Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Humans are animals. As you just admitted here, we share every basic biological function with them. Biologically, we are animals. Therefore, every descendant we beget will be an animal, too. We will not, however, ever give rise to already-existing species like frogs, turtles, cats, etc. That is not how evolution works. These animals have separate evolutionary histories all of their own.No you didn't answer it. Why do humans not breed animals as descendants? Once you know that, you'll know why animals can't breed human descendants either. It's very simple.
Humans are animals. As you just admitted we share every basic biological function with them. Biologically, we are animals. Therefore, every descendant we beget will be an animal, too. We will not, however, ever give rise to already-existing species like frogs, turtles, cats, etc. That is not how evolution works. These animals have separate evolutionary histories all of their own.
That's silly. Think about what you're saying. Scientists can also distinguish rabbit DNA from that of other animals. Does that mean that rabbits aren't animals, either?Wrong again. Scientists can easily distinguish human from animal DNA, proving that humans are not animals.
Sigh... Sometimes I wonder if you are even listening to what I am saying.But by your "reasoning" dogs are lions because their DNA is similar.
Your arguments are really getting desperate.Also, since bestiality describes humans sex with animals, then by your "reasoning" sex between humans is considered bestiality. So confusing animals and humans leads you to believe that one can breed the other. No wonder evolutionists are so confused!
Perhaps you could try telling me which of the skulls below are human and which aren't (and the characteristics you are using to distinguish them):So sorry friend, but all children can differentiate between animals and humans on sight, unlike evolutionists.I have to get to bed now.
Oh really? Then please describe the common ancestor (s), how many there were, what they looked like, where they lived, when they lived, etc. Then I'll ask people on other forums to describe the common ancestors and see if your stories agree. then we'll see if you are using facts or your imagination for your claims.
Look for a book called The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It's all set out there, including the factual evidence of the human phylogeny.
________________"The level of similarity observed between the human and chimpanzee genomes cannot be adequately explained simply by the will of the Creator, unless a theory can be developed to explain why the Creator would will such similarity." That's a challenge issued to his fellow creationists that all have been too lazy to take up today. __
Peace4ever - I don't mean to appear rude but you seem to have strated this thread simply to laugh at evolutionists. Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Design are often laughed at themselves by people more interested in belittling them rather than talking. Please don't copy them.
I'm really surprised anyone is taking you seriously at all. You really don't know of what you speak. These are called straw man arguments and not at all newWrong again. I have a question for you: Do you know why humans can't produce descendants that are; goats, frogs, monkeys, orangutangs, turtles, lions, tigers, or bears? or not?
If you do, then it's only a matter of the simple birds and bees to know why animals can't produce human descendants either; animals and humans don't carry each other's DNA. So one cannot breed the other. Only in the imaginations of men can that happen, not in reality. It's that simple.
I'm really surprised anyone is taking you seriously at all. You really don't know of what you speak. These are called straw man arguments and not at all new
The premise of your post is where you've made a mistake. It wasn't that scientists first decided that humans shared ancestry with apes, then tried thier best to back it up. Rather, scientists concluded after much study, that humans shared common ancestry with apes.Science fiction is about what could happen in reality, science is about what does happen in reality. All science fiction books and movies are written from a "what if?" which is called a hypothetical, or hypothesis (something that doesn't happen in reality). Examples are;
1)"What if aliens once ruled the world? How would that happen?
2) "What if aliens exist and war between each other?" Thus the movie "Star Wars"
The story of evolution is no exception. "What if humans came from monkeys or some other fictitious animal? How could that happen?"
scientists are sure that the first humans mated with thier own population. there's no confusion, as you're trying to make it seem."Once upon a long time ago an ancestor common to a monkey, no a human, no some extinct lower primate mated with a...human, no a monkey..oh well I'll skip that part too.
Not if some one like you has the story wrong.Needless to say, a story that hasn't started out well can't end well either.
Because the real world doesn't accept the incorrect portrait of evolution you've painted. The real world accepts the actual portrait of evolution painted by years of scientific study.Nevertheless, this badly written fiction story has been accepted as true in the real world.Why?
Scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So we do carry "animal" DNA. Which would mean you're wrong.But the fact of the matter is, animals don't carry human DNA any more than humans carry animal DNA.
The premise of your post is where you've made a mistake. It wasn't that scientists first decided that humans shared ancestry with apes, then tried thier best to back it up. Rather, scientists concluded after much study, that humans shared common ancestry with apes.
scientists are sure that the first humans mated with thier own population. there's no confusion, as you're trying to make it seem.
Not if some one like you has the story wrong.
Because the real world doesn't accept the incorrect portrait of evolution you've painted. The real world accepts the actual portrait of evolution painted by years of scientific study.
Scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So we do carry "animal" DNA. Which would mean you're wrong.
Doesn't matter really, I don't think you're a real poster. You're probably a troll, or someone trying to give Christians a bad name with outlandishly dumb posts.
Wrong again. Scientists can easily distinguish animal DNA from human DNA. And if humans were carrying animal DNA, then we would be occasionally breeding descendants of that animal.Scientifically speaking, humans are animals. So we do carry "animal" DNA. Which would mean you're wrong.
Ditto. Like I said, see Titus 3:10.I'm really surprised anyone is taking you seriously at all. You really don't know of what you speak. These are called straw man arguments and not at all new
There are many common ancestors.So who does the world accept as the common ancestor?Please describe him.. or them. The world will accept anything scientists tell them, hook, line and sinker without even challenging it. The only problem is, scientists haven't yet told us who the common ancestor is. So I'd love to hear your story.
The smilies, the insistance that there is only ONE common ancestor in evolutionary theory... its Carico, risen from the grave! I'm telling you!Ditto. Like I said, see Titus 3:10.
Christians converse with one another with patience, respect, and an open ear. We've seen everything but from peace4ever thus far.
Ditto. Like I said, see Titus 3:10.
Christians converse with one another with patience, respect, and an open ear. We've seen everything but from peace4ever thus far.
You aren't Jesus, peace4ever. You're a fallible human, like the rest of us, and as such, your interpretation of the Scriptures is just as likely to be in error as our own. None of us has access to the mind of God. Jesus had the right to judge hearts of the Pharisees because he was fully God. You aren't. Better to take heed of the Lord's command to answer others with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15), rather than with vitriol and condescending smiley faces.Matthew 23:33, "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell?"
So sorry, but Christ's love is not the love that the world who's rules by Satan gives or takes. Jesus doesn't compromise the truth to spare people's feelings. He openly rebukes those who pass along lies. Satan's love gives people what they want. God's love gives us the truth so people will repent and be saved. One's eternal soul is far more important than his earthly pride. So it's not loving to indulge people who pass along false beliefs. But the world doesn't like Christ's love which is of course, why Jesus was killed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?