How Can There Be Multiple Gods and Multiple Truths?

[ChrisL]

One person's fact is another person's bullshit when it comes to a lot of things.
Don't let it drive you mad.

Well not when it comes to Science. She did good when she posted the definition of theories but there is no evidence to support the theory all life is related. Now.... I supposed you could say that we are related in the sense we are all comprised of the same stuff... carbon, oxygen, potassium, calcium, etc. And we are related in that we're living organisms. We're all made of atoms... We all have DNA... but related in the sense that we all came from the same original single cell? Nope... no evidence to support that.

Yes there is. Read.

 

[ChrisL]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

 

[ChrisL]

DNA Proves Evolution

 

[peach174]

We know for a fact he existed...sometime between 9000 and 15000 years ago give or take.

How do we know that?

There is evidence in papyrus scrolls
BIBLICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: Galit Dayan: "Jews" Lived in Dynastic Egypt
It describes the plagues;
In each of the Egyptian manuscripts Dayan discussed, the same familiar characters are mentioned: Moses (“an Egyptian name”), Pharoah, the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds (“Yam Suf” in Hebrew), Hebrews, Israelites and the presence of slaves in Egypt.

In one manuscript, known as the Ipuwer papyrus, there is an eerie description of chaos in Egypt: “Plague is throughout the land,” Dayan’s translation reads, “blood is everywhere — the river is blood ... and the hail smote every herd of the field ... the land is without light and there is a thick darkness throughout the land ... the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt — from the firstborn of Pharoah that sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison. ...”

That is not scientific evidence of the existence of any gods though. It is just some written words by men . . . ??? It is well known that there is no scientific evidence for the theory of creationism. I didn't make that up.

I was talking about if Moses really existed.
There is now evidence outside of the bible for the exodus, then there must have been Moses.

I think scientists would probably disagree that it qualifies as evidence other than superstitious belief system.

Just because they think it is superstitious does not make it true either.
That is also a pretty big insult to believers who know and feel Gods presence and guidance.
It is pretty incredible that those who think it's superstitious can't see that Revelation is happening right before our very eyes.

 

[Gracie]

This question will be unanswered forever. You either believe in a deity, or you don't. Simple as that.

(You as in general you).

 

[peach174]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

That is what I am wating for, the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees. Which has not been found yet.
Evolution can only happen within its own species and many of us think that humans evolved with other humans just like all of the other species.
If we were actually related to apes then we would still be able to mate with them but we can't.
Just like a dog can't mate with a cat.

 

[peach174]

This question will be unanswered forever. You either believe in a deity, or you don't. Simple as that.

(You as in general you).

It will be answered when you die or Jesus comes back, which ever is first.

 

[ChrisL]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

That is what I am wating for, the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees. Which has not been found yet.
Evolution can only happen within its own species and many of us think that humans evolved with other humans just like all of the other species.
If we were actually related to apes then we would still be able to mate with them but we can't.
Just like a dog can't mate with a cat.

But you will believe a theory with NO scientific evidence instead?

 

[ChrisL]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

 

[Gracie]

Faith is faith is faith. Either you have it, or you don't.

Tell y'all what...when I kick the bucket, I will haunt usmb one time, and let y'all know after I have fun playing with Gracie and all my loved furkids that are already there.

 

[ChrisL]

Study: Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee | Anthropology | Sci-News.com

 

[peach174]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

That is what I am wating for, the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees. Which has not been found yet.
Evolution can only happen within its own species and many of us think that humans evolved with other humans just like all of the other species.
If we were actually related to apes then we would still be able to mate with them but we can't.
Just like a dog can't mate with a cat.

But you will believe a theory with NO scientific evidence instead?

To believers he is not a theory.

 

[ChrisL]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

That is what I am wating for, the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees. Which has not been found yet.
Evolution can only happen within its own species and many of us think that humans evolved with other humans just like all of the other species.
If we were actually related to apes then we would still be able to mate with them but we can't.
Just like a dog can't mate with a cat.

But you will believe a theory with NO scientific evidence instead?

To believers he is not a theory.

Whatever. It IS a theory with no solid evidence to support it whatsoever, and ALL evidence of our past and history points to evolution and NOT gods. If you want to remain ignorant, so be it. There is nothing I can do about that. You have to want to face the truth.

 

[peach174]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related. Every branch of the tree represents a species, and every fork separating one species from another represents the common ancestor shared by these species. While the tree's countless forks and far-reaching branches clearly show that relatedness among species varies greatly, it is also easy to see that every pair of species share a common ancestor from some point in evolutionary history. For example, scientists estimate that the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees lived some 5 to 8 million years ago. Humans and bacteria obviously share a much more distant common ancestor, but our relationship to these single-celled organisms is no less real. Indeed, DNA analyses show that although humans share far more genetic material with our fellow primates than we do with single-celled organisms, we still have more than 200 genes in common with bacteria.

It is important to realize that describing organisms as relatives does not mean that one of those organisms is an ancestor of the other, or, for that matter, that any living species is the ancestor of any other living species. A person may be related to blood relatives, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, because she shares with them one or more common ancestors, such as a grandparent, or great-grandparent. But those cousins, aunts, and uncles are not her ancestors. In the same way, humans and other living primates are related, but none of these living relatives is a human ancestor.

That is what I am wating for, the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees. Which has not been found yet.
Evolution can only happen within its own species and many of us think that humans evolved with other humans just like all of the other species.
If we were actually related to apes then we would still be able to mate with them but we can't.
Just like a dog can't mate with a cat.

But you will believe a theory with NO scientific evidence instead?

To believers he is not a theory.

Whatever. It IS a theory with no solid evidence to support it whatsoever, and ALL evidence of our past and history points to evolution and NOT gods. If you want to remain ignorant, so be it. There is nothing I can do about that. You have to want to face the truth.

You are the one who is lost and ignorant but you don't even know it.

 

[Boss]

Are all species related?

Yes. Just as the tree of life illustrates, all organisms, both living and extinct, are related.

This is bullshit. No evidence to support it... NONE!

I notice that you cut off most of the post. There is evidence of it, as stated in the post. DNA evidence.

The DNA evidence actually contradicts the 'common ancestor' theory. Laymen are fooled because you hear stuff like the "98% same DNA with pigs" thing that was mentioned earlier. But the 2% that is different is very VERY important. Living organisms do share many of the same genes, just as computer programs share many of the same lines of coding... it doesn't mean they are related. Math formulas share many of the same operators, it doesn't mean the formulas are related. I guarantee you that my telephone number shares some of the same digits as yours... I base this on mathematical logic. It has nothing to do with our relationship. It's just coincidental circumstance and that's what you have with similar DNA.

The thing about a DNA molecule, it operates with a key component, the mitochondria. This relies on enzymes produced from amino acids. Different living things have different mitochondria and require different enzymes and amino acids. The specific incarnation of DNA cannot exist without this... it is essential. Even though the human and pig DNA is 98% similar, humans and pigs cannot reproduce with each other because the mitochondria and it's supporting enzymes don't match.

In the 100 year old fruit fly experiments, they have tried to recreate evolution or create the scenario by which a new mitochondria can be realized... after millions of generations, not one single new enzyme was created. Exasperated, the scientists concluded the fruit flies simply refuse to evolve. Now, they used fruit flies because they have a very fast reproduction rate of 11 days. If you scale this to humans, you're talking about a million years of time. We only have evidence humans as a species (homo sapien) have been around about 100k years. But no new enzymes in over a million years and it would take at least 27 enzymes and 32 proteins to create just one new DNA molecule. When you plug in this requirement, we're talking on the magnitude of 400 million years... IF there were remarkable results, just for the slightest change in human DNA. You're going to run out of time before you can account for the billions of forms of life that we know have existed.

It's quite simply, a mathematical impossibility. We did not all evolve from some miraculous single cell... the science doesn't support it.

 

[ChrisL]

Why don't you religious folks explain dinosaurs.

 

[peach174]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

We can't mate with them like all of the other species still can.
That alone tells me we do not come from them.
Zebras can mate with horses.
Polar Bears can mate with Grizzlies.

 

[ChrisL]

Holy smokes. Talk about denial. Just deny scientific facts because you " don't believe them?" Too funny.

 

[ChrisL]

We have MANY common ancestors with apes and monkeys. You people need to get a better grasp on the theory of evolution. It's obvious that it was never taught to some of you in school. What a shame.

We can't mate with them like all of the other species still can.
That alone tells me we do not come from them.
Zebras can mate with horses.
Polar Bears can mate with Grizzlies.

Explain dinosaurs please.

 

[ChrisL]

I mean, if we are god's special creations, then what is the connection between gods and dinosaurs?