What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Hans Blaster]

I have to go and appreciate God’s invisible attributes from His creation now. Bye bye

Romans 1:20

The Samuel-Johnson's-patriotism of bible quotes.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

Nope Why do you think that it is false? And now you have twice taken on a burden of proof.

Poove that most Christians accept the myths of Genesis please. If you cannot then you reveal that you are the one making false statements.

We all know it and he won't admit it.
Don't bother

 

[Shemjaza]

With the exception of A on that skull chart, every one of those are Homo sapiens.

Labeling them differently is like labeling our Thalidomide children differently.

Really not consistent with evidence.

But I do like that that you're now basically running with "Kind == Genus" (Even if miraculous plagues are necessary to justify vast changes in form and genetics in hominids that are not classified as Homo sapiens).

 

[AV1611VET]

Really not consistent with evidence.

But I do like that that you're now basically running with "Kind == Genus" (Even if miraculous plagues are necessary to justify vast changes in form and genetics in hominids that are not classified as Homo sapiens).

A well deserved LIKE on this one, sir!

You have demonstrated that you understand where I'm coming from; even though you don't agree with me.

I was beginning to lose hope that I would ever see a light bulb on around here.

Good job!

 

[Psalm 27]

Why is this your response to my post responding to your first post on this thread. Neither your post, nor my response, nor this thread is about finches.

Do you have any substantive response to my post?

I’ve been told off by moderators so I’ll bow out of this one. I’ll explain my reason for joining the thread.

Twenty odd years ago, I came to faith in Jesus. Shortly after, I heard a creationist teach (John Mackay). I had questions about the Genesis narrative, so I prayed ‘Lord, I don’t get the Genesis thing, but I’ll just believe in Jesus, and stick to The New Testament, as that what You want me to do’...a little time after I awoke with a thought ‘if you do not believe Moses and The Prophets, you will not believe in Me’. Then I discovered that Moses wrote Genesis. I started to read the first chapter, and I believed. I just knew it was all true, like a gift of faith in creation, as recorded literally in the first book. I've never doubted it since. I’m not afraid of scientific theories, I just don’t believe any of it, because I know the truth now.

That’s why I joined in, because I want others to know the truth too. But God gives us all free will. Sorry if I offended anyone with my silly picture/comments.

 

[Astrid]

I’ve been told off by moderators so I’ll bow out of this one. I’ll explain my reason for joining the thread.

Twenty odd years ago, I came to faith in Jesus. Shortly after, I heard a creationist teach (John Mackay). I had questions about the Genesis narrative, so I prayed ‘Lord, I don’t get the Genesis thing, but I’ll just believe in Jesus, and stick to The New Testament, as that what You want me to do’...a little time after I awoke with a thought ‘if you do not believe Moses and The Prophets, you will not believe in Me’. Then I discovered that Moses wrote Genesis. I started to read the first chapter, and I believed. I just knew it was all true, like a gift of faith in creation, as recorded literally in the first book. I've never doubted it since. I’m not afraid of scientific theories, I just don’t believe any of it, because I know the truth now.

That’s why I joined in, because I want others to know the truth too. But God gives us all free will. Sorry if I offended anyone with my silly picture/comments.

Silly does not offend. The outlandish
falsehoods and insults are far from
chsrming but so far of the mark as to
have not the least power to sting.

If you are satisfied that a dream granted
you knowledge beyond that of every
researcher on earth, well, tertif.

When every sentence you wrote is as mixed up
as 2 plus 2 equals minus 5, well, we are not so
sure it's "truth" you are spreading.

Motives may be good, content and delivery stink.

Hope you come back in a frame of mind more
open to conversation, we could all have an enjoyable
time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve been told off by moderators so I’ll bow out of this one. I’ll explain my reason for joining the thread.

Twenty odd years ago, I came to faith in Jesus. Shortly after, I heard a creationist teach (John Mackay). I had questions about the Genesis narrative, so I prayed ‘Lord, I don’t get the Genesis thing, but I’ll just believe in Jesus, and stick to The New Testament, as that what You want me to do’...a little time after I awoke with a thought ‘if you do not believe Moses and The Prophets, you will not believe in Me’. Then I discovered that Moses wrote Genesis. I started to read the first chapter, and I believed. I just knew it was all true, like a gift of faith in creation, as recorded literally in the first book. I've never doubted it since. I’m not afraid of scientific theories, I just don’t believe any of it, because I know the truth now.

That’s why I joined in, because I want others to know the truth too. But God gives us all free will. Sorry if I offended anyone with my silly picture/comments.

Dreams are not very reliable. You believed your dream only because you wanted to believe it. If you had a dream where your beliefs were refuted would you believe it? I am saying that you would not. This is a major problem for you. It shows that you are not being consistent or reasoning rationally. You are only believing what you want to believe.

Meanwhile the theory of evolution and other sciences are evidence based. One of top rules in the sciences is that one can never assume an answer. That is what AiG does. In fact they declare any evidence that shows that they are wrong to be false. They do not refute it. They will lie rather than admit the truth. The fact that they tell their workers what they have to believe is what makes them non-scientific.

Real scientists are not afraid to find evidence that shows them to be wrong. In fact the best scientists hope to find such evidence because that is when we learn new things.

 

[Bradskii]

I've never doubted it since. I’m not afraid of scientific theories, I just don’t believe any of it, because I know the truth now.

No problem. But if you keep pushing that science is not to be trusted, then you, my friend, are not to be trusted. Keep your theology in the church. Leave science in the lab. Fundamentalism and the scientific method don't mix.

 

[Astrid]

No problem. But if you keep pushing that science is not to be trusted, then you, my friend, are not to be trusted. Keep your theology in the church. Leave science in the lab. Fundamentalism and the scientific method don't mix.

He may have fled the interview

 

[Taisho]

We're often told that chimps and humans are 98% similar, but I've also read the more recent estimation is 95%. Either way, are scientists today in any way close to explaining how natural selection acting on random mutation created the vast differences between chimps and humans?





In the absence of such an explanation for our vast differences with chimps, why can't a reasonable person conclude that similarities between our species are the result of common design, rather than common descent?

Not everyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flintstones was a true story. Christian geologists discovered earth’s antiquity before Darwin was even born:

What always confuses me is how people believe the earth has any "age" when it is clear in Genesis that IN THE BEGINNING Earth and Heaven were created. And, this was well before the Godly way of keeping time was established by the god of Genesis himself (sunset to sunset/Yom to Yom/Age to Age) - before god began "counting" days.

So, the earth is at least age-old.

Having said that, we humans like to launch at the preliminary sight of a connection because most of us are empty in terms of connecting with the source that would fulfil and sustain us. We lack the disciplined knowledge to be able to see our surrounding for what they are, so we convolute what we claim to understand and dismiss what we don't.

It's par for the course in being a corrupt entity on a plane of existence that is "earth" trying to be "hell".

 

[Astrid]

What always confuses me is how people believe the earth has any "age" when it is clear in Genesis that IN THE BEGINNING Earth and Heaven were created. And, this was well before the Godly way of keeping time was established by the god of Genesis himself (sunset to sunset/Yom to Yom/Age to Age) - before god began "counting" days.

So, the earth is at least age-old.

Having said that, we humans like to launch at the preliminary sight of a connection because most of us are empty in terms of connecting with the source that would fulfil and sustain us. We lack the disciplined knowledge to be able to see our surrounding for what they are, so we convolute what we claim to understand and dismiss what we don't.

It's par for the course in being a corrupt entity on a plane of existence that is "earth" trying to be "hell".

Huh?

 

[Taisho]

Huh?

The majority of that message was in response to

Not everyone skeptical of Darwinian evolution believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the Flintstones was a true story. Christian geologists discovered earth’s antiquity before Darwin was even born:

In other words, the earth, by definition of the god of genesis, is at least age-old - having been created at or around the same time as the "heavens". I don't follow academic cosmogony, but this would make sense why the earth is 1/3 of the age of the universe by physics (i.e. "age-old", not 10,000 or even only 1,000,000 years old).

 

[AV1611VET]

So, the earth is at least age-old.

How do you explain angiosperms (trees) living one "age" before the sun was created, if that "age" is thousands of years long?

 

[Taisho]

How do you explain angiosperms (trees) living one "age" before the sun was created, if that "age" is thousands of years long?

You mean trees/grass/"eretz" being created on the 3rd day and then sun/moon on the 4th?

Trees only need semi-full spectrum light and carbon dioxide: the light can be generated from a plethora of physical phenomena independent of a sun or moon. The earth itself does not need a sun if the thermal and chemical energy is available for transport phenomena.

We elevate the sun as a life-giver because of historic religion, and what we allegedly know about science. But, you can grow incredible foliage in a cave, for example - a place where the rock absorbs most all solar radiation (but yet there is visible light with enough wavelength diversity to provide for the respective plant/tree). Solomon was alleged to do this; we do this in our homes.

If the photons will promote photosynthesis, then those photons will be all the energy the plants and trees need. Well, photons of the correct frequency range and carbon dioxide - which can be released by other plants through respiration to provide the activation chemistry for photosynthesis for other plants.

 

[Astrid]

You mean trees/grass/"eretz" being created on the 3rd day and then sun/moon on the 4th?

Trees only need semi-full spectrum light and carbon dioxide: the light can be generated from a plethora of physical phenomena independent of a sun or moon. The earth itself does not need a sun if the thermal and chemical energy is available for transport phenomena.

We elevate the sun as a life-giver because of historic religion, and what we allegedly know about science. But, you can grow incredible foliage in a cave, for example - a place where the rock absorbs most all solar radiation (but yet there is visible light with enough wavelength diversity to provide for the respective plant/tree). Solomon was alleged to do this; we do this in our homes.

If the photons will promote photosynthesis, then those photons will be all the energy the plants and trees need. Well, photons of the correct frequency range and carbon dioxide - which can be released by other plants through respiration to provide the activation chemistry for photosynthesis for other plants.

I won't ask again.

 

[Taisho]

I won't ask again.

?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The majority of that message was in response to



In other words, the earth, by definition of the god of genesis, is at least age-old - having been created at or around the same time as the "heavens". I don't follow academic cosmogony, but this would make sense why the earth is 1/3 of the age of the universe by physics (i.e. "age-old", not 10,000 or even only 1,000,000 years old).

The Earth is 1/3 the age of the Universe because our star didn't form until the Universe was 9 Billion years old. There is nothing special or meaningful about that fact.

None of this has anything to do with chimps, humans, or other apes.

 

[Taisho]

The Earth is 1/3 the age of the Universe because our star didn't form until the Universe was 9 Billion years old. There is nothing special or meaningful about that fact.

None of this has anything to do with chimps, humans, or other apes.

Oh, ok.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I won't ask again.

But look at all of the potentialities for a whole new physics. I'm sure Hans is interested.

And then, we just lost two posters who were sure they could school us and this is what is next in line?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But look at all of the potentialities for a whole new physics. I'm sure Hans is interested.

It all looked like junk to me, but I wasn't that interested in reading the length ramble Estrid was responding to.