# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 49
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/961 "2010-09-14T03:48:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Because we have a common designer. So this designer designed human chromosome #2 to make it look as if it were formed by the fusion of chromosomes from what the fossil record also indicates is a primate ancestor? Why would this designer do this? Why is this a more reasonable conclusion than evolution is real? > [@](#): > > I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here. You wanted five evidences and were given more. Conventional arguments in science are the best kind. There’s no need to post any here other than linking you to where actual experts in the field have explained the evidence you’re claiming you’re looking for. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/962 "2010-09-14T03:51:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> We know the dog get’s pleasure because it simulates sex. We have no such method of identifying ‘pleasure’ in this animal. We know the lioness gets pleasure because adopting the oryx simulates motherhood. Again, where’s the distinction that you’re drawing? There is no substantive difference. > [@](#): > > 2\> You are arguing for an intangible using an intangible. So you’ve asked us to explain, and I keep trying to contrast it with what I’m guessing your view may be. Why don’t you spell it out? What’s your explanation for why a lioness would adopt a baby oryx? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/963 "2010-09-14T03:54:54Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here. The way you well refuted the Ken Miller video by stating “Because we have a common designer”? Sweet. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/964 "2010-09-14T04:03:15Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Because we have a common designer. > > So this designer designed human chromosome #2 to make it look as if it were formed by the fusion of chromosomes from what the fossil record also indicates is a primate ancestor? Why would this designer do this? Why is this a more reasonable conclusion than evolution is real? Chromosome #2, and associated claims, are an excellent example of how science misleads itself over evolution. This ‘evidence’ points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication of when this happened. It is claimed that it must have occurred to a creature that was the ancestor of all living humans. BUT…none of the apes share this fused chromosome! So there is no reason to even suggest the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone. In other words, this ‘evidence’ doesn’t suggest common decsent, it assumes it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/965 "2010-09-14T04:05:33Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here. > > The way you well refuted the Ken Miller video by stating “Because we have a common designer”? Sweet. I could post numerous web sites that adequately refute evolution and talkorigins, however this is a forum for ideas and discussion. If you can’t make the case for something you hold to be true, that’s your problem. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/966 "2010-09-14T04:08:06Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> We know the dog get’s pleasure because it simulates sex. We have no such method of identifying ‘pleasure’ in this animal. > > We know the lioness gets pleasure because adopting the oryx simulates motherhood. > > Again, where’s the distinction that you’re drawing? There is no substantive difference. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> You are arguing for an intangible using an intangible. > > So you’ve asked us to explain, and I keep trying to contrast it with what I’m guessing your view may be. Why don’t you spell it out? What’s your explanation for why a lioness would adopt a baby oryx? 1\> You can only assume the lioness desires more motherhood. Given that someone elses genes will be competing with hers, I somehow doubt that would have much impact. 2\> The issue is whether evolution provides even an adequate option for altruism. Thus far it fails. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/967 "2010-09-14T04:10:18Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> The issue is whether evolution provides even an adequate option for altruism. Thus far it fails. Thus far you have failed to understand compelling evidence. We can’t force you to actually think. We can’t peel your eyes open and massage your frontal lobe to create understanding. We can provide the grist. You have to grind it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/968 "2010-09-14T04:16:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> The issue is whether evolution provides even an adequate option for altruism. Thus far it fails. > > Thus far you have failed to understand compelling evidence. We can’t force you to actually think. We can’t peel your eyes open and massage your frontal lobe to create understanding. > > We can provide the grist. You have to grind it. There is NO compelling evidence that evolution can explain altruism. I have seen argument and supposition, but none of it convincing. And I have certainly not seen any evidence. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/969 "2010-09-14T04:17:56Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> You can only assume the lioness desires more motherhood. Given that someone elses genes will be competing with hers, I somehow doubt that would have much impact. You can only assume the dog desires sex. Given that humping a table leg won’t help it pass on its genes… well, whatever you said. It made no sense. > [@](#): > > 2\> The issue is whether evolution provides even an adequate option for altruism. Thus far it fails. What’s your explanation? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/970 "2010-09-14T04:20:34Z")
The Har 1 Gene differs by one base pair from Chimps to rabbits, rabbits to mice, mice to chimps. It differs by 2 base pairs from chimps to chickens. Chickens and chimps are said to share a common ancestor around 300 milliion years ago. Humans and chimps are said to shre a common ancestor around 6 million years ago. Yet there are 18 base pair differences between humans and chimps. How did 18 base pair differences occur in only 6 million years, when only 2 occurred in 300 million years? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/971 "2010-09-14T04:24:40Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> You can only assume the lioness desires more motherhood. Given that someone elses genes will be competing with hers, I somehow doubt that would have much impact. > > You can only assume the dog desires sex. Given that humping a table leg won’t help it pass on its genes… well, whatever you said. It made no sense. > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> The issue is whether evolution provides even an adequate option for altruism. Thus far it fails. > > What’s your explanation? We KNOW a dog desires sex because we can observe it and it’s consequences, eg non desexed dogs running around our neighbourhood looking for bitches on heat. So it is beneficial. But adopting a total stranger that will grow to compete with ones own genetic offspring is unable to be explained by evolution. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/972 "2010-09-14T04:30:36Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Chromosome #2, and associated claims, are an excellent example of how science misleads itself over evolution. > > This ‘evidence’ points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication of when this happened. Who cares about when? Human chromosome #2 shows the exact point where the fusion took place. The fused chromosomes are nearly identical to the non fused chromosomes of chimps and in almost the same exact place! That’s misleading? > [@](#): > > BUT…none of the apes share this fused chromosome! Holy Fuck, that’s the entire point! > [@](#): > > So there is no reason to even suggest the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone. The evidence is overwhelming. Look at this: > **[Chromosome fusion](http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm)** > > Demonstration that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes How can that be anything but evidence for a common ancestor? > [@](#): > > In other words, this ‘evidence’ doesn’t suggest common decsent, it assumes it. _Assumes_ it? For fuck’s sake, the fused chromosomes are right where the separate chromosomes are on the other great apes and the banding structure is identical! Assumes? Sheesh! > [@aigonz](#): > > > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > > The way you well refuted the Ken Miller video by stating “Because we have a common designer”? Sweet. > > I could post numerous web sites that adequately refute evolution and talkorigins, however this is a forum for ideas and discussion. If you can’t make the case for something you hold to be true, that’s your problem. I did make a case. You blew it off by stating “Because we have a common designer” and claiming that counts as a refutation and then changing your tune and claiming there’s no indication of when it happened, as if that’s a relevant point. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/973 "2010-09-14T04:31:45Z")
On TalkOrigins…[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcJ6cEy2W0E&feature=related](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcJ6cEy2W0E&feature=related) provides a rebuttal of an example of speciation provided by TalkOrigins that has been shown to be incorrect as long ago as 1981. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/974 "2010-09-14T04:40:46Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Chromosome #2, and associated claims, are an excellent example of how science misleads itself over evolution. > > > > This ‘evidence’ points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication of when this happened. > > Who cares about when? Human chromosome #2 shows the exact point where the fusion took place. The fused chromosomes are nearly identical to the non fused chromosomes of chimps and in almost the same exact place! That’s misleading? > > Holy Fuck, that’s the entire point! > The evidence is overwhelming. Look at this: > > [Chromosome fusion](http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm) > > How can that be anything but evidence for a common ancestor? > _Assumes_ it? For fuck’s sake, the fused chromosomes are right where the separate chromosomes are on the other great apes and the banding structure is identical! Assumes? Sheesh! > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I could post numerous web sites that adequately refute evolution and talkorigins, however this is a forum for ideas and discussion. If you can’t make the case for something you hold to be true, that’s your problem. > > I did make a case. You blew it off by stating “Because we have a common designer” and claiming that counts as a refutation and then changing your tune and claiming there’s no indication of when it happened, as if that’s a relevant point. Your response shows just how gullible you are, and how easy it is for this stauff to be promulgated. 1\> Of course the ‘when’ matters. You assume evolution as an explanation, this is imply faulty logic. 2\> All that is ‘suggested’ is that a past human may have undergone this genetic change. In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes. But no such link exists. 3\> There are no humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2. The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/975 "2010-09-14T04:40:47Z")
This is the biggest hijack I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/976 "2010-09-14T04:45:54Z")
The reason the when mattters is because it is necessay to ‘call’ evolutionists on assumption. The arguments for macro evolution are invariably based on an asumption OF evolution, and that’s juts bad science. In the case of Chromosome 2, the evidence points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication when this happened, except that it must have occurred to a creature that was the ancestor of all living humans. Since none of the apes share this fused chromosome, there is no reason at all to date this fusion any further back than warranted, so it becomes unnecessary to even posit the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/977 "2010-09-14T04:52:08Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > This is the biggest hijack I’ve ever seen. Looking back, this started going off track back on page 1! ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/978 "2010-09-14T04:54:42Z")
I give up. You’re just repeating yourself and I’m not going to explain what I already did all over again so I can watch you repeat yourself again. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/979 "2010-09-14T05:09:38Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > > > This is the biggest hijack I’ve ever seen. > > Looking back, this started going off track back on page 1! And after all this time you still haven’t managed to understand anything. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/980 "2010-09-14T05:24:43Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > I enjoy talkorigins, but if I wanted a web refernce I would have asked for one. Their arguments are conventional and have been well refuted. Let’s see five evidneces posted here. Nope. You do not get to pull this bullshit. Had you been presented with nothing but a video, I would let you walk on this. However, you asked for five evidences and you were provided 29. That they are on a web site does not render them invalid and you handwaving them away with no actual refutation does not actually refute them. Given that your posts are filled with a _faux_ condescension that is intended to be insulting, you are not on firm ground, to begin with. I award the point to your opponents and a serious threat to shut this nonsense down if you fail to provide actual refutations of at least five of the points raised on talkorigins. The bickering has gone on long enough. Try to engage in a debate. = = = Everyone else, the snide comments are not helping your side, either. Everyone clean up your acts before the yellow cards begin getting handed out. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=48) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=50)