn't create many different, but somewhat genetically similar species? If you had raw materials to work with, wouldn't you share them between different creations of your design?

Just because you can look at a bunch of similar species, and point to one variation that seems to be the root of all of them due to it's genes doesn't mean that they all came from that one. It just means that they share similar parts. But different enough so that not all of the variations work together. I can look at a Nissan 350z, and see that it came from the same family as a Nissan Murano, and share many identical parts. That doesn't mean that every part on them is interchangeable, or that I can take the ECM out of one and have it work in the other. Look at the whole genetic picture as a pool of parts to work with. If you were creating a whole world, wouldn't you share parts between your creations?

GabuEx

Technically speaking, we didn't come from apes; we are apes, taxonomically speaking.

If you want to reject that idea, then here's a question to answer, and I'm honestly curious what your response is. All of the great apes have twenty-four pairs of chromosomes - all except humans. Humans have twenty-three. If you take human chromosome #2, there are two chromosomes in chimpanzees that, when put together at one end, are exactly identical to that one single chromosome in humans. Human chromosome #2 has a compound in its middle that is only found at the ends of all other ape chromosomes. The obvious conclusion scientists reach from this is that chromosome #2 was created through the fusion of two ape chromosomes together to form one large chromosome.

Therefore, the question: if humans and chimpanzees did not have a common ancestor, then provide an alternate explanation for this fact.

If I take 24 lego pieces, and construct 24 different, but similar structures out of them, does that prove that any one of them could actually become the other over time? No. It simply means that the same parts were put together in different, but similar ways. One would have to actually disassemble and manipulate the pieces to make the exactly the same.

Similarly, the simple fact that human chromosome #2 has the same compound in it's middle that all other ape chromosomes have at their ends does not mean that they fuzed together by accident or by natural evolution, but rather that a common builder put them together differently.

I guess you didn't read the end of the article where it says that they had yet to confirm that this was the result of a real genetic change. That it could be a plastic response.

hartsickdiscipl

As a christian I found these pretty offensive. I don't think its necessary to hate on what I believe.

If I take 24 lego pieces, and construct 24 different, but similar structures out of them, does that prove that any one of them could actually become the other over time? No. It simply means that the same parts were put together in different, but simlar ways. One would have to actually disassemble and manipulate the pieces to make the exactly the same.

Similarly, the simple fact that human chromosome #2 has the same compound in it's middle that all other ape chromosomes have at their ends does not mean that they fuzed together by accident or by natural evolution, but rather that a common builder put them together differently.

hartsickdiscipl

So, the fact that there exists a compound in human chromosome #2 that only appears in the middle in that one single chromosome, and which appears at the end of every other ape chromosome; the fact that this chromosome is identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes put together; and the fact that, were this human chromosome separate, we would have exactly the same number of chromosomes as all other great apes... don't even give you a moment's worth of pause that maybe there's, well, a connection there? I mean, you didn't even attempt to account for this fact other than basically saying, "well, maybe the common builder just made it look like the chromosome was fused together".

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I guess you didn't read the end of the article where it says that they had yet to confirm that this was the result of a real genetic change. That it could be a plastic response.

BumFluff122

Actually, the article said clearly that it could still be debated whether or not the changes had a genetic basis at all. Let me ask you this-- do you believe in God? Darwin did.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If I take 24 lego pieces, and construct 24 different, but similar structures out of them, does that prove that any one of them could actually become the other over time? No. It simply means that the same parts were put together in different, but simlar ways. One would have to actually disassemble and manipulate the pieces to make the exactly the same.

Similarly, the simple fact that human chromosome #2 has the same compound in it's middle that all other ape chromosomes have at their ends does not mean that they fuzed together by accident or by natural evolution, but rather that a common builder put them together differently.

GabuEx

So, the fact that there exists a compound in human chromosome #2 that onlyappears in the middle in that one singlechromosome, and which appears at the end of every other ape chromosome; the fact that this chromosome is identicalto two chimpanzee chromosomes put together; and the fact that, were this human chromosome separate, we would have exactly the same number of chromosomes as all other great apes... don't even give you a moment's worth of pause that maybe there's, well, a connection there? I mean, you didn't even attempt to account for this fact other than basically saying, "well, maybe the common builder just made it looklike the chromosome was fused together".

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

Good to see you back Gabu (rumor had it you were suspended). Not to derail this thread, but will you still be submitting tallies for OTcars? Don't worry, I won't post any more about it in this thread after I get your answer (just wanted the answer in a thread where you seem to be posting :P).

]There have been instances where humans have been born with a tail. There was an instance where one human family with a deficient gene in their body, passed on through genetics of course, that gave them a sever speach inpediment. After study it was learned that this family had the original non-mutated form of the primate gene rather than the mutated humanoid form. There was a virus by the name of ptERV1 that effected the human species millenia ago. A mutation occurred within the human genome to fight this virus. Eventually the virus was wiped out because of this. However the gene the mutated had another function before the mutation, that being to protect against another retrovirus known as HIV. When Sherry Kaiser altered the original mutation back to the primate like form the new genetic variation did nto allow HIV to implant itself in the genetic code. I'm showing you all these changes that have taken place and I'm also showing you proof as to changes that have actually occurred and we have witnessed. The fact that genetic mutation occurs does not in any way support your theory.BumFluff122

As a christian I found these pretty offensive. I don't think its necessary to hate on what I believe.

hodges_3_5

You obviously haven't been on Gamespot very long.

Good to see you back Gabu (rumor had it you were suspended). Not to derail this thread, but will you still be submitting tallies for OTcars? Don't worry, I won't post any more about it in this thread after I get your answer (just wanted the answer in a thread where you seem to be posting :P).

chessmaster1989

Suspended? This is the first I had heard of that. :P

Yes, sorry, I've been busy but I do intend to tally the nominations.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If I take 24 lego pieces, and construct 24 different, but similar structures out of them, does that prove that any one of them could actually become the other over time? No. It simply means that the same parts were put together in different, but simlar ways. One would have to actually disassemble and manipulate the pieces to make the exactly the same.

Similarly, the simple fact that human chromosome #2 has the same compound in it's middle that all other ape chromosomes have at their ends does not mean that they fuzed together by accident or by natural evolution, but rather that a common builder put them together differently.

GabuEx

So, the fact that there exists a compound in human chromosome #2 that only appears in the middle in that one single chromosome, and which appears at the end of every other ape chromosome; the fact that this chromosome is identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes put together; and the fact that, were this human chromosome separate, we would have exactly the same number of chromosomes as all other great apes... don't even give you a moment's worth of pause that maybe there's, well, a connection there? I mean, you didn't even attempt to account for this fact other than basically saying, "well, maybe the common builder just made it look like the chromosome was fused together".

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

Humans aren't used to constructing things using genetic materials. We're used to building things with crude materials. But any craftsman or builder will agree that it makes more sense to build similar things using common materials. It makes no more sense to assume that the Ape chromosomes were reformed on their own to create the human configuration than it does to assume that my lego pieces came together on their own or as a result of some sort of mutation. The only thing that we have true proof of is that the same materials were used, but put together differently.

Occam's Razor, which is believe is grossly misapplied here.. would not be consistent with assuming that common materials configured very similarly (in this case, just one step away from each other) MUST evolve into each other.

this makes me think a lot. :? i dont like it at all. did they also took question for ppl that are not American?

Actually, the article said clearly that it could still be debated whether or not the changes had a genetic basis at all. Let me ask you this-- do you believe in God? Darwin did.

hartsickdiscipl

Humans aren't used to constructing things using genetic materials. We're used to building things with crude materials. But any craftsman or builder will agree that it makes more sense to build similar things using common materials. It makes no more sense to assume that the Ape chromosomes were reformed on their own to create the human configuration than it does to assume that my lego pieces came together on their own or as a result of some sort of mutation. The only thing that we have true proof of is that the same materials were used, but put together differently. Occam's Razor, which is believe is grossly misapplied here.. would not be consistent with assuming that common materials configured very similarly (in this case, just one step away from each other) MUST evolve into each other.hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hodges_3_5"]

As a christian I found these pretty offensive. I don't think its necessary to hate on what I believe.

TaCoDuDe

You obviously haven't been on Gamespot very long.

That was an extremely biased article.

Humans aren't used to constructing things using genetic materials. We're used to building things with crude materials. But any craftsman or builder will agree that it makes more sense to build similar things using common materials. It makes no more sense to assume that the Ape chromosomes were reformed on their own to create the human configuration than it does to assume that my lego pieces came together on their own or as a result of some sort of mutation. The only thing that we have true proof of is that the same materials were used, but put together differently.

Occam's Razor, which is believe is grossly misapplied here.. would not be consistent with assuming that common materials configured very similarly (in this case, just one step away from each other) MUST evolve into each other.

hartsickdiscipl