Creationists

[Dr.Drock]

They say we are related to chimps because of DNA similarity,how many times must I say this before you understand whats being said ? I am asking you what did humans evolve from their DNA must be much closer then the chimp by your reasoning.

Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie. I think it's ignorance.

I've given you links, and you ignored them. So please stop asking me for links. The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.

Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


“Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?” » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie. I think it's ignorance.

I've given you links, and you ignored them. So please stop asking me for links. The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.

Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


“Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?” » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

Did you read the article moron ?

You wanted something from a noncreationist site.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Koshergirl then does believe that "Men [can] believe in science, God, and the Bible, yet do not believe in creationism and do believe in evolution." If you do not deny it or refuse to answer it, then the doctrine of affirmative silence confirms your belief.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie. I think it's ignorance.

I've given you links, and you ignored them. So please stop asking me for links. The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.

Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


“Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?” » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

I'm sorry but I have to do this dummy, your side can't agree I guess that is expecting too much of you to admit it.

 

[koshergrl]

You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.

But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.

And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


“Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?” » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

I'm sorry but I have to do this dummy, your side can't agree I guess that is expecting too much of you to admit it.

From your link:

"Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from a now extinct African ancestor about 130-thousand years ago."

I ask AGAIN, please find me ONE scientist or person on this board who isn't an evolution denier who says humans evolved from chimps.

Not 20, or 10 or 5, show me ONE.

Thanks

 

[InDoctriNation]

You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.

But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.

And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.

You don't understand how science functions. Science is unable to prove anything, as it is an inductive process. I wouldn't expect science to ever prove (offer evidence) that we spontaneously change from one species to another, as that would disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, the existence of inherited traits and mutation does not prove that we descended from ape like creatures, but it is evidence of this common descent. And when findings in genetics are combined with findings in other scientific fields, the theory becomes stronger. The goal of science is not to prove anything, get that through your thick skull.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


“Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?” » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

Did you read the article moron ?

You wanted something from a noncreationist site.

From your link again.

"The last living common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, or the point of divergence between the two species, is estimated to have lived between five and seven million years ago, although a new study published in early 2007 challenges this notion."

Who can't read?

 

[Youwerecreated]

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

I'm sorry but I have to do this dummy, your side can't agree I guess that is expecting too much of you to admit it.

From your link:

"Modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from a now extinct African ancestor about 130-thousand years ago."

I ask AGAIN, please find me ONE scientist or person on this board who isn't an evolution denier who says humans evolved from chimps.

Not 20, or 10 or 5, show me ONE.

Thanks

I never said that humans divereged from chimps but chimps were in the line of the evolution tree according to your side.

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.

Human chimpanzee split did we evolve before them or after them ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.

But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.

And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.

Koshergirl then does believe that "Men [can] believe in science, God, and the Bible, yet do not believe in creationism and do believe in evolution." Her lack of denial affirms her belief.

Believe on, then, koshergirl, although I think your belief about evolution and evolution is silly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

 

[Montrovant]

Should I start listing all the things you believe that requires faith to believe because it's not backed by evidence ?

Have you not learned yet ?

None of my scientific views require faith. You can repeat over and over again that they do, but you'll still be wrong each time you repeat it.

No I learn by science, not by those who repeat the talking points of Bible bloggers.

All of your scientific views that fly in the face of the Bible require faith.

The scientific view that we have descended from some animal that is not human, for example. There's no evidence of that. But you believe it. That's faith.

What if someone holds a scientific view that flies in the face of another religion's holy texts?

Or is it that, since you believe the bible to be truth, you assume anything which contradicts it must be false; so whether or not the science is good is immaterial to your opinion of it, if it contradicts a biblical belief, it is wrong and requires faith to believe?

I realize this is just a small thing in one post, but the fact that you made the bolded sentence the first part of the post, and then said anything about evidence, seems telling. If you are in fact assuming any science is wrong if it contradicts the bible before you ever look at the possible evidence, then it is not a matter of others needing faith for their belief in whatever scientific theory, but rather a matter of your faith preventing you from accepting any possibility of it being reasonable.

Sorry if I'm reading too much into this, and I may be thinking more of YWC than you.

 

[InDoctriNation]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?

I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.

What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.

How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?

 

[Montrovant]

Then I am saying you are not applying them.

And I am saying you are wrong.

They have never gotten it,that creationist have a model just like evolutionist.

What they refuse to believe that men of science believe in God and creation.

In case you included me in the 'they' of your post : I have never said nor thought that scientists cannot believe in god or creation. However, you say it as though there are only 2 beliefs, yours and those who disagree. There are many different beliefs about god and creation, not only among the many religions but within various religions.

Do you think that most scientists who believe in god share your beliefs? Do you think most scientists who believe god created the world/life share your beliefs?

 

[Dr.Drock]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

I'll just keep providing the same link over and over again, and you can keep pretending to read people's answers over and over again when clearly you don't.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).

 

[Dragon]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

I don't know if that's been done or not. If not, the best evidence is the clear phenotypic similarity between the two species, together with the general evidence for evolution (which shows that H. sapiens must have evolved from something and H. erectus is by far the most likely candidate), and the time that H. erectus was alive.

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

Of course it wasn't "half human half apelike." We are not descended from apes. Apes and humans share a common ancestor but it's quite far back. Chimpanzees are, if you like, our cousins; they are not our parents or grandparents or anything like that.

H. erectus was certainly not an ape. Whether it was "human" or not depends on how strictly you define that term. If only modern human beings are "human," then it was neither human nor ape, but much closer to being human than to being ape. If we use a somewhat broader definition that includes the whole hominid line, or at least the genus Homo, then it was human.

 

[koshergrl]

You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.

But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.

And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.

You don't understand how science functions. Science is unable to prove anything, as it is an inductive process. I wouldn't expect science to ever prove (offer evidence) that we spontaneously change from one species to another, as that would disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, the existence of inherited traits and mutation does not prove that we descended from ape like creatures, but it is evidence of this common descent. And when findings in genetics are combined with findings in other scientific fields, the theory becomes stronger. The goal of science is not to prove anything, get that through your thick skull.

Common descent, no shit.

Wow. Where have I heard that before?

And please find where I said the goal of science was anything, or even referenced it. I guess English is your second...or third...language. You seem to have as much difficulty understanding it as you do in putting it down.

 

[InDoctriNation]

You know, don't bullshit me. I have said repeatedly I believe in science, and that science has never disproved anything I believe. I have said over and over and OVER that I don't challenge evolution on it's face...I know how creatures evolve, I've bred animals, I get it.

But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution in any way explains our existence on earth, nor has it ever proven that we spontaneously change from one species to another. That is a FACT, jack, and don't try to pretend it's not. THAT'S where the dishonesty comes in. The existence of inherited traits and mutation does NOT prove that we descend from ape like creatures, NOR does it disprove the veracity of the bible. They are two completely separate things.

And that's how your so-called "scientific mind" fails you. Scientists, real ones, recognize this. Lay people who have an axe to grind and who want to control the belief systems of others, don't.

You don't understand how science functions. Science is unable to prove anything, as it is an inductive process. I wouldn't expect science to ever prove (offer evidence) that we spontaneously change from one species to another, as that would disprove the theory of evolution. Yes, the existence of inherited traits and mutation does not prove that we descended from ape like creatures, but it is evidence of this common descent. And when findings in genetics are combined with findings in other scientific fields, the theory becomes stronger. The goal of science is not to prove anything, get that through your thick skull.

Common descent, no shit.

Wow. Where have I heard that before?

And please find where I said the goal of science was anything, or even referenced it. I guess English is your second...or third...language. You seem to have as much difficulty understanding it as you do in putting it down.

You're playing a game of semantics, while missing the main thrust of my post. You keep talking about how science hasn't proven evolution, and I simply said that the goal of science isn't to prove anything, since it is and inductive process and thus unable to prove anything. The very fact that you seem to believe that science should be able to prove anything shows that you either have a profound lack of understanding of the scientific method, or you are a deceitful little troll. It seems to me that while English may be your first language, your ability to comprehend an argument and focus on the the main drive of said argument is akin to the ability of an adolescent child. Now go run along and play with your toys, you condescending twit.

 

[koshergrl]

No, fucktard, I'm responding to your post, specifically. Find where I stated the goal of science is anything.

And then come back and tell me all about missing the point.

 

[InDoctriNation]

No, fucktard, I'm responding to your post, specifically. Find where I stated the goal of science is anything.

And then come back and tell me all about missing the point.

Your words: "But the SCIENCE has not yet proven that evolution..."

When you say that science has not yet proven a theory, you imply that the goal of science is to prove that theory. Get it? Again, this game of semantics avoids the real issue that I am addressing, which is your warped and stupid idea that science, a fucking inductive process, should be able to prove anything. You care to address your apparent stupidity involving the scientific method, or are you going to avoid the issue again with senseless bullshit? I know where I've got my money...