"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[AV1611VET]

You specifically claimed that the Bible says we are RELATED to ANIMALS! In the case you have forgotten here is your quote:

Not like this, though:

 

[mzungu]

Not like this, though:

That caricature does not depict physical relationship. It is by all accounts a Chimera. So I take it that you agree with DAD that the Bible states that we humans are related to animals?

 

[AV1611VET]

So I take it that you agree with DAD that the Bible states that we humans are related to animals?

In the sense that we were created from the same Source, yes; but there, the similarity ends.

 

[mzungu]

In the sense that we were created from the same Source, yes; but there, the similarity ends.

That is not what DAD claims. However, what you say is basically that the only relationship we have with animals is that animals and humans all have one creator. The problem here is that scientifically, the overwhelming genetic evidence shows that we are all animals and are related. Some are extremely distant relatives and some extremely close, but related nevertheless.

Religion has absolutely no evidence apart from here say (this applies to all religions). Thus by trying to dismiss science through religion is tantamount to trying to teach a dog physics. The two are totally incompatible in every sense.

Religion is faith and science deals with the physical world. I never tire of pointing this out.

Personally My bet is on what works and that is science.

Have a very pleasant day

 

[Split Rock]

Not like this, though:

That caricature does not depict physical relationship. It is by all accounts a Chimera.

I think we all agree that we are not related to animals like a chimera. Next.

 

[AV1611VET]

Religion has absolutely no evidence apart from here say (this applies to all religions).

Thank you for the reply, my friend; and for the record it is "hearsay" --

 

[Split Rock]

Here is a good example of the type of nonsense that my O.P. is addressing:
Bryan Fisher's "Defeating Darwin in four steps - so easy a caveman could do it." Bryan Fischer: Defeating Darwin in four steps - so easy a caveman could do it - RIGHTLYCONCERNED.COM

Bryan Fisher is the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association (AFA). What are his credentials for critisizing Darwin's theory of evolution by Natural Selection? According to Wikipedia, Fischer has an undergraduate degree in philosophy from Stanford University, and holds a graduate degree in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. In other words, he has no credentials. Yet, he can falsify the binding theory of all modern biology in "four easy steps - so easy a cavemen could do it." Well, maybe Fisher should have brought a caveman with him when he wrote the above piece, because he failed miserably. Here are his four steps:

1. First Law of Thermodynamics: Basically a first cause argument. He has a first cause (God) and Darwin doesn't. What does this have to do with Darwin's theory? Nothing. Where is the first cause for God? No Where. Next.

2. Second Law of Thermodynamics: Basically the same old erroneous "evolution says everything is getting more complex" argument. This is false. Local increases in entropy are not precluded by the second law in any case, as long as the entropy of the system is increasing. Next.

3. Fossils: Basically the old "there are no transitionals" argument, plus an assertion that fossils are the only real evidence for evolution. False on both counts. Next.

4. Genes: Basically he asserts that the only mechanism for evolution is genetic mutation. I guess Fisher forgot all about Natural Selection, which is strange considering his purpose was to disprove Darwin's theory, which centers on natural selection. In fact, Darwin didn't even know about mutations. Strike Out for Fisher.

Next time Fisher should ask the advice of a cavemen.. maybe one with a degree in biology. Or maybe he shoudl stick to philosophy and theology.

 

[dad]

You specifically claimed that the Bible says we are RELATED to ANIMALS! In the case you have forgotten here is your quote:

Related in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with physical ancestry or genetics. We are related because we are all created creatures of God. We are related because we have some traits that are somewhat similar to some of these creatures...even good traits.....bold as a lion, etc.

For anyone to look at some adaptation of some creature, and then go on to assume that this means everything adapted so much from virtually nothing, that man finally arrived on the scene is insanity.

Don't ever assume I consider anything of the sort even remotely.

 

[mzungu]

Thank you for the reply, my friend; and for the record it is "hearsay" --

I stand corrected! English is not my mother tongue!

 

[Split Rock]

Related in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with physical ancestry or genetics.

It is our genetics which provides the most convincing argument for common descent.

We are related because we are all created creatures of God.

So, being called "creatures" is OK, but not "animals?"

We are related because we have some traits that are somewhat similar to some of these creatures...even good traits.....bold as a lion, etc.

"Somewhat similar?" Try entirely similar. Similar organs, similar cells, similar symmetry, similar development, similar genetics.

For anyone to look at some adaptation of some creature, and then go on to assume that this means everything adapted so much from virtually nothing, that man finally arrived on the scene is insanity.

The evidence for common descent is overwelming, not insantity. Thinking one's ancestors came from dirt, on the other hand, may be another story..

 

[Naraoia]

I stand corrected! English is not my mother tongue!

I was thinking that's exactly the sort of thing native speakers would also get wrong.

 

[Doveaman]

It is our genetics which provides the most convincing argument for common descent.

Common Creator is more convincing.

How many people have claimed to have experienced a common ape ancestor?

How many people have claimed to have experienced a common Creator?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Common Creator is more convincing.

How many people have claimed to have experienced a common ape ancestor?



How many people have claimed to have experienced a common Creator?

So the more popular an idea is, the more likely it's correct?

What is the magic number that makes a belief true?

 

[Michael]

So the more popular an idea is, the more likely it's correct?

What is the magic number that makes a belief true?

This tends to be a common question by the way. What makes any scientific theory "likely to be correct"?

BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'
AFP: Hints fade of elusive physics 'God particle'

Between the two findings, virtually all of standard particle physics theory, and virtually all of standard cosmology theories have either been completely laid to waste, or have been ruled out with a 95% degree of certainty. Is a "scientific consensus" any better at "predicting truth"?

 

[Nathan Poe]

This tends to be a common question by the way. What makes any scientific theory "likely to be correct"?

Supporting evidence.

Between the two findings, virtually all of standard particle physics theory, and virtually all of standard cosmology theories have either been completely laid to waste, or have been ruled out with a 95% degree of certainty. Is a "scientific consensus" any better at "predicting truth"?

Except you're not trying to "predict" truth, you're claiming to have it already.

"scientific consensus" is the first step, not the last.

 

[Split Rock]

Common Creator is more convincing.

How many people have claimed to have experienced a common ape ancestor?

How many people have claimed to have experienced a common Creator?

I have said this before and I'll say it again. Only genetic descent creates nested hierarchies. If your god created life so it fit in an inclusive nested hierarchy, then he wanted us to believe in common descent. That would make him a deceiver, which you claim he is not. As for your question, it makes no sense. How does one "experience" a common ape ancestor??

 

[mzungu]

This tends to be a common question by the way. What makes any scientific theory "likely to be correct"?

A theory explains the evidences! Theories can be refined and or even discarded when new evidence is discovered. Some theories are unlikely to ever be discarded as they have overwhelming evidences supporting it; One such theory is EVOLUTION! So get over it!

Between the two findings, virtually all of standard particle physics theory, and virtually all of standard cosmology theories have either been completely laid to waste, or have been ruled out with a 95% degree of certainty. Is a "scientific consensus" any better at "predicting truth"?

Evidence please!!!

 

[Freodin]

How many people have claimed to have experienced a common Creator?

If you contrast that with the experience of a common ancestor, you should be so honest to admit that there are also ZERO people who have experienced a common creator.

No one has ever experienced their respective deity creating.

 

[mzungu]

If you contrast that with the experience of a common ancestor, you should be so honest to admit that there are also ZERO people who have experienced a common creator.

No one has ever experienced their respective deity creating.

OH man you seriously PWND him!

 

[USincognito]

As for your question, it makes no sense. How does one "experience" a common ape ancestor??

I've noticed a lot of Creationists ask these sort of nonsense questions or make nonsense assertions. They either are trying to sound sciency or trying to take a metaphysical concept and cram it into a methodologically naturalistic paradigm.