This is evil. What's evil about it, is that you could be appreciating and nurturing humanity, but you aren't. You are saying humanity is a cheap, fickle thing, that God cared about by accident.
Linking a Man to an animal, is a sin - how much a slave to "linking with an animal" are Evolutionists (if sinning makes you a slave)?
- Thread starter Gottservant
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This is evil. What's evil about it, is that you could be appreciating and nurturing humanity, but you aren't. You are saying humanity is a cheap, fickle thing, that God cared about by accident.
Barb said "Before I retired, I taught scientific procedure to undergraduates."Darwin never used the term. He merely showed how new species evolve. In fact, Darwin used "descent with modification", not "evolution." He used the word "evolution" once in his book, a the very last sentence.
Neither did Darwin, who suggested that God might have created any number of original species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, Last Sentence of On the Origin of Species
Not sure if he does. But other IDers like Denton and Behe do. Because the evidence is impossible to deny.
You've been misled about that. There are dozens of important ones:
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's wrong, too. As you see above, Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. Evolution is not about how life began; it's about how living populations change over time.
No. He merely predicted that as new fossils were discovered, they would confirm his theory. And even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that this prediction was confirmed by new fossils:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
(It's a creationist journal, BTW)
People who don't understand science, sometimes believe things like that. It's a source of considerable confusion. One doesn't "believe in" science; one accepts or rejects it on the evidence.
Science never proves anything. It merely gains more and more confidence as evidence accumulates. Perhaps you've heard of genetic algorithms. Engineers have learned to copy evolutionary processes to solve engineering problems too complex to be solved by design.
Turns out, God knows best, after all.
You were misled about that,too. We have a large number of animal fossils that predate the Cambrian in the Ediacaran formation and other Precambrian fossil beds:
Ediacara fauna | Definition, Biota, and Facts | Britannica
Ediacara fauna, unique assemblage of soft-bodied organisms preserved worldwide as fossil impressions in sandstone from the Ediacaran Period (approximately 635 million to 541 million years ago). Some scientists have suggested that the Ediacara fauna were the first metazoans.www.britannica.com
Before I retired, I taught scientific procedure to undergraduates.
Even Darwin attributed creation to God. And of course, nothing in the Bible rejects the observed fact of evolution. We see it happening all around us. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. It is not about the origin of life, or even about universal common descent. What do you think the scientific definition of biological evolution is?
Dr Georgia Purdom PhD molecular genetics
4 minute watch.
Mitichondrial Eve 6000 years ago based on 1 in 800 year mutation rate.
Barb said >> ""Yes, we are apes.""
Somebody forgot to tell her :- :)
Dr Georgia Purdom PhD molecular genetics
4 minute watch.
Mitichondrial Eve 6000 years ago based on 1 in 800 year mutation rate.
Last edited:
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
Your correct. The theory of evolution is a lie and we know that Satan is the father of lies. It was invented by God hating atheists to draw people away from God and its worked. It is taught to children all around the world and has pulled many people away from God and continues to do so
Taken
Well-Known Member
Taken
Well-Known Member
Apes have offsprings…
Humans have offsprings…
Where are there ANY…human-ape offsprings?
Please advise, I have some tree-tops that need trimming.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
@The Barbarian
The theory of evolution has always ridden on the back of fraudulent data. Especially the claim that humans evolved from chimps
1- First it was the piltdown man. A hoax that fooled people for over 40 years. The following is pasted from a source.
The following videos explains the piltdown man hoax in under 1 minute
The finding of this hoax should of been the end of the theory of evolution but yet they continued with the lies.
2- Now the fraud is Lucy. A clay sculpture created from only 40% of a skeleton without a skull or feet bones which are very important to identifying a human. The bones were found scattered on a hillside, not found as one skeleton. The following is pasted from a source.
So the fact that these bones were found scattered means that it is only an assumption that they are from one skeleton in the first place
3- Furthermore the hips were found to be that of a chimp and was manipulated to make it appear like human hips. This is hoax. A scam
This 3 minute video explains the modification of the hips
This is not called science. This is called manipulation, fakery and fraudulent
The theory of evolution has always ridden on the back of fraudulent data. Especially the claim that humans evolved from chimps
1- First it was the piltdown man. A hoax that fooled people for over 40 years. The following is pasted from a source.
The following videos explains the piltdown man hoax in under 1 minute
The finding of this hoax should of been the end of the theory of evolution but yet they continued with the lies.
2- Now the fraud is Lucy. A clay sculpture created from only 40% of a skeleton without a skull or feet bones which are very important to identifying a human. The bones were found scattered on a hillside, not found as one skeleton. The following is pasted from a source.
So the fact that these bones were found scattered means that it is only an assumption that they are from one skeleton in the first place
3- Furthermore the hips were found to be that of a chimp and was manipulated to make it appear like human hips. This is hoax. A scam
This 3 minute video explains the modification of the hips
This is not called science. This is called manipulation, fakery and fraudulent
Attachments
Last edited:
The Barbarian
Active Member
My first class in evolution was taught by a professor who was on the vestry board of his local church. I can see you have very strong feelings about the issue, but it would benefit you to learn what evolution actually is (and just as important what it is not). What do you think is the definition of biological evolution?
Creationists like Ken Ham "I am willing to divide the church over this." Make a huge mistake and are defying God's word.
Paul specifically warned us against that kind of thinking. Yes, Jesus said he came to bring division. He is God. That was His mission. It is not our mission to divide His people.
I have seen many young Christians have crises of faith, when foolish people have assured them things were the word of God and they later found that those things could not be true. This is the real damage some YECs do to His church. Creationists are no less Christian than the rest of us. God doesn't care what one thinks of the way he created living things, unless one makes an idol of his beliefs, and insists that other Christians must believe it.
Avoid that; it is not the path to salvation.
The Barbarian
Active Member
That's like asking if there are any leopard-cat offspring? Leopards are cats. We are apes. Genetically and anatomically, we are apes. Our bodies are not what make us beloved of God. Read Genesis 2 to learn more about that.
The Barbarian
Active Member
No one made that claim. Chimps are too highly evolved in their own way to be the ancestors of humans. And I see you repeated stories debunked earlier in this thread. Larger font won't make them more credible. As Sen. Everett Dirkson observed, most people are down on things they aren't up on. Maybe you should do a little research and learn about some of this.
The Barbarian
Active Member
"Mitochondrial eve" is said to be the last common woman ancestor for all people living to day. She was not the Eve mentioned in Genesis. She lived about 200,000 years ago, from the genetic data. Here's an accurate, but not too technical discussion:
Who was Mitochondrial Eve? And No, She’s Not Lucy — HUMANIZING HISTORY
Who was Mitochondrial Eve? How is she a "common mother" to us all?
www.humanizinghistory.org
People were building structures in Jericho about 12,000 years ago.
The Ancient City of Jericho: History and Major Facts - World History Edu
Jericho, one of the world’s oldest inhabited cities, holds a significant place in the annals of human history. Its antiquity, coupled with its notable mentions in religious texts and its...
worldhistoryedu.com
There is also a "Y-chromosome Adam", who lived at a different time. He isn't the Adam of Genesis, either. He's just the last common male ancestor of all humans living today.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Taken
Well-Known Member
Be honest and speak for YOUR SELF…and Not others…
Share your own experience of BEING an APE and your APE family….
Unlike YOU, I am a Man-KIND of being…and as God Taught His creations reproduce their SAME KIND of off-springs.
So? No one said that, for you to make-up a defense.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
I believe evolution occurs. Small differences within animal species like the finches and their beaks observed by Darwin. But the theory of evolution assumes a lot more. It assumes that all of life comes from a common ancestor, a single cell. It claims that animal types evolved onto other animal types. For example fish into mammals and reptiles into birds and so on. There is no evidence for that, only assumptions.
Yes they do make that claim. What's Lucy? Its supposed to be a transitional fossil. Transitioning from what? From some kind of ape or monkey.
We see evolution drawings of a chimp first and a human last and three transitions in between. So yes they certainly do say that humans evolved from some kind of monkeys or chimps or apes.
And no you haven't debunked anything, you've just presented the lies of the theory of evolution. Lies that im familiar with
On the other hand I have comprehensively refuted the piltdown man and Lucy in a thread, showing them both to be fraudulent. I pasted in quotes from sources and short videos and you have failed to respond to them. Why? Because you have nothing. Your whole belief is based on hoaxes
Last edited:
I'm not a young-earth creationist, but I'm always dubious of these dating schemes, which are no doubt intended to support the theory of evolution. Determining when Mitochondrial Eve lived seems dependent on the rate of mutations. It assumes the rate of mutations has been constant throughout the generations, which we don't know is true. It assumes the length of a generation has been constant, which, according to the Bible, it hasn't. They use radiocarbon dating of fossils to help calibrate a starting point for the molecular clock. Radiocarbon dating assumes the rate of decay has always been constant, which again, we don't know is true. What we do know is things like volcanic eruptions can skew radiocarbon results. The point being, it's based on a lot of assumptions, and we have no way to verify those dates. Recorded history only goes back about 5,000 years, the bulk of it being in the past 3,000 years or so. We have to ask ourselves, did it really take nearly 200,000 years just to invent a writing system, or is humanity much younger than what science has proposed? I am willing to concede that humanity is older than 6,000 years but not the millions of years according to science, which is heavily biased toward evolution.
The Barbarian
Active Member
It was originally discovered by accident. Physicist Ernest Rutherford in 1905. Because fossils are almost always found in sedimentary rock, it wasn't applied to biology until much later.
Biochemistry indicates so. Even if it varied, it wouldn't give a time less than 100,000 years.
The Bible says for ordinary humans, a lifetime is three score and 10. Men may have prolonged the lives of specific people, but that's a different issue.
No. Radiocarbon dating is too short for fossils, which are generally much older.
No. The main issue in radiocarbon dating (which again, is generally not used for fossils) is any variations in cosmic rays, which produce C14 from nitrogen. This is why lake varves are so valuable; they can more accurately calibrate the C14 clock.
About 6,000 years, last time I checked.
Or the wheel, or many other things. Yes, that's what the evidence shows.
Antomically modern humans are maybe 300,000 years old (the earliest known examples).
We really don't know what kind of human Adam and Eve were. If it was H. erectus instead of H. sapiens, would it matter?
The Barbarian
Active Member
No. Darwin himself suggested that God might have just created any number of original living things. It was in the last sentence of On the Origin of Species. It was a finding of genetics, not evolutionary theory. The existence of transitional fossils between major groups of animals has been cited by YE creationist Kurt Wise as a problem to be resolved in any young earth theory, but that evidence wasn't even known in Darwin's time.
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
So your saying that humans didn't evolve from a common ape ancestor?
Because that's exclactly what the theory of evolution says. Google tells us
humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. This ancestor's lineage split into separate branches, evolving differently to become modern humans
Thats what they claim Lucy to be, a transitional species between a common ape ancestor and humans. I think your just trying to be technical and avoiding the topic.
From my understanding Darwin himself didn't invent the theory of evolution. I dont think he said that all living organisms evolved from one cell or that humans evolved from a common ape ancestor. Maybe he suggested it. Instead his book the origin of species is what scientists later used to invent the theory of evolution.
Also I'm not arguing young earth theory. Your getting mixed up with someone else. I'm specifically arguing against the theory of evolution that says all life evolved from a common ancestor, a single cell, and that humans evolved from a common ape ancestor
Again you haven't responded to the post where I refute piltdown man and Lucy and expose them as a fraudulent hoax
Last edited:
If you believe the biblical account, ordinary humans had much longer life spans pre-flood. Earth conditions appeared to be much different, which contributed to their longer life spans. That's what they're missing; such a cataclysmic event would skew data across the board, making accurately dating impossible.
Not really. Even the oldest man-made structures still standing are not that old, around 12,000 years at best. In Mesopotamia, civilization advanced quite rapidly, showing you don't need hundreds of thousands of years to progress. Even thousands of years ago, they were moving massive stones around that would be difficult even with modern equipment.
The Barbarian
Active Member
Can you site a verse?
Even in Genesis:
Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
Which is the limit we see today.
Cultural take-off. For example, writing became necessary when groups started trading with each other. The first writing is basically to keep track of goods.
Similar threads
