[_ Old Earth _] Evolution insinuates bestiality

[Heidi]

A mutation can only occur from characteristics already present in a cell. Completely new characteristics like cognition, the ability to be completely bi-pedal, form complex analyses, build bridges, form spiritual concepts, etc., that have nothing to do with the characteristics in a cell cannot suddenly appear. And that is why humans cannot produce offspring with wings, beaks, tails, etc. This is an elementary principle of reproduction. They are only possible in science fiction books and movies which come from the imaginations of men.

Not all at once in most cases, no. However, over millions of years, small changes accrue. And yes, new information is added. That's why it's called a mutation.

Then by your reasoning, I could say that aliens came and deposited human beings millions of years ago and since there is no proof of that in recorded history, then millions of years from now the aliens will come back and prove me right. Sorry, that won't wash. What you're saying is that there is zero evidence of evolution in recorded history but there will be in millions of years. You can't have it both ways. Recorded history has not proven we are evolving but only decaying. Humans are no closer to producing offspring so different from ourselves as to be given the name of a new species as we ever were. :wink: And the mutation theory proves there is no such thing as evolution but only accidents that scientists still can't explain! An accident is not an evolution but a fluke of nature.

 

[Quid]

Then by your reasoning, I could say that aliens came and deposited human beings millions of years ago and since there is no proof of that in recorded history, then millions of years from now the aliens will come back and prove me right. Sorry, that won't wash.

I'm sorry. At what point were we talking about abiogenesis? I was talking about evolution. Please try to stay on subject, though what you've stated actually is a theory put forth by some people, though no one really takes them seriously.

What you're saying is that there is zero evidence of evolution in recorded history

No. If you'd look at the link you'd see several instances of evolution.

but there will be in millions of years. You can't have it both ways.

Oh? I didn't realize a map of our genes was written down along with Hammurabai's Code. What does written history have to do with this anyway?

Recorded history has not proven we are evolving but only decaying.

Cite please. A nonbiased source is prefered.

And the mutation theory proves there is no such thing as evolution but only accidents that scientists still can't explain! An accident is not an evolution but a fluke of nature.

Since you seem to be refusing to actually look at the links I post, mutations on the molecular level caused by:

• Tautomerism - A base is changed by the repositioning of a hydrogen atom.
  Depurination - Loss of a purine base (A or G).
  Deamination - Changes a normal base to an atypical base; C → U, or A → HX (hypoxanthine).
  Transition - A purine changes to another purine, or a pyrimidine to a pyrimidine.
  Transversion - A purine becomes a pyrimidine, or vice versa.
  Nitrosoguanidine (NTG)
  Base analogs (e.g. BrdU)
  Simple chemicals (e.g. acids)
  Alkylating agents (e.g. N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)) These agents can mutate both replicating and non-replicating DNA. In contrast, a base analog can only mutate the DNA When the analog is incorporated in replicating the DNA. Each of these classes of chemical mutagens has certain effects that then lead to transitions, tranversions, or deletions.
  Methylating agents (e.g. ethane methyl sulfonate (EMS))
  Polycyclic hydrocarbons (e.g. benzpyrenes found in internal combustion engine exhaust)
  DNA intercalating agents (e.g. ethidium bromide)
  DNA crosslinker (e.g. platinum)
  Oxidative damage caused by oxygen radicals
  Ultraviolet radiation
  Ionizing radiation

 

[Heidi]

I don't think you understand how this works. There wasn't an ape and something else. There was a singular species who branched off in two different directions.

The way something so different comes along is millions of years of small changes caused by mutated DNA and natural selection. And yes, DNA can mutate into something new entirely.

You also seem to be drawing conclusions from the title of a television show. Which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen. Care to judge some books by their cover as well?

Heidi...I see you read this thread so I assume you saw my post. If not, please go back and take a look.

Please don't dodge my post. Do you believe that the different physical characteristics around the world distinct from a common ancestor could arise as a result of genetic drift, time and isolation? After all, that's what the bible says happens, right?

No, I don't. Otherwise, humans could produce offspring with wings.

As I just explained, the biblical account enforces the notion that when 2 humans mate, their offspring will contian the genes from both parents. The farther away people got from Adam and Eve in their ancestry, the less they looked like them.

If that were true, carried through to today, we would each look wildly different from each other, since we are farther from Adam and Eve than those a while back (these races and characteristics have been documented for thousands of years).

By your theory, since we are twice as far away from Noah as during Jesus' time, one would think you couldn't even recognize the similarities between two humans given your "less they looked like them" theory.

And the bible gives no description of Adam and Eve. For all we know, one of them could have been black, and the other could have had slanted eyes. :wink:

I only used two examples. There are also to the relatively short and squatty Inuit, the red-skinned Native Americans, the blond and blue-eyed Swedes, and countless other microcultural physical features. They could not have had them all.

Do you deny microevolution? From what I have read from the lion's share of creationists the above scenario describes how races arose.

Are you saying that after Bable, God seperated people by races? He sent all the black people one direction with a language, native americans another, whites another and so on? Are you claiming that God not only confused the langauges, but also seperated us by color?

Otherwise, how do you get them all to the same place by physical characteristics, since they are all equidistant from Noah?

It doesn't appear that you read my post. Ham's sons stayed around the Middle East and Africa. Japheth's sons were scattered all over the world which is what makes them so diversified, and Shem's sons were called the Semites and are the Jews. The more in-bred a population is the more traits are re-enforced. The sons of Japheth diversified whereas the sons of ham kept breeding within their own culture.

 

[ThinkerMan]

It doesn't appear that you read my post. Ham's sons stayed around the Middle East and Africa. Japheth's sons were scattered all over the world which is what makes them so diversified, and Shem's sons were called the Semites and are the Jews. The more in-bred a population is the more traits are re-enforced. The sons of Japheth diversified whereas the sons of ham kept breeding within their own culture.

Finally we get to the meat of the matter. So you do admit that diversity can arise from one population (Noah's family) over generations (where you say that Japeth's sons and decendents diversify). That a common ancestor
(Noah) can create a diverse type of descendency that is different than the common ancestor itself.

Now do you understand what common ancestry means among two differing populations? For some reason, I am not optimistic that you do.

 

[Heidi]

It doesn't appear that you read my post. Ham's sons stayed around the Middle East and Africa. Japheth's sons were scattered all over the world which is what makes them so diversified, and Shem's sons were called the Semites and are the Jews. The more in-bred a population is the more traits are re-enforced. The sons of Japheth diversified whereas the sons of ham kept breeding within their own culture.

Finally we get to the meat of the matter. So you do admit that diversity can arise from one population (Noah's family) over generations (where you say that Japeth's sons and decendents diversify). That a common ancestor
(Noah) can create a diverse type of descendency that is different than the common ancestor itself.

Now do you understand what common ancestry means among two differing populations? For some reason, I am not optimistic that you do.

What do you mean by a common ancestor? An ancestor is an ancestor. All species are capable of interbreeding with their ancestors. That's because ancestors are created through breeding which you don't seem to understand. So sorry, an ape cannot be an ancestor to a man because it is not capable of producing human offspring. But since that fact is lost on you, then you don't understand basic biology. This theory is so nonsensical as to be an embarrassment to the human race. But again, it would make a great science fiction movie.

 

[ThinkerMan]

It doesn't appear that you read my post. Ham's sons stayed around the Middle East and Africa. Japheth's sons were scattered all over the world which is what makes them so diversified, and Shem's sons were called the Semites and are the Jews. The more in-bred a population is the more traits are re-enforced. The sons of Japheth diversified whereas the sons of ham kept breeding within their own culture.

Finally we get to the meat of the matter. So you do admit that diversity can arise from one population (Noah's family) over generations (where you say that Japeth's sons and descendents diversify). That a common ancestor
(Noah) can create a diverse type of descendency that is different than the common ancestor itself.

Now do you understand what common ancestry means among two differing populations? For some reason, I am not optimistic that you do.

What do you mean by a common ancestor? An ancestor is an ancestor. All species are capable of interbreeding with their ancestors. That's because ancestors are created through breeding which you don't seem to understand. So sorry, an ape cannot be an ancestor to a man because it is not capable of producing human offspring. But since that fact is lost on you, then you don't understand basic biology. This theory is so nonsensical as to be an embarrassment to the human race. But again, it would make a great science fiction movie.

Thanks Heidi for the fun, but my patience wears thin.

What do you mean by a common ancestor? An ancestor is an ancestor.

Sigh.... I have set the premise, that you accept and is in the bible, that although people differ (dark skin, light skin, almond-shaped eyes, non-almond-shaped eyes) they share a common ancestor. That common ancestor, Japeth, was different from those descendents that came later. So although these two races are different, they are cousins with the same great-great-great-etc-grandpa, who was their common ancestor.

Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that you already accept the very mechanism and situation you claim to reject.

You already accept the premise of common descent.

You already accept the idea that a common ancestor can create two distinct populations.

You already accept that those descendent populations are different from the common ancestor.

It may only be on the microevolutionary scale, but you have already admitted that you believe (via the bible) in how it works.

Thus, when you say "humans don't breed apes" it as ridiculous as saying "Eskimos don't breed Japeths". The common ancestor is gone, and no one expects nor predicts that "breeding" will produce them.

 

[Heidi]

It doesn't appear that you read my post. Ham's sons stayed around the Middle East and Africa. Japheth's sons were scattered all over the world which is what makes them so diversified, and Shem's sons were called the Semites and are the Jews. The more in-bred a population is the more traits are re-enforced. The sons of Japheth diversified whereas the sons of ham kept breeding within their own culture.

Finally we get to the meat of the matter. So you do admit that diversity can arise from one population (Noah's family) over generations (where you say that Japeth's sons and descendents diversify). That a common ancestor
(Noah) can create a diverse type of descendency that is different than the common ancestor itself.

Now do you understand what common ancestry means among two differing populations? For some reason, I am not optimistic that you do.

What do you mean by a common ancestor? An ancestor is an ancestor. All species are capable of interbreeding with their ancestors. That's because ancestors are created through breeding which you don't seem to understand. So sorry, an ape cannot be an ancestor to a man because it is not capable of producing human offspring. But since that fact is lost on you, then you don't understand basic biology. This theory is so nonsensical as to be an embarrassment to the human race. But again, it would make a great science fiction movie.

Thanks Heidi for the fun, but my patience wears thin.

What do you mean by a common ancestor? An ancestor is an ancestor.

Sigh.... I have set the premise, that you accept and is in the bible, that although people differ (dark skin, light skin, almond-shaped eyes, non-almond-shaped eyes) they share a common ancestor. That common ancestor, Japeth, was different from those descendents that came later. So although these two races are different, they are cousins with the same great-great-great-etc-grandpa, who was their common ancestor.

Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that you already accept the very mechanism and situation you claim to reject.

You already accept the premise of common descent.

You already accept the idea that a common ancestor can create two distinct populations.

You already accept that those descendent populations are different from the common ancestor.

It may only be on the microevolutionary scale, but you have already admitted that you believe (via the bible) in how it works.

Thus, when you say "humans don't breed apes" it as ridiculous as saying "Eskimos don't breed Japeths". The common ancestor is gone, and no one expects nor predicts that "breeding" will produce them.

Since you are incapable of understanding the basic principles of biology that ancestors have to be able to breed with their descendants, then there is no hope for you. You neglect to understand that the descendants of Noah were all human beings and not a different species. Therefore, their ancestors were all human beings and not lions, tigers, birds, fish, apes, or cats. But since you don't understand that, then conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

 

[ThinkerMan]

conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

The feelings are mutual...perhaps I am am just a masochist.

You repeatedly ignore my pleas that my analogy (that's all it is) has nothing to do with speciation. All I have asked is if you accept the analogous situation as a premise for further discussion. While you have intimated that you accept the premise, for some odd reason you utterly refuse to just come out and say it.

After a dozen-odd posts your evasiveness and defensiveness is more enlightening than one would imagine. I am not sure what you are afraid of, but it is likely because you don't want to give up your strawman theory of "ape breeding". Instead of asking me to clarify a premise or have a meaningful discussion of what I was stipulating, you simply attacked, moved the goal posts, and offered up strawman versions of my posts.

Oh well, at least its been interesting. Hopefully for some, at least. Have a good one Heidi.

 

[Quid]

Heidi, would you cite the biology text that says that?

Until then I'll safely assume you continue to make things up.

 

[jwu]

Since you are incapable of understanding the basic principles of biology that ancestors have to be able to breed with their descendants, then there is no hope for you.

That only holds true for a limited number of generations.

Let's say, 90% genetic similarity is required to successfully procreate. In reality the number is higher of course, but i don't want to use too many digits right of the point.

So generation A has offspring, generation B. B is only 98% similar to A. That's close enough to procreate with individuals of the parent generation.
Then generation C is born, with only 98% similarity to B, and 96% to A. Again, C is close enough to both to procreate with individuals of each generation.

Time passes...

We're at generation F now. It has 98% similarity to E. 96% to D. 94% to C. 92% to B, and 90% to A. So it still would be capable of breeding with all of them.

In the next generation things change though. Generation G will be 98% similar to F and be able to breed with them, up to the individuals of generation B. With generation A however there is only 88% similarity, and they would not be able to procreate with individuals of that generation.

Compared to that generation, speciation has occured - and at all times a generation was capable of interbreeding with its immediate ancestors and descendants.

Ah well...why do i even write this?

 

[Heidi]

conversing with you is a complete waste of time.

The feelings are mutual...perhaps I am am just a masochist.

You repeatedly ignore my pleas that my analogy (that's all it is) has nothing to do with speciation. All I have asked is if you accept the analogous situation as a premise for further discussion. While you have intimated that you accept the premise, for some odd reason you utterly refuse to just come out and say it.

After a dozen-odd posts your evasiveness and defensiveness is more enlightening than one would imagine. I am not sure what you are afraid of, but it is likely because you don't want to give up your strawman theory of "ape breeding". Instead of asking me to clarify a premise or have a meaningful discussion of what I was stipulating, you simply attacked, moved the goal posts, and offered up strawman versions of my posts.

Oh well, at least its been interesting. Hopefully for some, at least. Have a good one Heidi.

And how exactly, has a human come from an ape? :o Where did humans get the genes for cognition, spirituality, and the ability to form complex analyses, particularly when the animals who supposedly bred them still don't have these traits nor have they produced offspring who do have these traits since the beginnning of recorded history? :o

And assuming that animals can pass along genes they does not themselves possess to their offspring (which borders on the impossible), then where did that mutant find another mutant offspring who mutated in the exact same way he did so as to get together and breed more offspring who then mutated again!? This is what evolutionists want us to believe, all to pretend there is no God. So evolutionists have to prove that animals can produce human beings in the first place before they can even go on concocting macrorvolution and microevolutionary theories. And they have to prove it happens in reality, not just in the imagination.

 

[Heidi]

And how exactly, has a human come from an ape?

Heidi, would you cite the biology text that says that?

Until then I'll safely assume you continue to make things up.

And assuming that animals can pass along genes they does not themselves possess to their offspring (which borders on the impossible),

Hey Heidi, I know you must be slow, so here's the exact same link I posted before showing it's perfectly possible for gene to mutate, and even obtain new information.

And two creatures don't have to be completely identical to breed. However, after quite literally millions of years of evolution, the differences would be enough.

Sorry, but that link didn't explain where insertions came from nor did it say how animals can breed humans. It only talked about the characteristics already present in the DNA, and claimed that something is inserted into the DNA but didn't explain how they were inserted or where they came from. There is a reason that humans don't breed offspring with wings even though you are slow to grasp that. There is also a reason why most human offspring look like their parents and very few have completely opposite traits of their parents.

You also neglect to say why these "mutations" happened and how many of these mutations had to happen in order for subsequent ape offspring to turn into the human as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history, yet have not happened since men became men! Why did apes suddenly finish mutating? :o

 

[Quid]

Sorry, but that link didn't explain where insertions came from nor did it say how animals can breed humans.

You can find that by looking at the causes of mutation. As for how, given millions of years the animal slowly changes. And no, said creature wouldn't need to mate with another with the exact same mutations. Only one with similar DNA.

It only talked about the characteristics already present in the DNA, and claimed that something is inserted into the DNA but didn't explain how they were inserted or where they came from.

Again. That would be the causes section.

There is a reason that humans don't breed offspring with wings even though you are slow to grasp that.

Heidi, understand this and understand it well: Mutations are almost always small and/or insignificant. That's why it takes millions of years, not one birth. Please stop strawmanning the argument.

There is also a reason why most human offspring look like their parents and very few have completely opposite traits of their parents.

What's that reason?

You also neglect to say why these "mutations" happened and how many of these mutations had to happen in order for subsequent ape offspring to turn into the human as we have known them since the beginning of recorded history, yet have not happened since men became men!

You seem to think men have only existed since recorded history. Writing didn't appear. It was developed like any other tool. Sumeria didn't just happen one day.

Why did apes suddenly finish mutating? :o

They haven't. You'll notice that on average we're taller than past generations. And if you mean your ridiculous "Men sprout wings!" argument, I've already addressed it.

 

[Rick W]

lol

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean one came from the other. Heck, a screwdriver and a chisel look the same, are made of like material and in some cases used interchangeably. Sorting a toolbox by similar attributes doesn't mean one will come up with the oldest tool in the box.

And that's what evolution is, sorting out by what looks like the other and similarity in structure or composition. And if an age test doesn't give the required results the test is redone until it fits the accepted sort.

The mechanics of evolution may not be provable due to the supposed long timeframes involved so faith is needed to continue acceptance of the theory. Evolution is just as much a faith as any spiritual belief. And it takes faith based on assumption to be motivated to do any kind of research to support one's theory.

The sort for the evolution of horses is still shown as a simple chain in many textbooks today. Unfortunately there had been recent findings that show this is not the case making the "sort" a much more complex issue to continue the faith than depicted in outdated science textbooks used in schools today.

It's still my belief that as science gets closer to the truth we'll get closer to God. The idea of biblical creation isn't only in Genesis but also testified by Christ's creation of bread and fishes to feed the multitudes. Anyone at those events may also look upon a proffered serving of fish and by observation conclude the fish is at least a few month's old and not "made" minutes or hours before. Evolution disregards God's power of instantaneous creation, claims Christ's miracles as a lie and relies solely on the egotistical minds of men.

 

[Barbarian]

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean one came from the other.

No kidding. If all we had were similarities, it wouldn't be much good, would it? But that's not how it works. One also has to look at genetics, the existence of transitional organisms (and only between those lines predicted to have them), anatomical and embryological data, and observed speciations.

When you have that kind of evidence, it's compelling.

And that's what evolution is, sorting out by what looks like the other and similarity in structure or composition.

Nope. See above. All that, and a lot more. Sorting of fossils in the geologic column, vestigial organs, and a lot more.

And if an age test doesn't give the required results the test is redone until it fits the accepted sort.

Nope. You've been misled about that, too. Let's take a case:

You go to the doctor, (assuming you are a male) and he decides to have some tests run on you. One of them comes back indicating that you are pregnant. The doctor should:

A. Inform you that you are about to make medical history

B. Decide that all labwork is useless, because someone goofed on this one

C. Redo the test, because it was an obvious mistake.

Does that suggest to you what's wrong with your argument?

The mechanics of evolution may not be provable due to the supposed long timeframes involved so faith is needed to continue acceptance of the theory.

That's like saying mountains don't erode into hills, because no one has ever lived long enough to see one do it. No faith required, just evidence.

Evolution is just as much a faith as any spiritual belief.

It always astonishes me that people who are presumably believers use "faith" as a derogatory accusation. Faith is a very good thing. It just won't work for evolution. Scientists use facts to support evolution. No faith required.

And it takes faith based on assumption to be motivated to do any kind of research to support one's theory.

Nope. Just a sense of skepticism. Evern time evolution is tested by research, there's the understanding that if the theory is not supported, it will have to be modified or abandoned. So far, it's held up pretty well, although there have been numerous modifications to it since Darwin.

The sort for the evolution of horses is still shown as a simple chain in many textbooks today.

That's kind of surprising. I get to review science textbooks. To which textbook are you referring? I can't remember the last time I saw that one.
I'm very serious. I would like to know the name and the publisher. I'll write them a nasty note myself for you.

Unfortunately there had been recent findings that show this is not the case making the "sort" a much more complex issue to continue the faith than depicted in outdated science textbooks used in schools today.

If by "recent", you mean 60 years ago, yes.

It's still my belief that as science gets closer to the truth we'll get closer to God.

You can do that now, if you want. Science can't do it for you. But you can do it for yourself.

The idea of biblical creation isn't only in Genesis but also testified by Christ's creation of bread and fishes to feed the multitudes. Anyone at those events may also look upon a proffered serving of fish and by observation conclude the fish is at least a few month's old and not "made" minutes or hours before.

Do you think Jesus had to do that to feed people? He could have done it without anyone being the wiser. God doesn't do miracles because He has to; He does them to teach us something. The biblical version directly refutes the "ex nihilo" doctrine, since God says that he created life naturally.

Evolution disregards God's power of instantaneous creation,

Horsefeathers. It makes no statement at all about such things. It can't, being science.

claims Christ's miracles as a lie

That's a rather egregious falsehood. Evolutionary theory does no such thing.

and relies solely on the egotistical minds of men.

So does theology. But we sometimes find the truth anyway.

 

[Heidi]

Just because there are similarities doesn't mean one came from the other.

No kidding. If all we had were similarities, it wouldn't be much good, would it? But that's not how it works. One also has to look at genetics, the existence of transitional organisms (and only between those lines predicted to have them), anatomical and embryological data, and observed speciations.

When you have that kind of evidence, it's compelling.

[quote:6a048]And that's what evolution is, sorting out by what looks like the other and similarity in structure or composition.

Nope. See above. All that, and a lot more. Sorting of fossils in the geologic column, vestigial organs, and a lot more.

And if an age test doesn't give the required results the test is redone until it fits the accepted sort.

Nope. You've been misled about that, too. Let's take a case:

You go to the doctor, (assuming you are a male) and he decides to have some tests run on you. One of them comes back indicating that you are pregnant. The doctor should:

A. Inform you that you are about to make medical history

B. Decide that all labwork is useless, because someone goofed on this one

C. Redo the test, because it was an obvious mistake.

Does that suggest to you what's wrong with your argument?

The mechanics of evolution may not be provable due to the supposed long timeframes involved so faith is needed to continue acceptance of the theory.

That's like saying mountains don't erode into hills, because no one has ever lived long enough to see one do it. No faith required, just evidence.

Evolution is just as much a faith as any spiritual belief.

It always astonishes me that people who are presumably believers use "faith" as a derogatory accusation. Faith is a very good thing. It just won't work for evolution. Scientists use facts to support evolution. No faith required.

And it takes faith based on assumption to be motivated to do any kind of research to support one's theory.

Nope. Just a sense of skepticism. Evern time evolution is tested by research, there's the understanding that if the theory is not supported, it will have to be modified or abandoned. So far, it's held up pretty well, although there have been numerous modifications to it since Darwin.

The sort for the evolution of horses is still shown as a simple chain in many textbooks today.

That's kind of surprising. I get to review science textbooks. To which textbook are you referring? I can't remember the last time I saw that one.
I'm very serious. I would like to know the name and the publisher. I'll write them a nasty note myself for you.

Unfortunately there had been recent findings that show this is not the case making the "sort" a much more complex issue to continue the faith than depicted in outdated science textbooks used in schools today.

If by "recent", you mean 60 years ago, yes.

It's still my belief that as science gets closer to the truth we'll get closer to God.

You can do that now, if you want. Science can't do it for you. But you can do it for yourself.

The idea of biblical creation isn't only in Genesis but also testified by Christ's creation of bread and fishes to feed the multitudes. Anyone at those events may also look upon a proffered serving of fish and by observation conclude the fish is at least a few month's old and not "made" minutes or hours before.

Do you think Jesus had to do that to feed people? He could have done it without anyone being the wiser. God doesn't do miracles because He has to; He does them to teach us something. The biblical version directly refutes the "ex nihilo" doctrine, since God says that he created life naturally.

Evolution disregards God's power of instantaneous creation,

Horsefeathers. It makes no statement at all about such things. It can't, being science.

claims Christ's miracles as a lie

That's a rather egregious falsehood. Evolutionary theory does no such thing.

and relies solely on the egotistical minds of men.

So does theology. But we sometimes find the truth anyway.[/quote:6a048]

Do you not know that God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Word are all one? If not, then read John 1:1-3,

"And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." And since the Jesus is the Word, then he says God created man out of dust, not from apes. He also says that man was the only creature in whom God breathed life. God did not do that to the animals. That alone separates man from the animals. And evolution clearly disagrees with that. So your attempts to disagree with that simply because you say so with zero explanation is hogwash. Sorry.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you not know that God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Word are all one?

I'm sorry, Christ is God. And the Bible is not. Worship only the Trinity, not idols made by men.

 

[Heidi]

Do you not know that God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Word are all one?

I'm sorry, Christ is God. And the Bible is not. Worship only the Trinity, not idols made by men.

Sorry, but I believe the bible over you any day. If you disagree with the bible, then you're going to be wrong, friend. It's that simple.

 

[Heidi]

The fact of the matter is that primates and humans cannot interbreed and therefore each breeds separate offspring. To suggest that they can intermingle which is exactly what evolutionists are saying when they say we descended from primates, is call bestiality. That is the only way that humans can descend from primates because sex is what propgates these species. Yet this perversion is what evolutionists want to teach our children. It is ont only an abomnation, but again, an embarrassment to mankind. It proves all the more that we are in a state of decay rather than superior to those who lived before us.

 

[cubedbee]

The fact of the matter is that primates and humans cannot interbreed and therefore each breeds separate offspring.

Humans are primate Heidi.

To suggest that they can intermingle which is exactly what evolutionists are saying when they say we descended from primates, is call bestiality.

Heidi, a primate is an order of animals. An order of animals cannot "intermingle". Homo sapiens (humans) are a species of animal--species interbreed. Our species is homo sapiens, our order is primate. We can interbreed with other homo sapiens, but not with non-human primates. Pick up a 3rd grade science book and you can learn this stuff too.

That is the only way that humans can descend from primates because sex is what propgates these species.

Heidi, bestiality is no part of evolution. Populations, not individuals, evolve.

Yet this perversion is what evolutionists want to teach our children. It is ont only an abomnation, but again, an embarrassment to mankind.

It's an embarrassment to spread such filthy nonsensical slurs.