Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution teaches that ALL mankind descended from cavemen like apes. Creation according to the Bible does not claim that man was created like an ape, it claims that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God who is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Any person who adheres to the Evolution claims can not believe the Bible also. It is either or. Noah was said to have lived a greater number of years than men of today, and the Creator spoke with him, and he was not a caveman in my book.

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
Not All Atheists....Just The Militant Ones On This Thread.
Atheists Are Such A Minority No One Even Notices Until They Start Demanding Special Interest Statis.
They Are Part Of The Problem, Not The Solution.

Funny, it's creationists who want special status in public schools. But I guess that's okay though.

wolverine wrote:

You Guys Need To Get A Life...Go Outside And Play, Till Mom And Dad Call For You.

Bye then.(shrug)

You go play on your bigfoot-skin rug since there's nothing to interest you here. Us mean old evo's are slamming reality in creationist's faces and you don't wanna see that.

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong again HTS. And I see that you chickened out and did not answer my question. When used correctly radiometric dating is incredibly reliable. If you use it incorrectly, and the problem is that when creationists make mistakes they are always obvious mistakes, you get bad dates. A carpenter's hammer is very efficient at driving nails, at driving pins, not so much.

HTS is a CHICKEN???

:-O

Well okay, yeah. No doubt there.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

Evolution teaches that ALL mankind descended from cavemen like apes. Creation according to the Bible does not claim that man was created like an ape, it claims that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God who is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Any person who adheres to the Evolution claims can not believe the Bible also. It is either or. Noah was said to have lived a greater number of years than men of today, and the Creator spoke with him, and he was not a caveman in my book.

Any person who believes the astronomy claims of an oblate-spheroid Earth cannot believe the Bible also.

No such thing as a Biblical literalist.

Kong_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting...but I'm not sure of your point.
Just more questions raised.

His point is they got more DNA, ergo more evidence for evolution.

:-)

Malakai wrote:

<quoted text>
I was told by Kitty that you can't get DNA from a fossil. She claimed all fossils are rocks therefor you can not get DNA from rocks.

Usually that's correct for ancient fossils, but we have been able to garner DNA from more recent ones. I think so far we've been able to get it going back as far as 30-50,000 years ago.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
How? How are humans more unique than others? What trait does the human species have which is not found in any other animal?

Other animals, have never produce these:
Pilots, engineers, scientist, medical doctors, lecturers, etc to date...

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Any person who believes the astronomy claims of an oblate-spheroid Earth cannot believe the Bible also.
No such thing as a Biblical literalist.

The God of the Bible lives in the beauty of holiness and he doesn't lie. Our interpretation can be wrong, and we can be in the dark about certain things, but God knows what he is doing.

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>No, the article you are quoting is making that claim. The study doesn't say that. Please read those other links I gave you yesterday and stop posting this drivel.

The study doesn't say it, no kidding!
Lovejoy said it. As something to be looked at after the study dated this new skeleton was older then Lucy and was more human then Lucy which points to Lucy being a relitive of apes and not man. Lucy would be after the split.
Suggesting that a more human then ape common ancestor.

Try reading all the papers, it really makes a differance.

What a Buffoon.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're afraid to answer the question about Chromosome 2?
<quoted text>
When did anyone here claim that they could?

If you are not talking of humans, which are made in the image and likeness of God, then what is your position on chromosome 2?

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>No you are perverting probability laws. According to your twisted logic, anything is probable. I've heard that worn out, twisted logic before, and it's fallacy can be easily recognized by a ten year old.

Not subverting any kind of "laws". Your "laws" are made up anyway.(shrug) But the simple fact is you don't get to make up any old sh t like that and get away with it, primarily due to the fact that you are also clueless at math.

For the sake of argument let's say point A happened, after which there are a million possible outcomes. Each outcome is just as likely to happen as each other, a million to one against. But since event A occurred, the probability of ONE of those outcomes occurring is 100%.

The outcome of today is 100%. I offer you today as evidence. To even assign valid values to all the variables involved over 13.71 billion years is not possible, therefore making calculations based on those variables also impossible. But suffice to say that the odds of today being EXACTLY the way it is now is EXCEEDINGLY small. Nevertheless, here it is.

The outcome of humans being here is 100%. So from there we go looking for the evidence of HOW it occurred. The evidence so far indicates evolution.

Sure, MAYBE there was some "intelligent force" guiding it somehow or something. But the evidence so far does nothing at all whatsoever (not even a ickle tiny widdle bit) to demonstrate that.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>One particular bridge hand is random and meaningless. For evolution to occur, a mutation has to impart information. Therefore you analogy is IDIOTIC.

A mutation will ALWAYS impart information, unless it was a base deletion. Otherwise, a simple base change is a change of information. A base insertion (and yes, I just showed you 10 minutes ago they are scientifically verifiable) is an addition of information.

Your objection is idiotic.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
When did anyone here claim that humans or other mammals reproduced asexually? Please point to the posting where anyone claimed that.

So, what is your headache on chromosome 2, my interest is that, humans never evolved from apes...

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>The God of the Bible lives in the beauty of holiness and he doesn't lie. Our interpretation can be wrong, and we can be in the dark about certain things, but God knows what he is doing.

Oh, no doubt. But you fundies always lie and get things wrong. Whenever reality conflicts with the Bible, the Bible is wrong, for the Bible was written by ancient superstitious men with limited knowledge of much out of their local area, and as such their interpretation of the reality God made is wrong.

If God exists, it used evolution.

HTS did not like the way I answered his question at all The Dude. Of course he could not admit that the flaw was in his way of posing the question in the first place.

And yes, he is definitely afraid to come out directly with what he believes in. It seems he knows that it would be far easier for us to show how his beliefs are incorrect than it has been for him to find anything wrong with the theory of evolution. At first it seemed he may have been a believer in ID, but as he continued to attack more and more of the existing sciences it became clear that he is a YEC.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Other mammals aren't on the list of asexually reproducing species, either.
So now you're saying that other mammals are in God's likeness and more unique than others?

There is something we call, order...
Humans, comes first, followed by animals, before plants...
My position is that, humans never evolved from apes...
Apes are not scientist, pilots and the likes, like humans...

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>So, what is your headache on chromosome 2, my interest is that, humans never evolved from apes...

Good to see you are still around and holding on to your faith in God, may he richly bless you for your good work.

Malakai wrote:

The Ardi fossil discovery undermines the previously prevailing idea in terms of human origins that we evolved from chimpanzees, our closest living genetic relative, and that our earliest ancestors would therefore resemble a chimp.

Sorry, but this is still wrong. We did not evolve from chimpanzees, chimpanzees did not evolve from us. We both evolved from a common ancestor which was as different to chimps as it is to us.

Malakai wrote:

The research team now says that our evolutionary paths branched from a yet more distant - last common ancestor - dating from more than 6 million years ago.

This part is correct, something we've known for many years.

Subduction Zone wrote:

HTS did not like the way I answered his question at all The Dude. Of course he could not admit that the flaw was in his way of posing the question in the first place.

Yeah, his questions and criticisms themselves often show how little biology he understands.

Subduction Zone wrote:

And yes, he is definitely afraid to come out directly with what he believes in. It seems he knows that it would be far easier for us to show how his beliefs are incorrect than it has been for him to find anything wrong with the theory of evolution. At first it seemed he may have been a believer in ID, but as he continued to attack more and more of the existing sciences it became clear that he is a YEC.

He's used YEC arguments from the beginning, but he knows it's scientifically untenable so is kinda cagey about coming out. He could be an OEC who's happy to lie and use any old argument, but since he's a liar I don't see what diff it makes. Either way he's a fundie creationist which puts him at odds with reality no matter what.