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

[AnotherAtheist]

The basis for Eve existing is the Jesus verified Scripture.

Can you provide objective verifiable evidence that your interpretation of the Bible AND the Bible itself are a reliable source of knowledge.

Science has no clue. So science has no basis for saying Eve existed or did not exist.

That depends on how you describe 'Eve'. If you describe Eve as the first woman who was created by God six thousand years ago, then science has an awful lot to say about Eve. E.g. that she couldn't have been the first woman as there were plenty of women before her. Also, now that we know that humans evolved from other species, there never was a 'first woman'. Both confirmed by mounds of scientific evidence. So you see: science does have a clue.

So tell us by what authority you claim to say scripture has no authority?

I don't have to. I just have to point out that it is a book which has not been shown to be a reliable source of information about the world. And which therefore can be ignored until such time as its reliability has been supported by verifiable objective evidence.

Under what authority do you claim that the creation myth of the Kuba people has no authority? Under what authority do you claim that the creation myths of Buddhism have no authority?

We know that at least the vast majority of creation myths cannot be correct. Why should we believe your particular myth and therefore the existence of Eve over other creating myths?

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean we are the same or that we have a common ancestor. Rather, it means we were designed within the restrictions of this physical universe by the same designer, God.

The types of similarities we see across all living things only make sense if they evolved. You can always say that a God created the world to look exactly like a world that came about by natural means. But, such claims aren't worthy of consideration unless you can support the claim that there is such a God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean we are the same or that we have a common ancestor. Rather, it means we were designed within the restrictions of this physical universe by the same designer, God.

The problem with that line of logic is that you need to show that we were designed and that there was a designer.
And also: that's not the point of this thread.

 

[Brightmoon]

[Divide, post:

If you are sinless, go ahead and cast the first stone at Trump. If you are not sinless, you're out of line, lol.[/QUOTE]


Gladly if it’ll get 45 out of the Oval Office

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean we are the same or that we have a common ancestor. Rather, it means we were designed within the restrictions of this physical universe by the same designer, God.

that argument was over and done and thrown in the trash once they did those eye gene switching experiments in the 90s . You have no evidence that this was the same designer or even if it was designed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean we are the same or that we have a common ancestor. Rather, it means we were designed within the restrictions of this physical universe by the same designer, God.

Nope.
1. There's no reason any creator would have to make chimps or other apes aside from humans at all. Thus, arguing that humans would have to be physiologically similar to those organisms if we were created makes absolutely no sense.
2. Codons are extremely redundant. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to build a genome that results in a human phenotype that is genetically very different from chimps, etc.
3. A ton of the similarities, such as the bones of the feet, make humans worse at being bipedal. Why make the design worse to make it more similar to other designs?

 

[dad]

Can you provide objective verifiable evidence that your interpretation of the Bible AND the Bible itself are a reliable source of knowledge.

Can you provide that to show Jesus had the right 'interpretation' rather than Satan's in the wilderness? Why would you think believers would discuss what God said with unbelievers?

That depends on how you describe 'Eve'. If you describe Eve as the first woman who was created by God six thousand years ago, then science has an awful lot to say about Eve. E.g. that she couldn't have been the first woman as there were plenty of women before her. Also, now that we know that humans evolved from other species, there never was a 'first woman'. Both confirmed by mounds of scientific evidence. So you see: science does have a clue.

No, science has no clue at all. The time scales of science all rest on belief. They cannot tell us when 6000 or even 5000 years ago was. I know.

I don't have to. I just have to point out that it is a book which has not been shown to be a reliable source of information about the world. And which therefore can be ignored until such time as its reliability has been supported by verifiable objective evidence.

Those who said it was unreliable are unreliable.

Under what authority do you claim that the creation myth of the Kuba people has no authority?

God's.

Under what authority do you claim that the creation myths of Buddhism have no authority?

The One true Living God's.

We know that at least the vast majority of creation myths cannot be correct.

Especially the creation myth of science, that has evilly masqueraded as something else.

Why should we believe your particular myth and therefore the existence of Eve over other creating myths?

Believe what you like. Do not call your beliefs science or fact.

The types of similarities we see across all living things only make sense if they evolved.

No, created kinds and then some evolving make the most sense.

You can always say that a God created the world to look exactly like a world that came about by natural means.

All science sees is the natural, so it's origin models will reflect that. Circular religion.

But, such claims aren't worthy of consideration unless you can support the claim that there is such a God.

Jesus did that.

Now support your origin claims/religion.

 

[dad]

Nope.
1. There's no reason any creator would have to make chimps or other apes aside from humans at all.

You kidding??

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Can you provide that to show Jesus had the right 'interpretation' rather than Satan's in the wilderness? Why would you think believers would discuss what God said with unbelievers?

Why would I do that since it has nothing at all to do with my argument. I notice that you gave this non-sequitur reply rather than give any evidence or proper argument that the Bible AND your interpretation of it are reliable in any way. Is this because you can't.

No, science has no clue at all. The time scales of science all rest on belief. They cannot tell us when 6000 or even 5000 years ago was. I know.

What a bizarre statement. We know when 6000 or even 5000 years ago was. It was 6000 or even 5000 years ago. Please explain what it is that you are trying to say.

The predictive power of scientific theories shows that science, very much, has a clue.

Those who said it was unreliable are unreliable.

How do you justify this statement? And where is the evidence that the Bible is reliable? I note that despite your blustering, that you're unable to produce any evidence of the reliability of the Bible.

You're trying to do a he said she said thing here. But, that utterly fails to establish the Bible as a reliable source about anything. You need positive evidence for that? Do you have any?

God's.
The One true Living God's.

Claims of God can be ignored until there is evidence.

Especially the creation myth of science, that has evilly masqueraded as something else.

Science is based on evidence. There has been no masquerading.

Believe what you like. Do not call your beliefs science or fact.

I'm talking about something external to myself. My personal beliefs are unimportant. What is important is that claims are based on verifiable objective evidence. Which you have been challenged to produce, and you have utterly failed to do so. Instead, you're tap-dancing all around the topic.

No, created kinds and then some evolving make the most sense.

Please define what a 'kind' is.

An evidence-free explanation of the world may make most sense to you, but I'm more interested in what is true and what is false. That's the difference between us.

All science sees is the natural, so it's origin models will reflect that. Circular religion.
Jesus did that.

Now support your origin claims/religion.

For a start, here are 29+ evidences for evolution. Can you produce a convincing argument against even one of these? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[xianghua]

For a start, here are 29+ evidences for evolution. Can you produce a convincing argument against even one of these? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

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

 

[dad]

Why would I do that since it has nothing at all to do with my argument. I notice that you gave this non-sequitur reply rather than give any evidence or proper argument that the Bible AND your interpretation of it are reliable in any way. Is this because you can't.



What a bizarre statement. We know when 6000 or even 5000 years ago was. It was 6000 or even 5000 years ago. Please explain what it is that you are trying to say.

I am saying your way to date is assuming the nature and laws were the same as now, such as radioactive decay sequences. That is religion.

The predictive power of scientific theories shows that science, very much, has a clue.

The false prophesies of science betray it actually.

How do you justify this statement? And where is the evidence that the Bible is reliable? I note that despite your blustering, that you're unable to produce any evidence of the reliability of the Bible.

That is not up for debate, but is obvious. The only issue there is denial.

Claims of God can be ignored until there is evidence.

A rock falling on our head can be ignored...for a short time I suppose. Not the best course of action.

Science is based on evidence. There has been no masquerading.

A simple test then...show evidence that the state/nature was the same always?

I'm talking about something external to myself. My personal beliefs are unimportant. What is important is that claims are based on verifiable objective evidence. Which you have been challenged to produce, and you have utterly failed to do so. Instead, you're tap-dancing all around the topic.

No origin claim is based on anything but dark religion.

Please define what a 'kind' is.

Wrong question. The issue is what a kind was. Fossils won't help you there. Nor modern Genetics.

An evidence-free explanation of the world may make most sense to you, but I'm more interested in what is true and what is false. That's the difference between us.

Science in relation to origins is evidence free.

For a start, here are 29+ evidences for evolution. Can you produce a convincing argument against even one of these? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
gi
I won't be holding my breath.

I'll look at that later. You better hope no radioactive decay, fossils, or genetics are offered though. That would be same state religion.

 

[tas8831]

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

So why are whales more similar genetically to mammals than to fish?

 

[USincognito]

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean we are the same or that we have a common ancestor. Rather, it means we were designed within the restrictions of this physical universe by the same designer, God.

Common design is ad hoc (thus a fallacy), and unfalsifiable (thus unscientific).

 

[xianghua]

So why are whales more similar genetically to mammals than to fish?

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

 

[xianghua]

Common design is ad hoc (thus a fallacy), and unfalsifiable (thus unscientific).

like evolution.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I am saying your way to date is assuming the nature and laws were the same as now, such as radioactive decay sequences. That is religion.

Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that they laws of physics have remained constant. E.g. light that comes from distant stars is also coming from the deep past. We can inspect that light and find out about the star that created it. That's a test of the laws of physics remaining the same. We can look into things such as the predictions of current laws of physics concerning the early universe, such as the proportions of hydrogen and helium created. Again, the observation and the prediction agree. If you actually looked into the claims that you make instead of just ... making them, you'd find this sort of stuff out.

The false prophesies of science betray it actually.

How? Please explain. With evidence.

That is not up for debate, but is obvious. The only issue there is denial.

A rock falling on our head can be ignored...for a short time I suppose. Not the best course of action.

No, if there is actual evidence, then you shouldn't just ignore things. But, there is no evidence for God. So, God is very different from a rock falling on someone's head.

A simple test then...show evidence that the state/nature was the same always?

See above. E.g. the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the universe.

Note that there is some evidence, far from conclusive, that there might be minor changes in the values of some physical constants. But, nothing like enough to save anyone silly enough to believe in a 6000 year old universe.

No origin claim is based on anything but dark religion.

The big bang, for example, is a scientific hypothesis. It's based on evidence and is a testable hypothesis. Big Bang Evidence | STEM

Wrong question. The issue is what a kind was. Fossils won't help you there. Nor modern Genetics.

If you talk about kinds, then it's reasonable to ask you what a kind is. It's not up to you to say 'wrong question'. If you use a term, it should mean something. What is a kind? Otherwise we should use better terms such as 'species', 'genus',, 'family', 'order', etc.

Science in relation to origins is evidence free.

What do you mean by 'origins'. As above, if you mean the Big Bang, it is very far from evidence-free.

I'll look at that later. You better hope no radioactive decay, fossils, or genetics are offered though. That would be same state religion.

As above, 'same state' is not a religion. It's a hypothesis based on evidence.

Now, do you have any evidence for your own views? It appears that you have been tap-dancing furiously in an attempt to hide that your own beliefs are what are entirely evidence-free.

I'll interpret yet another post with no evidence as an admission that you have none.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

like evolution.

And there you go again. You have absolutely no answer for the solid evidence and good detail that you have been provided with that evolution is scientific and testable. So, you just stick your head in the sand and continue repeating your thoroughly debunked claims.

Why do you do this? Do you think that a third party seeing a discussion like this will see you just repeating claims despite clear evidence to the contrary, and be impressed? Do you think that if you just hang on long enough and get the last word that this will somehow wipe away the debunking of your claim and make you the winner?

What is it that you are thinking?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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

That does not in any way invalidate any of the evidences. You'd have to show that the actual evidence supports a common designer better than it supports common descent. And there is plenty of evidence that supports common descent over a common designer. E.g. why is the gene for vitamin c still present in primates even though it's broken? And why is it broken in the same way in all primates? This makes sense with common descent. It doesn't for common design. Why are dolphins more genetically similar to rabbits than they are to sharks? Makes sense with common descent, not with common design. And on it goes.

 

[dad]

Incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that they laws of physics have remained constant. E.g. light that comes from distant stars is also coming from the deep past.

Incorrect. You assume time exists in the far universe as here. You then use our time to determine how much time something would take.

We can inspect that light and find out about the star that created it.

False.

You only have partial info, and no info on what distances ot time is involved.

That's a test of the laws of physics remaining the same. We can look into things such as the predictions of current laws of physics concerning the early universe, such as the proportions of hydrogen and helium created. Again, the observation and the prediction agree..

No. You can't in any way actually. You do not know any times involved. You do not know what else is out there. You do not know if it was actually created....etc etc. You have beliefs.

How? Please explain. With evidence.

You are not aware many predictions turned out wrong?

No, if there is actual evidence, then you shouldn't just ignore things. But, there is no evidence for God. So, God is very different from a rock falling on someone's head.

My life abounds with evidence.

See above. E.g. the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the universe.

How would looking at what was created and exists, and then inventing some intricate fable about how it might have got here supposedly help your religion?

Note that there is some evidence, far from conclusive, that there might be minor changes in the values of some physical constants. But, nothing like enough to save anyone silly enough to believe in a 6000 year old universe.

Not what I am talking about. I am talking about you being totally wrong, and the basis for determining what is constant wrong. Not some mickey mouse minor tweak.

The big bang, for example, is a scientific hypothesis. It's based on evidence and is a testable hypothesis. Big Bang Evidence

Toal faith based intelligence insulting religion.

If you talk about kinds, then it's reasonable to ask you what a kind is. It's not up to you to say 'wrong question'. If you use a term, it should mean something. What is a kind? Otherwise we should use better terms such as 'species', 'genus',, 'family', 'order', etc.

A kind existed long ago when creation happened. A lot of adapting, changing, evolving has went on since.

What do you mean by 'origins'. As above, if you mean the Big Bang, it is very far from evidence-free.

Totally evidence free.

As above, 'same state' is not a religion. It's a hypothesis based on evidence.

Circular. You only use the present state, so it looks that way to you.

No evidence or history or anything else supports a same nature on earth in the past. All bible and history support a different nature. As for evidences, they can be looked at with either belief.

 

[Brightmoon]

You have this bizarre idea that time speeds up enough to form a young earth . We can actually tell that earth used to have a 25 hour day by looking at the growth rates of some fossil corals and by looking at the circadian rhythms of some living organisms if the normal day/night cycle is interrupted (Complete darkness or complete light. )

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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.

Incorrect. You assume time exists in the far universe as here. You then use our time to determine how much time something would take.

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.

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

False.

Unfortunately for you, just responding 'false' with no reasoning or evidence

You only have partial info, and no info on what distances ot time is involved.

We have very good evidence of how the universe works. You have no info supporting your view at all. Until you have evidence that the theories of the universe are wrong, then they stand.

No. You can't in any way actually. You do not know any times involved. You do not know what else is out there. You do not know if it was actually created....etc etc. You have beliefs.

You are not aware many predictions turned out wrong?

I repeat: How? Please explain. With evidence.

My life abounds with evidence.

Given that you have not given us any evidence, I reject this. Please tell us what this evidence is so that we can see if it is objective reliable evidence, or simply what you believe for no objective reasoning.

How would looking at what was created and exists, and then inventing some intricate fable about how it might have got here supposedly help your religion?

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

Not what I am talking about. I am talking about you being totally wrong, and the basis for determining what is constant wrong. Not some mickey mouse minor tweak.

If you have such claims, then please support them with verifiable objective evidence. But, both of us know that you won't because you can't. You have beliefs that conflict with reality, so you are trying to deny reality to protect your beliefs.

Toal faith based intelligence insulting religion.

It is not me who is at fault for you being unable to provide any evidence for your claims. You are trying to blame the messenger.

A kind existed long ago when creation happened. A lot of adapting, changing, evolving has went on since.

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.

Totally evidence free.

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.

Circular. You only use the present state, so it looks that way to you.

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.

No evidence or history or anything else supports a same nature on earth in the past. All bible and history support a different nature. As for evidences, they can be looked at with either belief.

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

See: I have evidence to support my view. What do you have? None. Can you give us one good reason to believe that even though the light we see coming from distant starts looks exactly the same as it would if the laws of physics had remained constant since the light left the star, but in actual fact the

Can you describe how such a physics would work? This everything changing to create the illusion of stasis but in actual fact there wasn't stasis.

 

[xianghua]

That does not in any way invalidate any of the evidences. You'd have to show that the actual evidence supports a common designer better than it supports common descent. And there is plenty of evidence that supports common descent over a common designer. E.g. why is the gene for vitamin c still present in primates even though it's broken? And why is it broken in the same way in all primates? This makes sense with common descent. It doesn't for common design. Why are dolphins more genetically similar to rabbits than they are to sharks? Makes sense with common descent, not with common design. And on it goes.

since we have a similar discussion in the second thread, i will continue here:

Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution