Common ancestor between chimps and humans

JonFromMinnesota said:

Science only explains the natural world. It makes no attempts to prove or disprove God.

Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree.

I understand science wanting to stick with the natural world.

But when science challenges someone who believes in the supernatural world to provide physical evidence, then science is overstepping its bounds.

And science goes way overboard when someone gives evidence of the supernatural world, and science compares it to a host of mimics, plagiarisms, and strawmen.

I believe science today is nothing more than witchcraft, wrapped up inside a cocoon of Latin jargon and technobabble.

AV1611VET said:

But when science challenges someone who believes in the supernatural world to provide physical evidence, then science is overstepping its bounds.

Click to expand...

Provide one scientific study attempting to explain anything supernatural.

AV1611VET said:

And science goes way overboard when someone gives evidence of the supernatural world, and science compares it to a host of mimics, plagiarisms, and strawmen.

Click to expand...

What evidence?

AV1611VET said:

I believe science today is nothing more than witchcraft, wrapped up inside a cocoon of Latin jargon and technobabble.

Click to expand...

If you feel this way, next time you get sick, just pray instead of seeing a doctor.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Provide one scientific study attempting to explain anything supernatural.

Click to expand...

Don't you know your own craft?

If I remember correctly, there were several studies done on ESP.

JonFromMinnesota said:

What evidence?

Click to expand...

Here we go again.

You're "innocence" is getting tiresome.

But for the [broken] record:

• churches
• songs, hymns, poetry
• iconography & statuary
• hostipals, organizations, and relief efforts
• decals, bumper stickers
• holidays
• BC/AD distinction of time

JonFromMinnesota said:

If you feel this way, next time you get sick, just pray instead of seeing a doctor.

Click to expand...

No, thanks.

Jesus told me I need a doctor.

As Doctor Luke put it:

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

AV1611VET said:

If I remember correctly, there were several studies done on ESP.Here we go again.

Click to expand...

James Randi has a $1 million dollar challenge for this type of thing. None of that has been demonstrated to be true. Would you like to provide any studies of the supernatural being demonstrated to be true?

AV1611VET said:

You're "innocence" is getting tiresome.

But for the [broken] record:

• churches
• songs, hymns, poetry
• iconography & statuary
• hostipals, organizations, and relief efforts
• decals, bumper stickers
• holidays
• BC/AD distinction of time

Click to expand...

This argument has been getting tiresome. It has been demonstrated to you over and over that this is not evidence. Yet, you continue to use it. That is being intellectually dishonest.

AV1611VET said:

No, thanks.

Jesus told me I need a doctor.

Click to expand...

Oh so you do need science then? Perhaps you shouldn't call it witchcraft then. It makes you look very silly.

JonFromMinnesota said:

James Randi has a $1 million dollar challenge for this type of thing. None of that has been demonstrated to be true. Would you like to provide any studies of the supernatural being demonstrated to be true?

Click to expand...

You mean like:

13 University-Sanctioned Paranormal Research Projects

Joseph Banks Rhine

Remote Viewing

Parapsychology

JonFromMinnesota said:

This argument has been getting tiresome. It has been demonstrated to you over and over that this is not evidence.

Click to expand...

No, it hasn't.

That's like demonstrating to me that gravity is not evidence.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Oh so you do need science then?

Click to expand...

Ya ... imagine that!

JonFromMinnesota said:

Perhaps you shouldn't call it witchcraft then.

Click to expand...

Then perphaps it should clean up some of its terminology?

JonFromMinnesota said:

It makes you look very silly.

Click to expand...

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water and "look very silly."

AV1611VET said:

You mean like:

Click to expand...

13 University-Sanctioned Paranormal Research Projects- Did you read any of these? None of them produced conclusive results to support the claims.
Joseph Banks Rhine- Again, did you read any of this? Methodological flaws in the experiments. They have never been repeated by the scientific community. From the link: "No evidence of extrasensory perception in the average man or the group tested"

Remote Viewing- Did you bother to read this link? "There is no credible scientific evidence that remote viewing works, and the topic of remote viewing is regarded as pseudoscience"

Parapsychology- You should really read sources. "Parapsychology has been criticized for continuing investigation despite being unable to provide convincing evidence for the existence of any psychic phenomena after more than a century of research"

I ask you to provide examples of the supernatural being demonstrated to be true and you sent links to studies that have NEVER been demonstrated to be true. You either didn't read them in hopes I wouldn't bother fact checking you or you are intentionally lying. Which one is it AV?

AV1611VET said:

No, it hasn't.

That's like demonstrating to me that gravity is not evidence

Click to expand...

Yes it has. I've seen you use that argument several times in different threads. They have been easily dismissed by several posters. Stop lying.

General relativity is the theory of gravity backed up by evidence. You are saying "There are churches, therefore my claims are true" That is circular reasoning. It's not evidence. You should really eliminate this argument from your arsenal. It's just nonsense. Be honest with yourself.

AV1611VET said:

Then perphaps it should clean up some of its terminology?

Click to expand...

What terminology? The ones that don't agree with your world view that you cannot demonstrate to be true? Seems like your idea of science is "If it benefits me and doesn't contradict what I believe, then it's good. If it doesn't agree with me WITCHCRAFT" This is ridiculous nonsense.

JonFromMinnesota said:

I ask you to provide examples of the supernatural being demonstrated to be true ...

Click to expand...

Excuse me, Jon, this is what you said:

Provide one scientific study attempting to explain anything supernatural.

Click to expand...

I have provided links showing scientists studying the supernatural.

And although these Sadducees,* of course, would conclude them to be INCONCLUSIVE or NONEXISTENT, they at least studied them.

* Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

These Sadducees need to understand that, unless they can build a machine that can do this ...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... their mindsets will keep them locked into a narrow view of the universe.

They go through life suffering scientific claustrophobia, then they die.

JonFromMinnesota said:

I ask you to provide examples of the supernatural being demonstrated to be true ...

Click to expand...

That ain't gonna happen this side of the Tribulation period.

Until then, you're just gonna have to rely on the effects of the supernatural showing up as iconography, edifices, and whatnot.

AV1611VET said:

Excuse me, Jon, this is what you said:I have provided links showing scientists studying the supernatural.

Click to expand...

I actually asked you this right after your first reply.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Would you like to provide any studies of the supernatural being demonstrated to be true?

Click to expand...

You then replied with your links. You didn't read them did you? Did you lie or make a mistake?

JonFromMinnesota said:

I actually asked you this right after your first reply.

Click to expand...

Do you stand behind this?

Science only explains the natural world. It makes no attempts to prove or disprove God.

Click to expand...

If so, I'm going to disagree.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Science only explains the natural world. It makes no attempts to prove or disprove God.
You're basically saying that since something cannot be proven wrong, it must be true. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. It just shows you are likely to believe just about anything.

Click to expand...

False, since I show the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History. I also show that the False ToE is NOT true in ANY way. Everyone can see that you cannot refute this agreement but instead promote a half Truth which does NOT agree with other discovered Truths. The ignorance fallacy is what Evolutionists falsely THINK Christians are. When you ask them for facts, they run and hide behind some of their twisted definitions. It's proof that God's Truth is the Truth in every way while the False ToE is nothing but a satanic lie which fools only children and heathens. Amen?

Aman777 said:

False, since I show the AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History.

Click to expand...

Scripture isn't science. Sorry. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. The bible is not testable, nor it is it falsifiable. Therefore it is NOT science.

Aman777 said:

I also show that the False ToE is NOT true in ANY way.

Click to expand...

Are you willing to write a paper and submit it for peer review to every line of science? You would win a Nobel prize if your claim were true.

Aman777 said:

Everyone can see that you cannot refute this agreement but

Click to expand...

Evolution is a substantiated theory with overwhelming amount of evidence. If you want to make a claim that it's wrong, write your paper. Burden of proof is on you when you claim it's false. Write your paper.

Aman777 said:

The ignorance fallacy is what Evolutionists falsely THINK Christians are.

Click to expand...

Christians aren't the only ones who commit logical fallacies. We all do it. I was simply pointing it out. If you say that something cannot be proven false, therefore it's true, is an argument from ignorance.
Here is a cool list of logical fallacies. Familiarize yourself with them so you commit less of them in a debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Aman777 said:

the False ToE is nothing but a satanic lie which fools only children and heathens. Amen?

Click to expand...

You can say this till you're blue in the face, it won't make you right.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Are you willing to write a paper and submit it for peer review to every line of science? You would win a Nobel prize if your claim were true.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting proposition. What say you @Aman777? Would you be willing to write a paper that summarizes your objections to the Theory of Evolution?

JonFromMinnesota said:

Evolution is a substantiated theory with overwhelming amount of evidence. If you want to make a claim that it's wrong, write your paper. Burden of proof is on you when you claim it's false. Write your paper.

Click to expand...

there is exactly ZERO evidence that life arose naturally.
there is exactly ZERO empirical evidence for the major evolutionary transitions.

evidence for the first statement:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

evidence for the second statement is in post 200.

UCDavis said:

Humans have 23 pairs pairs of chromosomes. Apes have 24! Are u saying we share a common ancestor with tobacco also, since the tobacco plant has 24 chromosomes also? Lol

Click to expand...

Not because of the number of chromosomes, but yes. All living things have a common ancestor.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Scripture isn't science. Sorry. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. The bible is not testable, nor it is it falsifiable. Therefore it is NOT science.

Click to expand...

Correction: The traditional religious view of the Creation is not True to Science and History. Therefore, it is falsifiable. The proper interpretation of what Genesis ONE actually says is TESTABLE since it is the complete History of God's Creation written BEFORE the events happen at the end of the present 6th Day AFTER Jesus returns. A good example is that Jesus changes ALL animals into vegetarians, Gen 1:30 at that FUTURE time, since this event has NEVER happened in the past.

Jon:>>Are you willing to write a paper and submit it for peer review to every line of science? You would win a Nobel prize if your claim were true.

I've already won the biggest prize of life eternal, thanks to Jesus. Trying to get arrogant Evolutionists to go against their False Religion of the Evolution is endless and not worth the time. They are "willingly ignorant" that Adam's world, where Humanity began, was totally destroyed in the Flood. ll Peter 3:3-7 Since this event is FUTURE to our time, I already KNOW what these Evolutionists will say.

Jon:>>Evolution is a substantiated theory with overwhelming amount of evidence. If you want to make a claim that it's wrong, write your paper. Burden of proof is on you when you claim it's false. Write your paper.

I write my paper every day and NO Evolutionist has been able to refute me for almost 20 years now. You join many others in being unable to refute me Scripturally, Scientifically or Historically. I suggest you contact TalkOrigins and have them help you with your IMPOSSIBLE task. Tell them of the plight of the Evols on this board.

Jon:>>Christians aren't the only ones who commit logical fallacies. We all do it. I was simply pointing it out. If you say that something cannot be proven false, therefore it's true, is an argument from ignorance.
Here is a cool list of logical fallacies. Familiarize yourself with them so you commit less of them in a debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can say this till you're blue in the face, it won't make you right.

I KNOW I'm right. I don't need a hypothesis since I believe what God told us in His Holy Word. Logical Fallacies are mortal Human mistakes. God is NOT subject to Human mistakes, as everyone will see at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Amen?

crjmurray said:

That's an interesting proposition. What say you @Aman777? Would you be willing to write a paper that summarizes your objections to the Theory of Evolution?

Click to expand...

How better can I do it than to post it here? This way, everyone can see the terrible Flaws in the incomplete, untrue, false Theory of Evolution. Writing a Book doesn't help since NO one reads books written by just anyone. I know, thus my SN. Amen?

whois said:

there is exactly ZERO evidence that life arose naturally.
there is exactly ZERO empirical evidence for the major evolutionary transitions.

evidence for the first statement:
The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science, but it is also one of the most important. Origin-of-live research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

evidence for the second statement is in post 200.

Click to expand...

Amen. It's time for scientists to question their accepted views since many of them are based on Faith in the incomplete, false, ToE which can NEVER tell us of our true origins, since Humans were made on another world which was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Isa 24:19 and ll Peter 3:6 God Bless you

Cearbhall said:

Not because of the number of chromosomes, but yes. All living things have a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

Amen. His name is Jesus Christ and without Him was NOT anything made which was made. John 1:3

Scientists THINK everything has a common ancestor BECAUSE they find that ALL life on this Planet, came forth from the water beginning some 3.77 Billion years ago. God told us that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Scripture and Science totally agree. Amen?

whois said:

i believe the article was on about epigenetics.
it also seems darwin would have incorporated this into the theory.

Click to expand...

It also seems that he did.

"Hence, as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"