[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[Kidron]

Have you ever chatted an atheist who was an evolutionist?
In general, they are all evolutionists.
Science is their religion, and their opinion is their god.

Here is something you might use as a reference, if you are having a chat with an atheist who asks you to prove that man is any different then an ape or a skunk or a doberman,.....in that "we are all just animals, evolving to the next phase".....blah, blah, blah.

You could tell him that carbon dating is not accurate, as he'll perhaps try to use this to prove the universe is a bazillion years old.

Or, he will try to use "science" as his proof that evolution has to be true because after all, its "science".
Well, point out to them that science is not always right, and cant be used as proof of evolution, as science itself says that Evolution is a "Theory".
"The Theory of Evolution".....and a theory is not a fact.,.....its a theory.

If they try to use the "big bang" theory....as proof of where creation began, then point out 2 things.
One, is that, you have to have the material BEFORE you can have a "big bang", and ask them where the material came from.
The atoms, the molecules, the star clusters, the asteroids.
Even an atheist is not so stupid to believe that the material that "banged" according to his belief, just created itself from nothing.
And when he realizes this, you can simply point out that you cant have anything that exists without it having a creator..
Point out that a book cant write itself, a painting cant paint itself, and the big bang cant just start itself, even it it were true........it would have to have a cause to be, and that means it has to have an original starting point (a creation point)....and you cant have a creation, without a Creator.
Nothing can create itself from nothing.......not even the big bang (theory).
Remind them also that the big bang theory is a theory, and a theory is not a fact.


And this brings us to 1st cause......First cause.
This is a rationale that says that everything starts at the beginning and it has to have a first cause, or a beginning.... and so, what is the first cause of the universe?
How did it start?
Well, it had to start, and it didnt start itself from NOTHING, coz that is impossible unless it was created, which it was.........so, using the idea of First Cause, regarding creation, then you have to have a start of creation, (or it cant exist)... and you cant start a creation without a Creatorm nor can you have creation without a Creator.
Everything that exists exists because it was created, and you cant have anything that was created, unless you have a Creator...


The one i like to offer an atheist if i feel he is actually open minded, and that is pretty rare, is to point out that the one thing that separates us from all other animals, is that we as humans can perceive beauty.
And the reason we can, is because our creator created beauty, because he likes it.
Notice he painted the sky blue, and the the birds, the insects, the flowers, the landscape, the mountain valleys, the fish, and even the seas, very colorful. ...
Did you ever notice the beauty of a setting sun in the afternoon as it reflects colorfully across a mountain or an ocean or a lake?
Well, your dog doesn't notice this..
Neither does your cat, or your fish, or your snake, or your turtle, or your ape, or your horse, or your duck.
As a matter of fact.......go and get a painting by Thomas Kinkade, or Renior, and set any animal in front of it and see if they notice its BEAUTY.
The answer is ...............nope. tho they might lick it if the paint isnt real dry;)
And why?
Because you , the human, are the only living creation that God created in his own "image", and this means he imparted a part of his intellect into yours, which is the ability to perceive beauty.....and he did this for no other animal.
God you see, is quite an artist....he paints color in the air and the sky became blue , he then paints the waters and they reflect blue green like emeralds, he paints the wings of the birds, the petal of the flowers, and the rainbows up above with all sorts of COLOR because just like you, God notices Beauty.

Point this out to any nearby Atheist and remind them that had God not created in them the ability to perceive beauty, then they would have gone through life in black and white....






K

 

[boolnz]

If you want to accuse atheists of not being open minded, you might want to reconsider calling people "apes" for believing in evolution.

I have no interest in science - God created me to have passion in many other topics, but not science. So I have not done enough research to come to any conclusion on whether I believe in evolution or creationism. But a scientist at my church as done a sermon on evolution/creationism, and I very much agree with what he says. Basically, it doesn't matter whether the world began with evolution or creationism. What is important, from a purely theological perspective, is that God was behind it. When a mother bakes cake for her son's birthday, science can explain how the flour mixed with egg and milk to turn into cake at a high temperature. But it does not explain the mother's love behind it.

The Bible was written at a time when man believed the earth was square and that the sun revolved around our planet. I believe God is a scientific God who loves science - just look at the brilliant complexities of even a single leaf. The way that the world was made is so complicated that our human mind won't be able to fathom it all. When God breathed word into man to write the Bible, he would have used the simplest terms to explain how he created the world. Maybe it literally means he commanded "let there be light" and light magically appeared out of nowhere. Or maybe he was summarising a hugely complicated process that took millions of years into one simplified sentence. It doesn't matter. Christians can still be Christians and believe in evolution.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Your grasp of science appears to be a bit outdated. I'm a Christian who believes in both creationism and evolution (despite what people will scream to the death, they aren't mutually exclusive)

Random observations, because I don't even know where to start:

- Science is not a religion. Neither is it the opposite of religion. It's an entirely separate field. Many scientists (historically most scientists) are/were people of faith. Gregor Mendel, father of Genetics (on which evolution is based), was an Augustine monk. Pascal, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Kepler, Pasteur, Farraday. All were scientists. It's incorrect to present it as an either-or situation.

- Nobody with the slightest grasp of science would attempt to use radiocarbon dating to prove the age of the universe. This is a strawman argument (you set up your opponent with a weak argument so you can easily ridicule/discredit them). The half-life of Carbon-14 isn't nearly long enough. And for the record, there is no such number as "bazillion"

- Evolution is not a theory, despite common belief. There are theories of evolution, but the process itself has been empirically demonstrated (I've observed it myself in D. melanogaster). And before you jump to a silly conclusion, the process of evolution in no way, shape, or form refutes the existence or glory of God.

- I have no clue what you're getting at with your inclusion of the big bang theory. This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution; it's astrophysics tied to mathematics. Unlike evolution, it is a theory as there's no empirical proof or study to replicate it.

- You're incorrect about beauty. Animals absolutely can and do notice beauty. An easy example is the peacock. Females peahens have mate choice, and they almost invariably select as mates the peacocks with the largest and most elaborate plumage (this in turn causes the genes of elaborately plumed males to have a better reproduction rate than poorly plumed males). As another example, most mammalian species will reject an offspring that shows sign of deformity.

Then there's Ptilonorhynchidaes. They create and decorate structures known as bowers and then spend many hours decorating them with objects they find. These objects have absolutely no value or benefit to the bird; they simply decorate them knowing their potential mates find them more appealing.


Before you go out and find a "nearby atheist" to start an argument with, you might want to review your facts a bit. You tend to use a lot of strawman arguments in your text here to ridicule anyone who disagrees; I'd suggest backing up statements with examples or the rationale behind the assertion.

Have you ever chatted an atheist who was an evolutionist?
In general, they are all evolutionists.
Science is their religion, and their opinion is their god.

Here is something you might use as a reference, if you are having a chat with an atheist who asks you to prove that man is any different then an ape or a skunk or a doberman,.....in that "we are all just animals, evolving to the next phase".....blah, blah, blah.

You could tell him that carbon dating is not accurate, as he'll perhaps try to use this to prove the universe is a bazillion years old.

Or, he will try to use "science" as his proof that evolution has to be true because after all, its "science".
Well, point out to them that science is not always right, and cant be used as proof of evolution, as science itself says that Evolution is a "Theory".
"The Theory of Evolution".....and a theory is not a fact.,.....its a theory.

If they try to use the "big bang" theory....as proof of where creation began, then point out 2 things.
One, is that, you have to have the material BEFORE you can have a "big bang", and ask them where the material came from.
The atoms, the molecules, the star clusters, the asteroids.
Even an atheist is not so stupid to believe that the material that "banged" according to his belief, just created itself from nothing.
And when he realizes this, you can simply point out that you cant have anything that exists without it having a creator..
Point out that a book cant write itself, a painting cant paint itself, and the big bang cant just start itself, even it it were true........it would have to have a cause to be, and that means it has to have an original starting point (a creation point)....and you cant have a creation, without a Creator.
Nothing can create itself from nothing.......not even the big bang (theory).
Remind them also that the big bang theory is a theory, and a theory is not a fact.


And this brings us to 1st cause......First cause.
This is a rationale that says that everything starts at the beginning and it has to have a first cause, or a beginning.... and so, what is the first cause of the universe?
How did it start?
Well, it had to start, and it didnt start itself from NOTHING, coz that is impossible unless it was created, which it was.........so, using the idea of First Cause, regarding creation, then you have to have a start of creation, (or it cant exist)... and you cant start a creation without a Creatorm nor can you have creation without a Creator.
Everything that exists exists because it was created, and you cant have anything that was created, unless you have a Creator...


The one i like to offer an atheist if i feel he is actually open minded, and that is pretty rare, is to point out that the one thing that separates us from all other animals, is that we as humans can perceive beauty.
And the reason we can, is because our creator created beauty, because he likes it.
Notice he painted the sky blue, and the the birds, the insects, the flowers, the landscape, the mountain valleys, the fish, and even the seas, very colorful. ...
Did you ever notice the beauty of a setting sun in the afternoon as it reflects colorfully across a mountain or an ocean or a lake?
Well, your dog doesn't notice this..
Neither does your cat, or your fish, or your snake, or your turtle, or your ape, or your horse, or your duck.
As a matter of fact.......go and get a painting by Thomas Kinkade, or Renior, and set any animal in front of it and see if they notice its BEAUTY.
The answer is ...............nope. tho they might lick it if the paint isnt real dry;)
And why?
Because you , the human, are the only living creation that God created in his own "image", and this means he imparted a part of his intellect into yours, which is the ability to perceive beauty.....and he did this for no other animal.
God you see, is quite an artist....he paints color in the air and the sky became blue , he then paints the waters and they reflect blue green like emeralds, he paints the wings of the birds, the petal of the flowers, and the rainbows up above with all sorts of COLOR because just like you, God notices Beauty.

Point this out to any nearby Atheist and remind them that had God not created in them the ability to perceive beauty, then they would have gone through life in black and white....






K

 

[Kidron]

If you want to accuse atheists of not being open minded, you might want to reconsider calling people "apes" for believing in evolution.

I called no one an ape, i said that evo-theory is FOR apes...
Also, i said that its (rare) for an atheist/evolutionist to be open minded.
Ive dealt with many.
I didnt say , however, that ALL are closed minded as you are implying...



Basically, it doesn't matter whether the world began with evolution or creationism.

You seem lucid, so, im certain you can agree that nothing creates itself from nothing, by itself.??
This is impossible.
So, the universe, cannot just begin to exist from blank nothingness of its own accord.
It has to have a beginning, it has to have a start......it has to have a 1st Cause........(Primum movens )
It has to have a creation, as it IS a creation, and you cant have a creation without a Creator.
Its impossible.
Can you name anything that exists which does not have a creator ?
So, you have a mild issue with the universe being "created", and you would prefer to believe it just started from nothing, by itself, according to science????.





What is important, from a purely theological perspective, is that God was behind it. When a mother bakes cake for her son's birthday, science can explain how the flour mixed with egg and milk to turn into cake at a high temperature. But it does not explain the mother's love behind it.

Science also tries to start in the middle of creation,(as the beginning)..... instead of starting at the beginning and explaining it.
This is seen when they try to promote the theory of the "big bang".
You see, they start with the material already being here, and tell you that it "banged..... But they never want to deal with how the molecular/material/matter originally got here, because to do that, they have to ither lie and create some incredible hypothesis
regarding space waves and time warps (Mr Spock), or they have to face the reality that a Creator created it all.
They dont like the 2nd choice. (as its not scientific)(they cant get the credit for the discovery)(arrogant pride).

The Bible was written at a time when man believed the earth was square and that the sun revolved around our planet.


Actually Isaiah in the Old Testament, about 700 years before Christ was born, was told by God that the world is round.(Isaiah 40:22)
So, once again "science" is way behind God.
Nothing new, and this is why Paul told you to beware of Science in 1st Timothy 6:20.



I believe God is a scientific God who loves science - just look at the brilliant complexities of even a single leaf.

Another way you might consider it, is that a complex universe was created by the Word of God and later, man created the term "science" to try to pretend he can understand how God did it.


Maybe it literally means he commanded "let there be light" and light magically appeared out of nowhere. Or maybe he was summarising a hugely complicated process that took millions of years into one simplified sentence. It doesn't matter.


Actually it does matter, because you have to choose a side, you have to believe that God was not lying when he said he created it, and how long it took,.... or you have to be on the other side and question it all and in doing this you are denying what God said.
And another person who did that, who questioned what God said, was Eve.
Satan(Science) asked her......"Hath God said".....or...."did God really mean THAT."
And yeah, he really meant it, exactly as he said it.
She found this out when he told her not to eat it, but her scientific approach to questioning = denying what God said, caused a whole world of problems after she took the first bite.


Let me ask you a question.
If you believe that God is able to create all that you see with regards to the universe and its complexity, then is it practical to believe that if he can create is all he is well able to create it all in 7 days?
Doesn't one prove the other?
Did you ever consider that a painter enjoys the process of creation?
A good painter can create the same painting in a week, that it takes him a month to finish, but, he enjoys the process and takes his time.
So, If God is God then certainly he could have created all u see in a wink, but that he didnt........did you ever consider that he was really enjoying his work, and wanted to take his time?
He is an artist you know., among other things.





K

.....................

 

[Free]

This thread will be moved to the Christianity & Science forum. To continue discussing the topic, all involved will need to request access to that forum if they have not done so already.

 

[Kidron]

Your grasp of science appears to be a bit outdated. I'm a Christian who believes in both creationism and evolution (despite what people will scream to the death, they aren't mutually exclusive)


Its the "theory of Evolution.
Be sure to mention this....or you'll be accused of believing that Evolution is as fact and not a "theory".
And we wouldn't want that, would we...



- Science is not a religion.

It is to an atheist, as he believes that God isn't real, and that is the one commandment of Science.




Neither is it the opposite of religion.

Science became a religion as soon as it tries to explain away what God said, by creating theories that deny that God exists.




It's an entirely separate field. Many scientists (historically most scientists) are/were people of faith. Gregor Mendel, father of Genetics (on which evolution is based), was an Augustine monk. Pascal, Copernicus, Linnaeus, Kepler, Pasteur, Farraday.

You are confusing faith with Science by claiming that a person's faith is involved with their science, and this is a fallacy.
And, "genetic" can be provable because the double helix can be seen.
Evolution, the theory, is based on random selection, based on Darwin, and he himself believed in a Creator.
Let me put it to you this way, there is no skeletal evidence that proves that man came from or evolved from an ape.....but there is the scientific theory that says skeletal (ape) remains could be the ancestors of humans.
Also, to believe that the order of the universe, according to science,... was created out of random chaos is to believe that u can take your Rolex watch, and take all the parts out, put them in a bag, shake it up and wait a long time and they will evolve back into a perfect Rolex.
That is how close to accurate the "theory of evolution" is to truth.





- Nobody with the slightest grasp of science would attempt to use radiocarbon dating to prove the age of the universe. This is a strawman argument (you set up your opponent with a weak argument so you can easily ridicule/discredit them). The half-life of Carbon-14 isn't nearly long enough. And for the record, there is no such number as "bazillion"



THe carbon dating "argument" is not "set up" by me, it is exposed by me, and is consistently "set up" by atheists and evolutionists.
Go to any forum debate where evolution or "the age of the earth" is being chatted about and an evolutionist will chime in with 'carbon dating".
Its a mantra for them.

- Evolution is not a theory, despite common belief. There are theories of evolution, but the process itself has been empirically demonstrated (I've observed it myself in D. melanogaster). And before you jump to a silly conclusion, the process of evolution in no way, shape, or form refutes the existence or glory of God.

"The theories of evolution" .
thank you, you are correct.
Good job.

- I have no clue what you're getting at with your inclusion of the big bang theory. This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution; it's astrophysics tied to mathematics. Unlike evolution, it is a theory as there's no empirical proof or study to replicate it.

The big bang theory" and the "theories of evolution" are tied at the hip like a clone.
Both erroneously concluded that random chaos came together as magnificent order if given enough time.
"horse feathers"...;)

- You're incorrect about beauty. Animals absolutely can and do notice beauty. An easy example is the peacock. Females peahens have mate choice, and they almost invariably select as mates the peacocks with the largest and most elaborate plumage

My advice to you is to turn off the nature channel and the discovery channel.
U sound like one of their commercials.
And so that you know.......in the "wild", a female instinctively looks for the biggest and the most powerful mate, as this is natures way of continuing the species......so, she is not looking at his colors, she is looking for the most "male" she can find..



Then there's Ptilonorhynchidaes. They create and decorate structures known as bowers and then spend many hours decorating them with objects they find. These objects have absolutely no value or benefit to the bird; they simply decorate them knowing their potential mates find them more appealing.


Once again, you are falsely attributing a design, with a mating purpose, with an appreciation of beauty.
Its a nice theory, but, you are only proving my point.
The bird is not decorating as you would suggest, but they are strategically placing a signal in the form of a mating ritual.
If you notice pigeons????
The male will puff out his breast, spread out his wings, and do a ritualistic dance in front of the mate of his choice to get her to submit.
He is not showing her his beauty, he is showing her his virility, because in the wild, the females choose based on the size and the strength.., not based on if the male can knit a sock or a blanket



Before you go out and find a "nearby atheist" to start an argument with, you might want to review your facts a bit. You tend to use a lot of strawman arguments in your text here to ridicule anyone who disagrees; I'd suggest backing up statements with examples or the rationale behind the assertion.



I did.
take your time with my answers.
No doubt you'll have more scientific "theories" to ram into this thread.

.............

 

[Milk-Drops]

Have you ever chatted an atheist who was an evolutionist?
In general, they are all evolutionists.
Science is their religion, and their opinion is their god.

I've never met an evolutionist. None of the atheists, agnostics, or skeptics that I've met, and me Included, has ever worshiped science or the theory of Evolution.

Here is something you might use as a reference, if you are having a chat with an atheist who asks you to prove that man is any different then an ape or a skunk or a doberman,.....in that "we are all just animals, evolving to the next phase".....blah, blah, blah.

You could tell him that carbon dating is not accurate, as he'll perhaps try to use this to prove the universe is a bazillion years old.

Carbon dating is not used to date the universe. The universe is dated based on Background radiation, and is a very complex area of study.

Or, he will try to use "science" as his proof that evolution has to be true because after all, its "science".
Well, point out to them that science is not always right, and cant be used as proof of evolution, as science itself says that Evolution is a "Theory".
"The Theory of Evolution".....and a theory is not a fact.,.....its a theory.

Science is a tool used to understand our suroundings. Many people use science to evaluate data and evidence to formulate a hypothesis and construct theories. Evolution is an observed phenomenon in all forms of life, and the theory of evolution is just the model used to explain what it is. The theory itself is not a fact because aspects of the theory are able to be modified based on new data and evidence. Evolution itself is a fact though. I don't think you understand that evolution is just the adaptation of living organisms to their environment.

If they try to use the "big bang" theory....as proof of where creation began, then point out 2 things.
One, is that, you have to have the material BEFORE you can have a "big bang", and ask them where the material came from.
The atoms, the molecules, the star clusters, the asteroids.
Even an atheist is not so stupid to believe that the material that "banged" according to his belief, just created itself from nothing.
And when he realizes this, you can simply point out that you cant have anything that exists without it having a creator..

The current model of the Big Bang Theory take into account that we don't know exactly how the Big Bang Happened or if the universe was even anything we'd recognize with our current understanding of physics and mathematics. That is why the Big Bang theory is still a very open field of study.

Point out that a book cant write itself, a painting cant paint itself,

Actually, the problem with this argument is that we can readily write books and paint paintings to show how they are made and fully understand the construction of both objects, to help teach how to create them. The universe is not a man made creation so its not a direct comparison.

and the big bang cant just start itself, even it it were true........it would have to have a cause to be, and that means it has to have an original starting point (a creation point)....and you cant have a creation, without a Creator.

The thing with the Big Bang is that its the begging of the known universe and measurable time. That means that most of our understanding of physics dosen't even matter until the universe itself exists because the laws of physics that you are using to make claims about the validity of the big Bang are properties of the universe that was the product of the Big Bang.

Nothing can create itself from nothing.......not even the big bang (theory).
Remind them also that the big bang theory is a theory, and a theory is not a fact.

I would like to remind you that Facts are observable phenomenons and theories are working models of observed facts that explains the mechanics.

And this brings us to 1st cause......First cause.
This is a rationale that says that everything starts at the beginning and it has to have a first cause, or a beginning.... and so, what is the first cause of the universe?
How did it start?
Well, it had to start, and it didnt start itself from NOTHING, coz that is impossible unless it was created, which it was.........so, using the idea of First Cause, regarding creation, then you have to have a start of creation, (or it cant exist)... and you cant start a creation without a Creatorm nor can you have creation without a Creator.
Everything that exists exists because it was created, and you cant have anything that was created, unless you have a Creator...

The ontological argument has major flaws because it can be used to demonstrate the existence of any God, spirit, or "cause" because the argument itself is very vague and the big Bang Theory never states that the Universe came from Nothing. In order to claim that Atheists think the universe came from nothing, you would first have to define a Nothing. Would you be kind enough to define a nothing for us?

The one i like to offer an atheist if i feel he is actually open minded, and that is pretty rare, is to point out that the one thing that separates us from all other animals, is that we as humans can perceive beauty.

This is false, and another poster has demonstrated that other animals appreciate beauty.

And the reason we can, is because our creator created beauty, because he likes it.

Can you source the Bible for this please?

Notice he painted the sky blue, and the the birds, the insects, the flowers, the landscape, the mountain valleys, the fish, and even the seas, very colorful. ...
Did you ever notice the beauty of a setting sun in the afternoon as it reflects colorfully across a mountain or an ocean or a lake?
Well, your dog doesn't notice this..
Neither does your cat, or your fish, or your snake, or your turtle, or your ape, or your horse, or your duck.
As a matter of fact.......go and get a painting by Thomas Kinkade, or Renior, and set any animal in front of it and see if they notice its BEAUTY.
The answer is ...............nope. tho they might lick it if the paint isnt real dry;)
And why?
Because you , the human, are the only living creation that God created in his own "image", and this means he imparted a part of his intellect into yours, which is the ability to perceive beauty.....and he did this for no other animal.
God you see, is quite an artist....he paints color in the air and the sky became blue , he then paints the waters and they reflect blue green like emeralds, he paints the wings of the birds, the petal of the flowers, and the rainbows up above with all sorts of COLOR because just like you, God notices Beauty.

You are confusing beauty with the human ability to apply sentimental value to things. We are capable of this because we have brains that are capable of layering emotion and higher forms of rational thought.

Point this out to any nearby Atheist and remind them that had God not created in them the ability to perceive beauty, then they would have gone through life in black and white....

As an atheist that is nearby, I would like to point out that your arguments are heavily flawed and demonstrates your ignorance in the matters you wish to both refute and discuss. I am not phased by any of your statements because I'm familiar with the subject matter and the arguments themselves.

I hope you find my critique of your stance helpful.

 

[cupid dave]

I assume most people here have not considered that Gen 1:1 compares one-to-one with the science that insists the heavens and the earth are a consequence of the Big Bang Beginning?????

I also point out that man is not an Ape, because Apes have 24 pairs of Chroomosomes while men has only 23.

It seems abundantly clear that a mutation that fused two Ape chromosome together @ 7 million years ago was an evolutionary process.





Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM, (an Act-of-God); and blessed THEM,and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species orkind) in the day when THEY were created.

 

[lordkalvan]

I assume most people here have not considered that Gen 1:1 compares one-to-one with the science that insists the heavens and the earth are a consequence of the Big Bang Beginning?????

And yet nobody seems to have expounded such an idea before the Big Bang was inferred as a consequence of evidence from physics and cosmology. Why do you suppose that was?

I also point out that man is not an Ape, because Apes have 24 pairs of Chroomosomes while men has only 23.

Taxonomically, Homo sapiens is defined as a primate/ape for far more reasons than just chromosome similarity. Przewalski's Horse has 66 instead of the 64 chromosomes in domestic horses and the 62 found in donkeys and yet all are classified as members of the genus Equus.

It seems abundantly clear that a mutation that fused two Ape chromosome together @ 7 million years ago was an evolutionary process.

Essentially, yes.





Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM, (an Act-of-God); and blessed THEM,and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species orkind) in the day when THEY were created.[/QUOTE]

 

[cupid dave]

And yet nobody seems to have expounded such an idea before the Big Bang was inferred as a consequence of evidence from physics and cosmology. Why do you suppose that was?

Taxonomically, Homo sapiens is defined as a primate/ape for far more reasons than just chromosome similarity. Przewalski's Horse has 66 instead of the 64 chromosomes in domestic horses and the 62 found in donkeys and yet all are classified as members of the genus Equus.

Essentially, yes.





Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM, (an Act-of-God); and blessed THEM,and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species orkind) in the day when THEY were created.

[/QUOTE]


I believe man is classified as a Primate but not an Ape....

 

[lordkalvan]

I believe man is classified as a Primate but not an Ape....

Um, apes are members of the Order Primates.

'The Hominidae (@#$%/hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; anglicized hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1]), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera: chimpanzees (Pan), gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo).[1]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

 

[zeke]

Taxonomically, Homo sapiens is defined as a primate/ape for far more reasons than just chromosome similarity.

And this genetic similarity can easily be explained by a common designer.

 

[lordkalvan]

And this genetic similarity can easily be explained by a common designer.

Then please offer your reasoned explanation of how this 'genetic similarity' is 'easily' accounted for by 'a common designer'. Simply asserting it to be so does not make it so. I would also be interested in your explanation of whether this alleged design intervention has any impact on taxonomic classifications and why.

 

[zeke]

Then please offer your reasoned explanation of how this 'genetic similarity' is 'easily' accounted for by 'a common designer'.

But I have done this for you more than once - I am beginning to think your reading comprehension skills have not fully 'evolved'. One more time - a common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species. Let me know if you need more help.

 

[Milk-Drops]

But I have done this for you more than once - I am beginning to think your reading comprehension skills have not fully 'evolved'. One more time - a common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species. Let me know if you need more help.

What is the testable mechanism that can be used to explain how we can determine when a Creator has used similar genetic information to make new organisms?

 

[zeke]

What is the testable mechanism that can be used to explain how we can determine when a Creator has used similar genetic information to make new organisms?

Common sense. How can you test universal common ancestry?

 

[lordkalvan]

But I have done this for you more than once - I am beginning to think your reading comprehension skills have not fully 'evolved'. One more time - a common designer could have repeatedly used existing species in situ as the blueprint for constructing more advanced species. Let me know if you need more help.

I need help finding the posts where you supposedly offered this explanation. I have asked you to either link to or reference the thread and post number where this was done, but you have simply ignored such requests. I am beginning to think that you gave no such explanation. I apologise if this is not the case, as you should be able to demonstrate easily.

Also, I notice you have not explained what impact this alleged common designer would have on taxonomic classifications. Do you not regard this as important and, if not, why not?

 

[lordkalvan]

Common sense.....

'Common sense' also tells us that the Sun revolves around Earth, so perhaps you should explain how 'common sense' is the testable mechanism you claim it to be in this instance because at the moment your argument is obscure.

 

[zeke]

I need help finding the posts where you supposedly offered this explanation.

You asked how 'genetic similarity' is accounted for by 'a common designer' and I told you - what part do you miss?

 

[zeke]

'Common sense' also tells us that the Sun revolves around Earth, so perhaps you should explain how 'common sense' is the testable mechanism you claim it to be in this instance because at the moment your argument is obscure.

Based on the scientific evidence your 'common sense' tells you the Sun revolves around Earth? Wow. How can we test universal common decent?