Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[dad]

First, I note that I have challenged you to provide evidence of your views, but yet again you have provided none. As I said: I interpret this as an admission on your part that you have none.

Correction: beliefs do not require evidence. If they have evidence, people of other beliefs will not believe it anyhow!

As I pointed out, we have well supported theories of physics that predict how the universe works. These are based on large amounts of evidence.

Wrong. There is no support at all, only beliefs to support the so called physics involved in any origin issue.

There is no reason to believe at all that time works significantly differently in other parts of the universe, or in the past.

We are not talking about earth time. e know a day was a day since ever the earth was...more or less.

As for the far unknown universe, no, science has NO idea if time exists there as it does here.

If you disagree with this, then please describe your view of the universe in detail and tell us what evidence you have to support your view.

I have no need to pretend to know all about the far reaches of creation. That sort of pride trip actually revolts me.

We have very good evidence of how the universe works.

Not even a small clue actually. Just a totally conflated, confused cloud of belief contaminated circular claims.

This is not what science does. This is what religion does. Science is not a religion. It's the complete opposite.

The glaring fact that origin claims of so called science are belief based in entirety does not hinge on you agreeing or even having the capacity to be aware of it.

What is a kind? Please give a proper definition. And how do you know any of this. It appears that you are again making claims without providing anything to back them up.

A kind WAS the sorts of creatures God created, from which all other types we have seen came from. This pride trip about pretending we should know what they were is pretentious hypocrisy.

This refers to the Big Bang. You have been provided with evidence of the Big Bang before, and have never once been able to address it. But, as with many creationists, you just go on making the same already debunked claim.

I actually have dealt with that obscenely foolish fable many times. Nothing about it is anything but religious twaddle.

Incorrect. We can see the past through the evidence that it leaves behind. If you believe that this is an incorrect way of studying the past that will mislead us, then perhaps you should explain why? You give no evidence at all for your own views, and hence they are utterly inconsequential. Please support your views.

Sounds great, now what exactly are you talking about?

Wrong. As mentioned, the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe are a good indicator that the laws of physics that applied when atoms formed were the same as they are now.

False. They are a good indication God created a certain way.

The nature of light that left stars billions of years ago indicates that the laws of physics were the same

If there is no time as we know it out there, nothing could be said to take billions of OUR years! Why preach your passe religion?

See: I have evidence to support my view.

Zero actually.

Can you describe how such a physics would work?

On earth, the different laws affected atoms and molecules and therefore life processes, genetics etc etc etc. No great heat was produced by land masses moving fast, man lived 1000 years, trees grew in weeks, etc etc.

 

[Brightmoon]

Beliefs don’t require evidence? Ok, but that just means they’re elaborate fantasies not facts. Natural phenomena doesn’t work on fantasies and that’s a problem for your belief system .

 

[Brightmoon]

Fast moving tectonic plates that push into others is a film technique. Useful for showing how mountains form but not ever going to be an accurate representation of the amount of time involved . A plate of land that is thousands of miles across is going to generate heat as it moves . Just pushing a table across a bare floor generates some heat and you can feel that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Incorrect. You assume time exists in the far universe as here.

Herein lies the fundamental and repeated failure in creationist use of the word "assume". This is the accurate version of what happens.

Scientists postulate, (not assume) that time exists in the far universe as here. They then look for evidence to support this view, for evidence that would falsify it and for evidence that might support a contrary view. Following this approach they have found no meaningful evidence for the latter and plenty for the former. Naturally, as scientists, this conclusion is seen as provisional and can be overturned in an instant.

In science, every so-called assumption is verfiable and verified. Not so matters of faith. By all means believe based upon your faith, but do not indulge in assumptions (here used correctly) about how science conducts itself.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You kidding??

I am not kidding. Explain exactly what would compel any creator to make chimpanzees. What about the "grand design" of the deity you believe in demands that there be ANY animals that resemble humans in the slightest?

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not kidding. Explain exactly what would compel any creator to make chimpanzees. What about the "grand design" of the deity you believe in demands that there be ANY animals that resemble humans in the slightest?

In fairness to the alternate view, the following strike me as plausible explanations:
1. Practice.
2. Warped sense of humour.
3. They are cute. (This would also explain kittens and the internet.)
4. Giving the devil an opportunity to cloud the waters.

The first three are very human which would match the claim that we are made in "His" image.

/lighthearted comments.

 

[dad]

Herein lies the fundamental and repeated failure in creationist use of the word "assume". This is the accurate version of what happens.

Scientists postulate, (not assume) that time exists in the far universe as here. They then look for evidence to support this view, for evidence that would falsify it and for evidence that might support a contrary view. Following this approach they have found no meaningful evidence for the latter and plenty for the former. Naturally, as scientists, this conclusion is seen as provisional and can be overturned in an instant.

Nice story. However I am not sure that they look for evidence that time is the same? Show is some instances.
They just believe without question.

 

[dad]

I am not kidding. Explain exactly what would compel any creator to make chimpanzees. What about the "grand design" of the deity you believe in demands that there be ANY animals that resemble humans in the slightest?

Of all animals I consider that resemble humans, chimps do not even come to mind. I find ants resemble us more.

 

[dad]

Beliefs don’t require evidence? Ok, but that just means they’re elaborate fantasies not facts.

This is why I reject evolution of man and the big bang. Those beliefs have no evidence. They just impose themselves onto evidences like parasites. The evidences for the bible are real and span all ages.

Natural phenomena doesn’t work on fantasies

The origins fables of science do not work on anything at all. They are fables. The fishbowl nature they use to model all things simply doesn't even apply outside the present.


and that’s a problem for your belief system

 

[tas8831]

maybe because its a mammal and has a similar internal morphology to other mammals?

But why?

What was the Design imperative to put a mammal in the ocean?

"sure, why not? common similarity can be explain by common designer. very easy."

Whales have a 'common similarity' in external morphology with fish, to an extent.

Your ad hoc 'justifications' are simplistic and poorly thought out out.

Try again?

 

[xianghua]

But why?

What was the Design imperative to put a mammal in the ocean?

what was the design imperative to put a mammal on land? its just a meaningless question.

Whales have a 'common similarity' in external morphology with fish, to an extent.

but they also have common internal similarity with other mammals.

try again?

 

[tas8831]

what was the design imperative to put a mammal on land? its just a meaningless question.

Really? Mammals breather air. They do not have gills. It is therefore potentially dangerous for mammals to live their entire lives in oceans when they need to breathe air.

but they also have common internal similarity with other mammals.

Yes, I know that, thanks.

But your line of argumentation on this is 'common similarity.' And you imply that this 'common similarity' shows 'design'. So most mammals have 'common similarity' with terrestrial mammals. Cetaceans have a 'common' internal similarity with land mammals, but a 'common similarity' with aquatic animals on the outside.

try again?

Try again to what?

Demonstrate the emptiness of your desperate claims? ROBOT PENGUINS!

 

[xianghua]

Really? Mammals breather air. They do not have gills. It is therefore potentially dangerous for mammals to live their entire lives in oceans when they need to breathe air.

and yet dolphins doing pretty well.

So most mammals have 'common similarity' with terrestrial mammals. Cetaceans have a 'common' internal similarity with land mammals, but a 'common similarity' with aquatic animals on the outside.

sure. and its still common (internal) similarity which can point to common design.

 

[tas8831]

and yet dolphins doing pretty well.

Yes, they are. And this has nothing to do with common plan or designer.

sure. and its still common (internal) similarity which can point to common design.

Which means that there is no way to falsify design meaning robot penguins are the devil.