Creationist questions evolution

[Write4U]

You won't get away that easily. Your cut and paste pictures prove nothing and it is bad form to assume I didn't know anything about evolution, in truth I've probably read more books on it than you.

At least I don't cut and paste from the creationist museum. I'd hate to become the laughing stock on this forum.

My links are to respectable scientific institutions. Your problem is that I am able to think and that scares you.

 

[davewhite04]

At least I don't cut and paste from the creationist museum. I'd hate to become the laughing stock on this forum.

My links are to respectable scientific institutions. Your problem is that I am able to think and that scares you.

No. What posts were you referring to in your last post before this one.

 

[Write4U]

You won't get away that easily. Your cut and paste pictures prove nothing and it is bad form to assume I didn't know anything about evolution, in truth I've probably read more books on it then you.

How could you? You're blind to truth.

 

[Write4U]

No. What posts were you referring to in your last post before this one.

Figure it out. This is a test in logic!

 

[davewhite04]

Figure it out. This is a test in logic!

Well it wasn't me.

 

[Write4U]

You're sure?......

 

[Write4U]

You won't get away that easily. Your cut and paste pictures prove nothing and it is bad form to assume I didn't know anything about evolution, in truth I've probably read more books on it then you.

When?

Triceratops is a genus of herbivorous ceratopsid dinosaur that first appeared during the late Maastrichtian stage of the late Cretaceous period, about 68 million years ago (mya) in what is now North America. It is one of the last known non-avian dinosaur genera, and became extinct in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triceratops

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event

A wide range of species perished in the K–Pg extinction, the best-known being the non-avian dinosaurs. It also destroyed a plethora of other terrestrial organisms, including certain mammals, pterosaurs, birds,[15] lizards,[16] insects,[17][18] and plants.[19] In the oceans, the K–Pg extinction killed off plesiosaurs and the giant marine lizards (Mosasauridae) and devastated fish,[20]sharks, mollusks (especially ammonites, which became extinct), and many species of plankton.

It is estimated that 75% or more of all species on Earth vanished.[21] Yet the extinction also provided evolutionary opportunities: in its wake, many groups underwent remarkable adaptive radiation—sudden and prolific divergence into new forms and species within the disrupted and emptied ecological niches. Mammals in particular diversified in the Paleogene,[22] evolving new forms such as horses, whales, bats, and primates. Birds,[23] fish,[24] and perhaps lizards[16] also radiated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event

 

[davewhite04]

You're sure?......

you were talking about someone t

He is rejecting the notion that we belong to the family Hominidae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

In his world there are only monkeys and humans.

This post, are you being serious?

 

[Write4U]

you were talking about someone t
This post, are you being serious?

Do tell!

 

[davewhite04]

Do tell!

Mis- quoting me is a mistake.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

He is rejecting the notion that we belong to the family Hominidae.

Hi Alex Hominidae here pleased to meet you☺

But one cant reject that we come from a common ancestor shared with apes.


That would be ignoring the science in favour of some crazy notion that some eternal creator popped out of eternity just to creat a universe for humans. ..no...no one really believes in creation they just say that to fit in at church and so they get to meet girls who will believe anything☺
What is amazing is the dna we share with chimps...what is that 80%

And you just look at the way they look with their human expression...or are we using ape expression?

We are so much alike its hard to tell the difference.

And look at how creationists slightly altered that photo of Dawin to make him look more ape like...if that is not proof that apes and humans are not related I dont know what more they need.

And that "monkey see monkey do thing" isnt that just so human...One human gets body piercing and many follow...its so cute.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

OK you two quit the poo throwing... so ape like
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Mis- quoting me is a mistake.

I was not quoting you.
I was accusing you because you declared that you question the concept of evolution. Your post #359
If you doubt evolution you must be a creationist, apes were created ape and humans were created human.
And then you are just plain wrong.

What is amazing is the dna we share with chimps...what is that 80%

Not even close.

A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between
humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/chimps-humans-96-percent-the-same-gene-study-finds/

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Not even close. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/chimps-humans-96-percent-the-same-gene-study-finds/

Wow that close. No it cant be that close...who would have thought 96%...Hey Jan what do you think of that...isnt that neat...you are that close to a chimp.

I had suspected I may be way short☺

And to find that we are closer to chimps than mice are to rats is just amazing....

How can these creationists just ignore these facts.

They must have some sort of mental problem ... have you heard of domestic blindness which refers to not seeing something that is right in front of you...they must have a problem like that... they cant see or accept something if it threatens what they have been brainwashed to believe.

I wonder how far we need to go back to have a common ancestor with mice or rats....6000 years 5000 years☺ ... How silly of me ... where did I get those times from...well you can see the problem for the creationist...they must understand the process of Evolution over a long periods of time but then they have the problem that they only have 6000 years in which to fit evolutionary change.. ..not enough time...they would see that no doubt.

I can see how they are screwed...to admit evolution means their Earth needs to be much older than their book allows...6000 years means no matter how reasonable evolution seems to them...and it must seem reasonable to anyone really...they only have 6000 years to work with...clearly evolution needs more time. .time their good book does not allow...talk about being between a rock and a hard place.


Thats why they must reject the truth....the poor devils forced to lie to themselves and worse to lie to their children because the bible tells them the Earth is only 6000 years old....but give them credit they have fitted the flood in and still able to repopulate the world.

..maybe Noah was the common ancestor for humans and apes...that could work...well of course it could work and think of the extra room in the ark that would give us.

Anyways its clear that the creationists realise they have lost big time in this thread because they have all gone silent....

96% you say?

How can folk not embrace the science...how neat being so closely related to apes...should send some xmas presents to the zoo next year.

Alex

 

[Sarkus]

Wow that close. No it cant be that close...who would have thought 96%...Hey Jan what do you think of that...isnt that neat...you are that close to a chimp.

I had suspected I may be way short☺

And to find that we are closer to chimps than mice are to rats is just amazing....

How can these creationists just ignore these facts.

Beware of such numbers, though. It turns out that while we might share 96% of genes with chimpanzees, we share 99% with mice.
However, it would seem most of this is junk or unused genetic material, and the amount of "working DNA" we share with chimps is 98.5% and with mice it's only 97.5%.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-2-5-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men/

So beware placing much reliance on the high number between chimps and humans, without placing it in context.
As to the high percentage we share with other animals, a creationist might imagine that every animal has pretty much the same genetic material, and the main difference is one small piece of code that effectively says which genes to switch on or off. From a production point of view it might be quicker and easier to do this than to have separate lines building entirely separate entities.

 

[Write4U]

Beware of such numbers, though. It turns out that while we might share 96% of genes with chimpanzees, we share 99% with mice.
However, it would seem most of this is junk or unused genetic material, and the amount of "working DNA" we share with chimps is 98.5% and with mice it's only 97.5%.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-2-5-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men/

So beware placing much reliance on the high number between chimps and humans, without placing it in context.
As to the high percentage we share with other animals, a creationist might imagine that every animal has pretty much the same genetic material, and the main difference is one small piece of code that effectively says which genes to switch on or off. From a production point of view it might be quicker and easier to do this than to have separate lines building entirely separate entities.

And supports evolution from a single source ( common ancestor)

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love it when knuckle-draggers come on the Internet and dis science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And you are not up to date...I am neither a theist nor atheist but an eternalist (one who knows the universe is infinite and eternal requiring no creation or creator) and once one accepts the universe is eternal the need for the terms theist and atheist disappear...this is the ultimate understanding one must embrace to experience enlightement.

Sounds like you’re making stuff up, and then

The eternal universe costs no money Jan... unlike any religion you may care to name....not that it is a religion...it is just the understanding of the truth.

LOL!!!
You instinctively know you are either tagging on to a religion, or forming a new one.

Just think in your own case how much cash you have lost giving it to a phoney religion.

What are you talking about Alex?
Are you proclaiming your religion to be the one true religion?

However...I now think the NT should be thrown out

As you are an explicit, religious, atheist, I would be rather surprised if you didn’t.

Happy new year Jan may your resolutions be positive and productive.

And the same to you Alex.
Keep producing those beautiful photos.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I love it when knuckle-draggers come on the Internet and dis science.

Is it some kind of fetish?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why are you so desperate to include theism in science? Are you afraid of the last remaining god being left behind in the dust of scientific advances?

???
How does this response relate to the quote you posted, or to anything I’ve ever said on these forums.

I understand you have an unorthodox viewpoint even for a theist, but until you can explain your perspective of God to others, you can never expect agreement. At least not from independent thinkers.

Can you point to the unorthodox viewpoint?
As far as I am aware, theists don’t find my theism, unorthodox.

Jan.