Evolution or Creationism?

[Loudmouth]

Hey, if we are created in God's likeness, what does that make those who feel they were 'created' by evolving from monkeys?

"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?"
George J. Romanes, 1882

How do you explain the fact that we are so much like apes?

 

[Zosimus]

"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape. This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation. Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?"
George J. Romanes, 1882

How do you explain the fact that we are so much like apes?

Your logic is defective.

Perhaps you should have someone explain why so many clouds resemble elephants.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your logic is defective.

Perhaps you should have someone explain why so many clouds resemble elephants.

Perhaps you could explain why we are 98% chimp?

 

[dad]

Well, apart from the numerous transitional fossils.



Well, apart from all the genetic evidence.

The issue is what transitioned from what! If Post flood man went through transitions on the way to where we are now in this nature, so what?

Genetics are also a feature of this present nature. You only thought you could deduce the past from them.

 

[Loudmouth]

The issue is what transitioned from what! If Post flood man went through transitions on the way to where we are now in this nature, so what?

If? Perhaps you could start presenting evidence instead of presenting fantasies.

Genetics are also a feature of this present nature. You only thought you could deduce the past from them.

Where is the evidence for a different state past?

 

[dad]

"If we reject the natural explanation of hereditary descent from a common ancestry, we can only suppose that the Deity, in creating man, took the most scrupulous pains to make him in the image of the ape.

No. All you need to do is stop mistaking post flood man with apes! Hereditary decent may not be the big kid on the block in the past nature that was responsible for the changes anyhow. In all ways you lose.

This, I say, is a matter of undeniable fact -- supposing the creation theory true -- and as a matter of fact, therefore, it calls for explanation.

The only undeniable fact is that you cannot tell apes from men.

Why should God have thus conditioned man as an elaborate copy of the ape, when we know from the rest of creation how endless are His resources in the invention of types?"
George J. Romanes, 1882

How do you explain the fact that we are so much like apes?

God made them similar in some physical ways, and so very different in other ways. I think some dogs are more similar to some people than goo goo gaa gaa armpit scratching grunting stupid apes.

 

[dad]

If? Perhaps you could start presenting evidence instead of presenting fantasies.

The fossil record shows changes. So we can drop the if. There is no evidence that post flood man remains were not post flood men. Just the sick imagination of evolutionary priests.

Where is the evidence for a different state past?

Where is the evidence for any state past? Nowhere in science. The only evidence man has is the evidence of Scripture. Reject it and you have nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fossil record shows changes.

What post-flood man? Where is your evidence for this flood, and evidence that changes came about around this flood?

There is no evidence that post flood man remains were not post flood men.

The burden of proof lies with you. If you can't present evidence to back your claims, then your claims will be rejected.

Where is the evidence for any state past?

All around you. It is seen in every telescope and in every rock.[/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

No. All you need to do is stop mistaking post flood man with apes!

Why should I stop?

Hereditary decent may not be the big kid on the block in the past nature that was responsible for the changes anyhow. In all ways you lose.

Since you have presented zero evidence, I have lost nothing.

The only undeniable fact is that you cannot tell apes from men.

Do you deny that man shares features with apes?

God made them similar in some physical ways, and so very different in other ways. I think some dogs are more similar to some people than goo goo gaa gaa armpit scratching grunting stupid apes.

Evidence?

 

[Zosimus]

Perhaps you could explain why we are 98% chimp?

Perhaps you could explain why a Toyota is 98 percent Honda.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps you could explain why a Toyota is 98 percent Honda.

By what measure?

 

[RickG]

Where is the evidence for any state past? Nowhere in science. The only evidence man has is the evidence of Scripture. Reject it and you have nothing.

Scripture makes no such claim. And if your reference is to that after the flood people did not live as long as before, that is not a change in any physics or chemistry or their processes.

 

[Zosimus]

By what measure?

Like a Honda, a Toyota has a four-cylinder fuel-injected engine that drives a four-wheeled vehicle. Both units come with various smog-reducing devices and both are stamped with vehicle identification numbers. Both come with windshields (UK: windscreens) and rubber-coated windshield(screen) wipers to eliminate water from them. Both come equipped with halogen headlights, run only on unleaded gasoline, contain an upholstered interior with two bucket seats and a bench seat in the back. Both have the engines located at the front of the car, and a cargo area (trunk/boot) located at the rear of the vehicle. Both come with duel airbags, and seatbelt restraint systems.

Clearly both vehicles share a common ancestor.
QED

 

[Loudmouth]

Like a Honda, a Toyota has a four-cylinder fuel-injected engine that drives a four-wheeled vehicle.

I don't see any DNA sequences which is the basis for the 98% identity between humans and chimps. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[crjmurray]

Like a Honda, a Toyota has a four-cylinder fuel-injected engine that drives a four-wheeled vehicle. Both units come with various smog-reducing devices and both are stamped with vehicle identification numbers. Both come with windshields (UK: windscreens) and rubber-coated windshield(screen) wipers to eliminate water from them. Both come equipped with halogen headlights, run only on unleaded gasoline, contain an upholstered interior with two bucket seats and a bench seat in the back. Both have the engines located at the front of the car, and a cargo area (trunk/boot) located at the rear of the vehicle. Both come with duel airbags, and seatbelt restraint systems.

Clearly both vehicles share a common ancestor.
QED

Cars don't reproduce..... I hope this isn't shocking information to you.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, apart from the numerous transitional fossils.

Those transitional fossils required a very powerful Imaginator in order to slap a butch of bones together and dogmatically claim it's your ancestor.

Well, apart from all the genetic evidence.

Genetic code alone does nothing but has to be read by a certain living cell. Put spider DNA in a man will not produced Spiderman without a very power Imaginator. You must be a believer in the selfish gene religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those transitional fossils required a very powerful Imaginator in order to slap a butch of bones together and dogmatically claim it's your ancestor.

It takes no imagination to see that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, which makes them transitional by definition.

Also, transitional does not mean ancestral.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Genetic code alone does nothing but has to be read by a certain living cell. Put spider DNA in a man will not produced Spiderman without a very power Imaginator.

Comparing genetic code can allow us to test hypotheses related to common ancestry. It's called science. Look into it.

 

[Smidlee]

It takes no imagination to see that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, which makes them transitional by definition.

Also, transitional does not mean ancestral.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Now we all know by now the fossil never supported evolution. All those transitional are totally based on human opinion which is why they are continuously changing. Even Mary Leakey admitted to this yet still believed she evolved. Stasis is the word when it comes to fossils.

Comparing genetic code can allow us to test hypotheses related to common ancestry. It's called science. Look into it.

Well the "science" points in many directions as it already been proven without a doubt that similar genes doesn't automatically mean common ancestor. When something contradicts the evolutionist prediction they just called it co-evolution. When evolution is the foundation of science then you can't use science to prove evolution. Once you include yourself in your theory then evolution explain everything about you including your thoughts which ends up explaining nothing. This is nothing but idol worship.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now we all know by now the fossil never supported evolution. All those transitional are totally based on human opinion which is why they are continuously changing.

It is not opinion that those fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. It is an observable fact. That makes them transitional.

Stasis is the word when it comes to fossils.

Then do we see progressively more human-like fossils as we move through time?

That is the opposite of stasis.

Well the "science" points in many directions as it already been proven without a doubt that similar genes doesn't automatically mean common ancestor.

Examples?

When something contradicts the evolutionist prediction they just called it co-evolution.

Examples?

When evolution is the foundation of science then you can't use science to prove evolution.

No one is saying that evolution is the foundation of science.

Once you include yourself in your theory then evolution explain everything about you including your thoughts which ends up explaining nothing. This is nothing but idol worship.

That is nothing but you making stuff up.

 

[Smidlee]

It is not opinion that those fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. It is an observable fact. That makes them transitional.



Then do we see progressively more human-like fossils as we move through time?

That is the opposite of stasis.

Now I already know this nonsense comes from the evolutionist's Bible Talkorigins. Again even Mark Leakey admit it no where as simple as Talkorigins make people believe. This is totally useless to a unbeliever.