Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Shemjaza]

No, it`s true we came from monkeys, they`re animals and we can`t mate with them, we`re humans and evolved seperatly, we share some traits yes, because it`s logical by design, but like I said, monkeys are animals, and we`re humans

The common ancestor of modern monkeys and humans would also be called a monkey.

The genetic pattern between monkeys, humans and the other apes shows the patterns of being a family of cousins and not just some reused parts in independent design.

 

[AV1611VET]

The genetic pattern between monkeys, humans and the other apes shows the patterns of being a family of cousins and not just some reused parts in independent design.

We believe in common design -- not common ancestor.

 

[Shemjaza]

We believe in common design -- not common ancestor.

Yep, and common design can never be disproved... but it is less directly supported by the evidence than common ancestry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, and common design can never be disproved... but it is less directly supported by the evidence than common ancestry.

But you have to play connect-the-dots with what you have; and assume facts not in evidence (viz., missing links).

 

[Shemjaza]

But you have to play connect-the-dots with what you have; and assume facts not in evidence (viz., missing links).

Not true.

The facts are in evidence in the genetic and physical remnants in modern humans and in the living and extinct transitional structures.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not true.

You don't know why they're called "missing links"?

The facts are in evidence in the genetic and physical remnants in modern humans and in the living and extinct transitional structures.

And how many times do they have to retcon these remnants to get them to fit?

 

[Shemjaza]

You don't know why they're called "missing links"?

I said "not true" because you said it was "not in evidence", then I listed the evidence.

And how many times do they have to retcon these remnants to get them to fit?

Critically and thoroughly investigating all the evidence is how science works. That's why it get results.

 

[AV1611VET]

Critically and thoroughly investigating all the evidence is how science works. That's why it get results.

Only on paper.

They only look good in museums.

 

[Shemjaza]

Only on paper.

They only look good in museums.

No, in the rocks, in the labs, in the computers and in the bodies of the living creatures.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, in the rocks, in the labs, in the computers and in the bodies of the living creatures.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

You can't concatenate DNA back to the beginning.

It has more missing parts than a car left downtown unlocked.

And they are missing for two reasons:

1. Some haven't been found yet.

2. The rest never existed.

You can't link whales to tigers, because whales came BEFORE land animals.

By one day, in fact.

 

[Shemjaza]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

You can't concatenate DNA back to the beginning.

It has more missing parts than a car left downtown unlocked.

And they are missing for two reasons:

1. Some haven't been found yet.

2. The rest never existed.

You can't link whales to tigers, because whales came BEFORE land animals.

By one day, in fact.

The whale has the genes for hind legs, just switched off. It has more genetic commonalities with land mammals then with any fish.

Evidence is extensive and clear that it's descended from a common ancestor with the reset of the placental mammals.

 

[Gene2memE]

Whales came after land animals, by several hundred million years.

The fossil evidence for the earliest land creatures dates back at least 425 million years.
The oldest fossils of whales (or at least their immediate Cetacean ancestors) are only about 45 to 50 million years old.

 

[dlamberth]

Only on paper.

Isn't that pretty much all the creationist have? Something that is only on paper? Science had given us a lot more evidence which is pointing towards a common ancestor than "only on paper".

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't that pretty much all the creationist have?

We all (everyone) have the Truth.

Something that is only on paper?

Yes.

A very special kind of paper.

One that generates faith in those who read it.

Science had given us a lot more evidence which is pointing towards a common ancestor than "only on paper".

Science holds up something they find and interpret it.

If they misinterpret it ... well ... it's the same as misinterpreting the Bible.

 

[Astrid]

Isn't that pretty much all the creationist have? Something that is only on paper? Science had given us a lot more evidence which is pointing towards a common ancestor than "only on paper".

Not just paper. There's mistaking blind
faith in absurdities for belief in God.

There's the vast ego of belief in their infallibility,
personally handed them by God, which
enables not just inerrant bible- readin' but
confers knowledge of science which surpasseth
that of any researcher on earth.

So armed, the crestionist is invincible.

Ask one if it's possible he's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't that pretty much all the creationist have? Something that is only on paper?

Not just paper.

Correct.

We also have cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God:

1. The Bible
2. Time divided into BC and AD.​
3. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.​
4. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.​
5. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.​
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.​
7. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.​
8. Christmas & Easter​
9. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.​
10. Public debates in the name of Christianity.​
11. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.​
12. Two major nations founded on His existence.​

 

[JohnEmmett]

We also have cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God:

The evidence is prayer

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence is prayer

Are you making that #13?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Are you making that #13?

No, all your examples could be interpreted as human nature

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Correct.

We also have cause-and-effect evidence for the existence of God:

1. The Bible
2. Time divided into BC and AD.​
3. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.​
4. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.​
5. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.​
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.​
7. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.​
8. Christmas & Easter​
9. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.​
10. Public debates in the name of Christianity.​
11. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.​
12. Two major nations founded on His existence.​

That's not evidence of Creationism or God though, just evidence that Christianity exists.