Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Have you not read the artricles claiming human divergence from the chimp ?

Since humans are not descended from chimpanzees, all such arguments are irrelevant.

No It's not if you believe life happened through a natural process and that natural process is evolution.

But that isn't true. Evolution describes how life changed and diversified AFTER it already existed. It has nothing to do with the origin of life.



Trivial ones, perhaps. Limitations on the precision of the methods, and also the fact that the most commonly-used one (carbon-14 dating) is only useful for organic matter or fossils, but nothing that would invalidate the dating methods.



This is untrue. Punctuated equilibrium is only the idea that evolution does not proceed at a constant speed and that there are times when it accelerates rapidly, coinciding with mass extinction events. Evolution continues during the slow times and may be observed in the fossil record.



Incorrect. That strata may form rapidly, as in a major depository event such as a volcanic eruption and mudslide, doesn't change the fact that we may reliably date the deposits over most of the world. This is no problem at all.



It's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. That's part and parcel of evolution not being concerned with the origin of life. Obviously the placement of the earth in its orbit is important to the existence of life, and that's one planet at least -- if the earth were much closer to or further away from the sun it would have no liquid water, which is a prerequisite for life as we know it. However, again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so even that is completely irrelevant here.

Ok how long does your side say it takes for fossils to form ? I will concede millions of years. That was an exaggeration on my part.

A few decades, given the right conditions. We saw fossilization after the Mount St. Helens eruption, for example.

And I don't know what all you said false to because you didn't quote me.

Yes, I did. Look again.

Thank you for the admissions they were wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really? Your God is the sufficient cause of His own life?

Explain it then.

He has no beginning and no end,hard to rationalize that, ...

That's clearly a rationalization.

... but I have no reason to doubt the scriptures.

A denial of every error of fact they contain.

Surely a being responsible for the universe and everything in it is worthy of my worship.

You can make all sorts of claims about your imaginary friend, but none of those claims make Him any less imaginary, or objectively worthy of worship.

Only according to people who deny the possibility of a creator.

 

[Dragon]

Thank you for the admissions they were wrong.

LOL I have not admitted anything of the sort and you are growing really desperate. Why not just admit that you can't answer the arguments? Not as much is riding on it as you think.

I know where you're coming from here; you are of the misguided opinion that if evolution holds up and you can't believe in an immediate one-time divine creation, then you can't believe in God. But that's not true. The evidence for God's existence is never out there, it's always in here. God is in your heart, not in the fossil record. And besides, there's no real conflict between evolution and divine creation, only between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

You don't need to do this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thank you for the admissions they were wrong.

LOL I have not admitted anything of the sort and you are growing really desperate. Why not just admit that you can't answer the arguments? Not as much is riding on it as you think.

I know where you're coming from here; you are of the misguided opinion that if evolution holds up and you can't believe in an immediate one-time divine creation, then you can't believe in God. But that's not true. The evidence for God's existence is never out there, it's always in here. God is in your heart, not in the fossil record. And besides, there's no real conflict between evolution and divine creation, only between evolution and a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

You don't need to do this.

I have to go but again I will show why your theory conflicts with Gods word when I have time.

 

[FurthurBB]

Well, I can sympathize with your problem, but a basic elementary school science education should clear a few things up for you.

My degree at the University of Arizona in molecular biology cleared up many things for me it just took a while for it to sink in.

I'll ask again, why do you brag about your degree from Arizona when Arizona teaches the exact opposite of your views?


Wouldn't it be better to brag about how many science denying Bible blogs you've read? At least they agree with you.

They must think that making up a degree in science makes them seem more informed on the matter. It is really quite insulting.

 

[FurthurBB]

koshergirl, lack of critical thinking skills is a fact of the 6,000-year school of biblical studies.

I got As in college biology, anthropology and in critical thinking.

You were saying?

Yes, my mum is the queen of England.

 

[FurthurBB]

So you're admitting the chimp is not our nearest ancestor then what is ?

Homo erectus

This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.

How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?

Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?

Or is it both human and ape ?

Sure, I own a lab that does just that. Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it. When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.

 

[FurthurBB]

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.

If we are related to chimps since they came first are they our ancestors ?

Here is an 6-8 grade lesson plan that might help you to understand the basic principals, if that does not help maybe I can find something more level appropriate. http://www.discoveryeducation.com/teachers/free-lesson-plans/apes-to-man.cfm

 

[FurthurBB]

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.

so much for the evolutionary tree ? how can an animal that we are supposedly related to and was around longer then us not be an ancestor?

If your aunt has a child that is twice your age that makes that child your relative, but not your ancestor. I cannot believe I had to explain that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Homo erectus

This species is extinct now, but is believed to be our nearest ancestor.

How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?

Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?

Or is it both human and ape ?

Sure, I own a lab that does just that. Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it. When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.

How long does biological DNA survive ?

 

[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.

so much for the evolutionary tree ? how can an animal that we are supposedly related to and was around longer then us not be an ancestor?

If your aunt has a child that is twice your age that makes that child your relative, but not your ancestor. I cannot believe I had to explain that.

How do you prove it's our cousin ?

Again we are back to DNA similarity.

 

[Dragon]

How do you prove it's our cousin ?

Again we are back to DNA similarity.

Yes, but this invalidates your argument that we could not have descended from chimpanzees in the time required, which was the only use YOU made of that DNA similarity.

The DNA similarity does indeed show that we are closely related to chimpanzees.

However, we are NOT descended from chimpanzees or any other apes, which means that any arguments that we could not be are meaningless. Note that I'm setting aside whether in fact that argument is factually accurate, i.e. whether chimpanzee genes could have changed enough in the amount of time.

Just for accuracy, though, the great apes including chimpanzees go back about 20 million years. So if we were in fact descended from chimps (which we're not), the process would have had about 20 million years to complete.

This would only be an intellectual exercise, though. There is no evidence that chimpanzees are our evolutionary ancestors. They are evolutionary cousins, no more.

 

[FurthurBB]

How do you know this ? can you perform a DNA test on this creature ?

Is this creature human or an apelike creature ?

Or is it both human and ape ?

Sure, I own a lab that does just that. Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it. When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.

How long does biological DNA survive ?

It depends, it is possible to find bone marrow many 1000s of years after death. It depends on the conditions of the location where the bones were found. Sometimes teeth can also provide information after many years, it just depends.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Life creates life,can you refute this ?

Non-sequitur much?

God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.

They could have not just of happened by chance to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.

Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life has been around .That is not rational thinking.

That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.

Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you prove it's our cousin ?

Again we are back to DNA similarity.

Yes, but this invalidates your argument that we could not have descended from chimpanzees in the time required, which was the only use YOU made of that DNA similarity.

The DNA similarity does indeed show that we are closely related to chimpanzees.

However, we are NOT descended from chimpanzees or any other apes, which means that any arguments that we could not be are meaningless. Note that I'm setting aside whether in fact that argument is factually accurate, i.e. whether chimpanzee genes could have changed enough in the amount of time.

Just for accuracy, though, the great apes including chimpanzees go back about 20 million years. So if we were in fact descended from chimps (which we're not), the process would have had about 20 million years to complete.

This would only be an intellectual exercise, though. There is no evidence that chimpanzees are our evolutionary ancestors. They are evolutionary cousins, no more.

So other organisms that have DNA similarity to humans does that prove by your reasoning they are to related to humans ?

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

Humans, animals share more DNA than previously thought / Santa Cruz study shows common 'junk' fragments

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure, I own a lab that does just that. Bring me a sample and I will run a DNA test on it. When you have the sample I will give you an address you can send it to.

How long does biological DNA survive ?

It depends, it is possible to find bone marrow many 1000s of years after death. It depends on the conditions of the location where the bones were found. Sometimes teeth can also provide information after many years, it just depends.

In other words it does not survive very long it gets easily contaminated so again I ask you how can you prove we are related ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Non-sequitur much?

God a supernatual being more intelligent then any human designed and put together each and every living organism.

They could have not just of happened by chance to put all the things together to form a bacteria or cell, organs,brains, breath needed for life.

Only an ignorant person can think chance created life and made it better as long as life has been around .That is not rational thinking.

That is merely your opinion, for which you can offer no convincing scientific evidence, much less any that says God did not do it by evolution.

Don't let your dogma get in the way of your faith, please.

No, I have not observed any evidence that shows macroevolution is possible I have seen more evidence against the belief,not faith but science.

Practice what you preach.

 

[Dragon]

So other organisms that have DNA similarity to humans does that prove by your reasoning they are to related to humans ?

Yes, although I found your sources to be factually inaccurate; for example the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is 94%, not 96-98%.

However, all living things on this planet are related, at least distantly. Humans are most closely related to other primates, more closely related to other mammals than to non-mammal animals, and more closely related to all animals than we are to plants. However, we are at least somewhat related to all living organisms on this planet, unless we are being visited by extraterrestrial aliens.

 

[LOki]

Look the chimp is our closest realtive that has been around longer then humans that would make the chimp our ancestor.

Just because Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of H. Sapiens Sapiens, it does not follow that the H. Sapiens is necessarily the direct descendant of Pan troglodytes.

And you know it.

You have a real problem saying that hybrid humans and chimps interbred when we our DNA are incompatible.

This gibberish is indecipherable. You should consider the usefulness of punctuation.

To believe otherwise is the lie.

Really ... who the fuck but you knows what you're talking about?

I am a realist when it comes to science,I have to be able to observe and prove it to myself to accept it as belief.

But when it comes to superstitions, al you need to do is believe it's true, and PRESTO! you have a belief more valid than those based upon verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Just like for me the bible has passed with flying colors.

Right. Because for you, it's not subject to validation by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic ... it need only meet the criteria that you believe that it's valid.

That's just the inherent nature of faith and superstition.

There is no reason to reject not to mention all the evidence that confirms the early writings.

Really. Try out punctuation.

Problems for your theory.

1. No mechsnism to how life could come from non-living matter.

This is just another one of your lies.

2. The faulty dating methods.

The dating metods are not faulty at all. They are sufficiently accurate and precise for the purposes they are used for, and their precision and accuracy are demonstrably improving with the expansion and cross referencing of data sets.

3. The fossil record shows no gradualism.

Nonsense. As long as disingenuous asshats like yourself are willing to apply Zeno's Paradox to the evidence of incremental changes found in the fossil record, there will be no satisfying you retards on this point.

4. The fossil record shows fossils in the wrong strata.

No it doesn't. Not even your petrified forests support your accusations.

5. Your side teaches it takes millions of years for things to fossilze not even close to true.

Intentional misrepresentation. A lie. A lie you repeat often.

6. They teach it took millions of years for layers of strata to form not true either.

Intentional misrepresentation. They literally do not say this at all.

It's been demonstrated that strata can for in a short time span.

Consistent with the (actual, rather than the strawman you attack) theory you're opposed to.

7. They have no mechanism has to how evolution can occur,mutations are a dead end road.

This is also a lie. Particularly considering your claims about yourself.

8. The cambrian explosion contradicts gradualism and the evolutionists theory.

Intentional misrepresentation. The "Cambrian explosion" is fully compatible with evolutionary theory.

9. Eldrege and gould saw the problem the cambrian explosion caused for the theory and came up with punctuated equilibrium. Now I would like to know how all this compleity of life forms just spontaneously showed up ? please explain. Sounds like creation to me.

Straw-man challenge.

10. planets seem to be where they were meant to be. What would to life and this planet without the sun or moon ?

Straw-man challenge.

These are just a few of the problems with your beliefs and the best explanation to these problems for a rational thinker is God the creator,not by chance.

Every one of your "problems" is a problem you or another of you superstitious invented--and no valid criticism of evolution is ignored by science as you asshats all keep claiming, while you try to assert your patently invalid assertion that "the boogeyman did it."

 

[LOki]

Your mocking shows ignorance.

Hardly.

Only living organisms can produce life there is overwhelming evidence of this.

The evidence that living organisms beget life is not in dispute.

No there is no evidence a chemical reaction could cause life.

Sure there is. There's just no proof it can. Superstitious retards cannot parse the distinction.

As far as humans go you need a male and female,sperm and egg to create life.

Not in dispute.