No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

mark kennedy · Feb 28, 2018

VirOptimus said:
Still no article for peer-review? Then you still dont matter.

I noticed you never got published either and I've been critically reviewed by Darwinians for years, no thank you.

Snappy1 · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
Yes I say. And you know what that logo looks like to me?

Yes please tell us what it looks like.

DogmaHunter · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
Um. The person you responded to wasn’t considering physical attributes at all

Yes he was, since his "argument" was directly targetting evolution. Which is a theory that explains the physical attributes of living physical things and the physical process that physical anatomy and genetics are subject to.

DogmaHunter · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
Please explain to me where I have changed my claim.

I already did. You claimed that "ancient" humans and apes intermingled.
And then, when I questioned it, you claimed they didn't.

Let's remind you of your own claims:

miknik5 said:

They may share similar unexpressed genetic material
But that is the result of their intermingling

Click to expand...

And later on, you claimed that we don't descend from human/ape hybrids.
You can't have it both ways.

If we share "similar genetic material" as a result of their intermingling then that by definition means that that "shared genetic material" has been past down to off spring BY the "human/ape hybrids". You do know how reproduction works, right? You do know that a child gets its DNA from mommy and daddy, correct?

Could it be sir that you can’t follow what is being said?

Or perhaps you express yourself in such terrible ways?
When nobody here understands what you are saying, then what is most likely? That none of us are "smart enough" to follow your trail of thought - or that you aren't expressing yourself particularly well?

Maybe you should think about that.

There is no common ancestor
There is no common descendent

Then there also was no "intermingling" either.

Is that better?

No, actually.
First, because it is in conflict with what you claimed about "intermingling"
Second, because it is in conflict with the facts of reality...

There was man and there was ape
They intermingled
There aren’t viable offspring though the gene pool implies that the two share similar genetic (thankfully unexpressed) material

You're not making any sense.

It’s GOD who prevents (holds back) that from happening

Uhu, uhu. So, in other words: magic. You invoke a "magical" explanation for a belief that isn't even based on the facts of reality.

It's bizar, to say the least.

When HE lets go
We will see the GRACE that HE extended (to all men regardless of believer or unbeliever) was always HIS GRACE upon us

Ok. Seems entirely random as a comment in context of this post. But okay.

sfs · Feb 28, 2018

UCDavis said:
Was the genetic blueprint for a prototype?

I have no clue what you mean, or how it addresses the genetic evidence for common descent.

UCDavis said:
Where the product from the genes?

That's not even English.

Larniavc · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
Yes I say. And you know what that logo looks like to me?

The Alliance Starbird?

miknik5 · Feb 28, 2018

Snappy1 said:
Yes please tell us what it looks like.

No snappy. I won’t
You know what it’s a logo of and I’m not interested in discussing rebellion

Rebellion happened from the beginning and is ongoing

Some will continue in it
Some won’t

Snappy1 · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
No snappy. I won’t
You know what it’s a logo of and I’m not interested in discussing rebellion

Rebellion happened from the beginning and is ongoing

Some will continue in it
Some won’t

Yes I do know what it is a logo of. Do you?

Kenny'sID · Feb 28, 2018

VirOptimus said:
It may not be he who is smart (although I’m sure he is) the problem may be on your end.

So we had smart, and now witty...

I've been pout in my place.

I know, if I don't agree, I just don't understand...pretty much a staple around here when it comes to pushing the deception and as much garbage as that deception.

bhsmte · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
Rebellion is a bad thing

Why?

bhsmte · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
I’m going to wait I think

There’s too much silliness happening in this thread

It sounds like noise and a lot of “nah nah nah nah nah”

Actually. I really don’t have to do anything...My stance will not change

You guys can duke it out
I’m not interested

Major league; IRONY!

VirOptimus · Feb 28, 2018

mark kennedy said:
I noticed you never got published either and I've been critically reviewed by Darwinians for years, no thank you.

Its not I who think the scientific consesus to be in error so I dont need to write anything.

If you think the scientific consensus to be wrong you write an article for peer review, if you cant (as obviously you cant) then your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

Kenny'sID · Feb 28, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
Did you just admit that you are here, making "points" about things that you don't actually know about?

I tried to make my point simple enough for all here to grasp, a task in itself.

No I admitted that I chose *not* to make a point about things that I not only don't know about, but am no more likely to take the time to look into it than the claim the moon is made of green cheese....waste of time. Go back and read it again, for get about "trying" to be a wit and you might see where you went wrong/chose to see something that wasn't there at all...like evolution. It's all starting to fit together now.

DogmaHunter said:
Run Forrest, Run!

You mean run from wasting my time taking evolution seriously at times? Of course. That reminds me, wonder what happened to him proving science proves nothing? I saw he deflected the question with some other mess I refused to bother with, maybe that'll be his reasoning for dodging the subject there. I'm sure he wouldn't run away on that one, would he?

DogmaHunter said:
Considering that you are still posting about this particular matter after all this time... it seems like you care quite a bit.

First, try to get back on track and figure out just what the "particular matter" was. Here's a hint, it was a particular matter, lol. And your comment makes no sense, why would anything I said here make you think I cared what he thought about "science proves nothing"? I'm not seeing it at all. Oh, but that's right, more selective understanding that is, as usual, selectively/deceitfully twisted so you can pretend you have an iota of wit.

Thanks, as usual for the laughs.

VirOptimus · Feb 28, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
I tried to make my point simple enough for all here to grasp, a task in itself.

No I admitted that I chose *not* to make a point about things that I not only don't know about, but am no more likely to take the time to look into it than the claim the moon is made of green cheese....waste of time. Go back and read it again, for get about "trying" to be a wit and you might see where you went wrong/chose to see something that wasn't there at all...like evolution. It's all starting to fit together now.

You mean run from wasting my time taking evolution seriously at times? Of course. That reminds me, wonder what happened to him proving science proves nothing? I saw he deflected the question with some other mess I refused to bother with, maybe that'll be his reasoning for dodging the subject there. I'm sure he wouldn't run away on that one, would he?

First, try to get back on track and figure out just what the "particular matter" was. Here's a hint, it was a particular matter, lol. And your comment makes no sense, why would anything I said here make you think I cared what he thought about "science proves nothing"? I'm not seeing it at all. Oh, but that's right, more selective understanding that is, as usual, selectively/deceitfully twisted so you can pretend you have an iota of wit.

Thanks, as usual for the laughs.

The problem is that you are so ignorant about the subject that you dont understand the errors you are comitting. You should study a bit before posting about it again.

DogmaHunter · Feb 28, 2018

Kenny'sID said:
No I admitted that I chose *not* to make a point about things that I not only don't know about

But you DID make a point about the subject of blood types. I remember it as well.
You don't, apparantly.

You mean run from wasting my time taking evolution seriously at times?

No. I mean running away from actually attempting to demonstrate the truth of your claims.

That reminds me, wonder what happened to him proving science proves nothing?

It has been explained to you ad nauseum, by many. Me included.
Theories in science are never considered proven, because future evidence that isn't known today yet might force us to re-evaluate currently held theories or even completely discard them.

No matter how unlikely it may seem.
Theories can not be proven. Only supported by evidence.
They can be disproven though.

First, try to get back on track and figure out just what the "particular matter" was. Here's a hint, it was a particular matter, lol. And your comment makes no sense, why would anything I said here make you think I cared what he thought about "science proves nothing"? I'm not seeing it at all

Well.... you keep engaging in discussion about that.
I mean, this nonsense about science dealing in proofs has been going on for quite some time now... and it's a discussion where you are at the center and you keep coming back to it.

To me, that indicates that you care. Why else would you keep going on about it?

Oh, but that's right, more selective understanding that is, as usual, selectively/deceitfully twisted so you can pretend you have an iota of wit.

No. Just observation coupled with some common sense.
You care about this, just like Michael cares about his electric universe.
Admitted, the evidence suggests that Michael cares more about his electric universe then you care about this. But the similarity should be rather obvious.

Consistently going on and on and on about a subject for days, weeks even, is not really something that supports the notion of "not caring", wouldn't you agree?

Thanks, as usual for the laughs.

No problem.

HitchSlap · Feb 28, 2018

mark kennedy said:
I don't think so, the divergence is too high and 60 brain related genes de novo, over night, 2 million years ago. It's pure fiction, the stone age ape man is a myth.

According to the soybean scientist.

HitchSlap · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
No snappy. I won’t
You know what it’s a logo of and I’m not interested in discussing rebellion

Rebellion happened from the beginning and is ongoing

Some will continue in it
Some won’t

Ah, the ‘ol sheep, wolf and sheep dog scenario.

Which one do you think you are?

mark kennedy · Feb 28, 2018

HitchSlap said:
According to the soybean scientist.

Wow, this thread hit bottom early.

miknik5 · Feb 28, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
Yes he was, since his "argument" was directly targetting evolution. Which is a theory that explains the physical attributes of living physical things and the physical process that physical anatomy and genetics are subject to.

No he wasn’t. If he was a Christian physical appearances have nothing to do with what is meant by being created in GOD’s IMAGE

HitchSlap said:
Ah, the ‘ol sheep, wolf and sheep dog scenario.

Which one do you think you are?

I have no idea what you are saying

HitchSlap · Feb 28, 2018

miknik5 said:
I have no idea what you are saying

I’m aware.

No common ancestor between man and ape has been found.

Natura non facit saltum

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Senior Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Code Monkey

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Natura non facit saltum

"Let not your heart be troubled"

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency