Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Bandit]

Hi Bandit, thanks for the reply. Yes I agree with all you have to say. I'm very curious although if you are a memeber of Calvary Chapel, obviously because of your quote. I'm hope that I'm not prying too much, I'm just wondering because I have a few friends that are Calvary members, actually one is my cloest friend.

My home church & where I grew up is Apostolic Temple in northern Indiana. It is non denominational, free standing, free thinking & I think God broke the mold after He established it. I have heard of Calvary Chapel & I think that is a non-dom ‘chain like’ body & I know of one called Calvary Temple.

You seem unbelieveably educated on your points that you make and it is exceptionally hard to find anyone who is truly educated and actually knows what they are debating about.

LOL. I am a dummy scientist. I am sure I don’t know any more about it all than you do. I do keep up with the theories, new findings & pay close attention as new science emerge. Like the humerus they found in Pennsylvania awhile back. Claiming it bridges the gap between fish fins and arms 350 million years ago. I found that interesting but still, NO DICE...

There is still that fine print at the bottom of the contract. <wink wink>

There are a couple of Christians here that you will enjoy talking to, who have hands on experience like you do. (Lunamoth & Juantoo3) I think their views are a little different than mine, but close to the same. I tend to see things more the way you do & a similiar way Quahom does. We are all still learning about it.

I have no wish to debate you, rather I really want to know were you stand on evolution and creationism.

I don’t debate it either because I don’t have an absolute answer except for my own bias.

I try to stay in the middle with just about everything, with the bible in my heart. One thing for sure, God made it all. I usually join these threads to tease with people but you have presented a different approach that I like. Micro evolution, natural selection & mutation is just common sense. Anyone can see that. Humans evolving from tails & fins is myth. The dinosaur theories are loaded with myth. Yet we know they lived.

To preface you on my attitudes, so that this isn't a one way street, I have NO NO NO idea and there is no answer. Instead I love to make the best educated arguement.

Your approach is like mine. I know there is an answer, but if we knew how to ‘create’ a new life or species from nothing, then we would be God. I am not sure He wants us to know everything because humans can be dangerous. Honestly, I think a lot of science & technology is present today on purpose as part of Gods plan to help. Yet the flip side will bring doubt, imagination & it will persuade some to lose faith through pressure & false theories.

I was raised Catholic and I was striving to be a BioChemist, but recently gave that up for Neuro-Psychology. I have quite the background in science and religion, being my minor was theology.

Best wishes with all your studies & school and mostly in your studies in the Bible. I gave up college after two years, I did not have the discipline then. So you are way ahead of me on that. I think you will make a fine Neuro Psychologist with all that background.

Where do you stand on the fossil record proving evolution (it really doesn't but...) over religion? What do you think of Cladistics as a tool of proof and do you think there are too many gaps? If you do believe that it is all fallacious do you think that you can believe in evolution and be a devote Christian?

Ok. I don’t think it is ‘all’ fallacious. I don’t support any of the ladder or tree hypothesis as far as NEW blood species evolving from old ones. I find those ideas flawed & it does not take knowledge in the bible to see that. Humans beget humans. Horses beget horses. Spirit begets spirit. The fossil records show there was ‘something’ before humans but I don’t think it is connected to homosapien. The fossil records prove creation, not macro evolution. I also think God has it so complex on purpose that many will play their cards all wrong thinking he can outsmart God.



Like you say, too many gaps and a lot of dead ends. IMO, They are going too far back into time & the theories are mixed up because of that. I think Adam came after (Cromag/Neandrathal) & don’t feel the bible gives enough to account for them absolutely though I see where the dinosaurs are accounted for in Genises. I think they are a separate prehistoric issue from the account given of man in Genises & that is why the dots will not connect.

I don’t take the creation days as literal days & stand open to age of the earth.

Some see two different creations of man at two different times. That is a possibility, but Adam is still the man God was waiting for. IMO, modern humans all came from Adam and all the fossil records of other species have nothing to do with it.

I don’t know how God started making Adam or how long it took. But I do believe this, God loved Adam from start to finish. Even after he was asked to leave the garden that God had made for him, I believe God still continued loving him & Adam still loved God. I do not believe Adam is just a simple metaphor.



Evolution has the woman coming first in some theory & we know God made a man first. Then out of that man He made a woman. From his seed we see micro evolution through offspring. Eve was flesh of his flesh, not a daughter. So to answer that simply, I think the evolutionist is barking up the wrong tree with a lot of those theories. Yes I do believe you can believe in a different theory & still be a true Christian. I have a few beliefs myself that some Christians just cannot understand. The death burial & resurrection is where we put our faith & through obedience to the Word we are promised eternal life. However, I see too many things in the bible that completely contradict Darwin. Reality contradicts Darwins main objective.

After all, Darwins finches are still finches. Right?

I believe the Bible is the true source of all His wisdom, all His might & all His glory in all things for us on earth. Including Science.



I know when I see a possibility, but I also question when something is not adding up.

(see part 2)

 

[Bandit]

(part 2)

Three questions for you Andrea.
1) There is a real good streaming video online called ‘A question of Origins’. It really put a lot of this into perspective for me. If you are on satellite & have about 30 minutes in the future, I think you would really enjoy it. The video does not really tell us anything that we dont already know, but presents the facts of science along with creation & the bible in a very meaningful presentation.

Let me know & I will pass the link if you are interested.


2) Do you consider the way the body decomposes a type of macro evolution? I find the end of things just as fascinating. Not morbidly, rather the energy & life that continues upon death but in a downward spiral.

3) So Andrea. Take five, relax & think slowly, ‘Forever, and Forever’. What is, forever and forever.?.

And tell me what you think may have happened in all of this from your studies.

 

[Bandit]

HI Bandit, thanks for the reply, no we aren't far off by any means and I dont get why people can't fit evolution into the JUdic-Christian Bible. Nothing, NOthing, NOthing has refuted creationism. You are right on Cladistics, Bandit, Cladistics is hard for the professionals within the field itself to get. It took me years to be able to work within it because of the complexities. IT's kinda like a step up form phylogenic trees.

then I would say Cladistics is the best way to go if they want to grasp more of it because it compares apples with apples & the varieties within. (& this is what the bible teaches us to do in the first place) it will probably take 10 years just to do one species. (not sure)
Where macro tries to compare bananas with apples. All fruit is not the same. All flesh is not the same. I think more people will catch on, it just takes time to get the old way of thinking out of the air. I think some evolutionists have admitted the old way they thought things happened cannot be proven.

Bandit, I don't know if already know about Quantum Mechanics, moreover Bell's Theorem, but I will assume you don't and make my point, so if you already know this please let me know. If you want some great arguments for science opening its doors to divinity, photonic behavior is truly perplexing. "State Vector Collapse" is a problem within physics, ephatically in quantum mechanics. This measurement issue is completely blowing all that we know about the physical world of physics to bits. NOt macroscopically speaking, but microspocially speaking. I'll tell you more if interested. This is a long and indepth conversation so I'll wait. See my thread "Zen and Quantum Mechanics Meet" in the Buddhism forum.

i cannot find the thread you are speaking of in the Buddha forum. So if you show I will go there.
When a science requires a lot of math equations I start to get lost real fast. The terms & defintions I can pick up real quick on.
I know science is opening the doors to God. In fact we are staring Him right in the face & seeing through the veil (so to speak).
If we want to know, then we are going to have to figure out how atoms stick together still. Dont you think?
maybe that is right where God meets the physical world? yet still on the outside for those who do not acknowledge Him.

Astral is another direction they want to go. That one kind of bothers me because I cannot tell what there total objective is yet.
I think God will allow it for some.

It has been a nice discussion Andre. Lets see where we go from here.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Since this subject has been covered before at length, I thought I would put up a link to the other thread. It is long, but a lot of the stuff covered here is already gone over there. Like the fact that evolutionary theory does not refute creation, and that evolutionary theory as is commonly understood has complications that are not readily explained, particularly concerning "speciation."

For those genuinely interested look here:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=877&page=1&pp=15

 

[Bandit]

Kindest Regards, all!

Since this subject has been covered before at length, I thought I would put up a link to the other thread. It is long, but a lot of the stuff covered here is already gone over there. Like the fact that evolutionary theory does not refute creation, and that evolutionary theory as is commonly understood has complications that are not readily explained, particularly concerning "speciation."

For those genuinely interested look here:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=877&page=1&pp=15

Juan, are you seeing one tree for many species? or many trees, like one tree for each specie? or something different.
the other thread seemed like everyone was seeing each branch of a tree as a different specie.


I know there is isolation & new habitat but not sure what the other theories are about.

 

[E99]

Silverback

Sorry about the late reply. I have been away.

You said QUOTE......

"E99, it maybe seems like a great explanation but look at the creation myths of the Native Americans, Native Africans, Norse Creation Myth, ect. ect. It doesn't seem like such a big story when you look at the broader picture".
​

....If the Genesis account was a story, but it isn't. Its up to you if you wish to believe that it is Thor the God of thunder wielding his mighty hammer in the halls of Valhalla that makes the noise of thunder claps in the heavens above, or another creation account from the Chinese folk ...the formation of the earth......"that Chaos was like a hen’s egg. Neither Heaven nor Earth existed. From the egg Pan-ku was born, while of its heavy elements Earth was made and Sky from the light elements. Pan-ku is represented as a dwarf, clad in a bearskin or a cloak of leaves. For 18,000 years the distance between Earth and Sky grew daily by ten feet, and Pan-ku grew at the same rate so that his body filled the gap. When he died, different parts of his body became various natural elements. . . . His body fleas became the human race."
....Close to commonsense and science ?

The fact is, the Genesis account fits in with scientific knowledge that we know today, and the other creation accounts held by peoples of the world derived from the original one found in the bible. The source of the varied creation accounts came from ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia where all civilisation spread from. These ancient peoples were descendants of the pre-flood civilisations that had carried the 'story' of the true creation account with them. When they spread outwards, after God confused their languages, the account was taken with them. Throughout time the creation account of these various races that had dispersed from Babylon became more and more distorted, but the theme remained the same.


Your QUOTE.....

"Exactly what do you mean by there is not enough time for evolution? The universe is around 15 billion years old! Evolutionists are not the ones who made this number, cosmologists did! 6,000 years is just too impossible, heck most civilizations date back further! Hinduism is about 6,000 year old, much older than Judaism".


I didn't say that the universe or earth was 6000 years old ! I wasn't backing up the YEC (young earth creationist) idea of 6000 years existance of everything. I was talking about arguments that raise the debatable concept of the Hebrew word Yohm translated as our word day....24 hours, or an unspecified period of time.

You are confusing the time requirements of biological evolution and cosmological development. Biological evolution hasn't had 15 billion years to develop to the state its in today. This has only had 3.8 billion years from the development of the first pro-karyote cells (That mysteriously appeared from nowhere) to spin into action.

These pre-cursors of life weren't developed from a universe filled with the pre-biotic soup, because even that situation would not give enough probability factors to give even a glimmer of hope to develop even the very most simplest self replicating enzyme. Instead the precursors of life are said to have developed from a tiny area of space....on our earth, a speck in comparison to our universe billions of light years across.

This infinitely complex formation was said to have happened within a few hundred years under incredibly specific conditions. The start of life within a tiny window of opportunity.
Non theist evolutionists have a tendency to give a misconception about the time involved for the near impossible to happen. Giving expanded lengths of time makes it seem more possible that life formed from inaminate molecules, a reasoning given to those that they want to promote their 'religion' to.

If Hinduism is about 6000 years old its not quite as old as the scriptures that can be dated chronologically back 6030 years ! What tangible accurate dating system have you got that states hinduism is 6000 years old ?

However, I have no faith in the way current archaeology and historians date the histories of races and religions. Most of the dating of ancient history is based on the Egyptian kings lists and sothic dating, which is completely screwed up. This dating method is known as the current consensus chronology, which most archaeologists and historians have an agreement upon. They are happy with their lopsided dating methods because they think that dating events by seeds found in a layers of soil, usage of bizarre kings lists, and the highly fallible carbon dating etc. prove the bible wrong. Most of the proponents are atheists. They avoid the accurate chronology in the bible in favour of dubious dating methods.

Your QUOTE......

"I have heard that the words used to describe day could mean era, but then why did God use day and night? That clearly shows it cannot be eras! Unless the days and nights are much longer, this is a possibility.The world however cannot be 6,000 years old, that is far too young for our universe. Evolutionists, Cosmologists, Zoologists and even Historians would strongly disagree with you. If Genesis has any validity, then it must be a metaphor more than anything


As above, it is debatable regarding the Hebrew term Yohm (days) as 24 hour periods or unspecified periods of time. The proponents of YEC get the 24 hours from, is as you rightfully say, based on the Genesis phrase evening and morning of each day. This idea however is contested because there is a creation period prior to the first day..."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"....Then God said let light come to be, which the YEC claim to illustrate the formation of the first day period and therefore each consequetive day thereafter. This however does not give a 24 hour period for the creation in Genesis 1:1.


Following that, each 'day' reads as... There came to be evening and there came to be morning a ...'first up to a sixth' day. However, there is not an evening and morning 24 hour period for the seventh day where the same word Yohm is used. This points to the common belief that the Hebrew term Yohm is an unspecified period of time and can be applied to each day in Genesis, despite the evening and morning phrase. The 24 hours could therefore be figurative, and each divisional creative period 'day' can be millions of years, which could encompass God formulating an evolutionary process. However, I believe that abiogensis is impossible and it required divine intervention.
I've read some YEC biblical literalist arguments and they say that the universe was made in one week, but God gave us the impression that everything is dated...a lot older than what it actually is. An interesting argument.

Wether God produced the earth, and all biological creatures up to the highest animal life other than man, by a different process other than direct creation is debatable. The creation of Adam and Eve was straight forward. Hominid evolution is not clear cut. I suggest that you read the book by the creationist professor Marvin Lubenow 'Bones of contention' that exposes some of the human evolution propaganda.

​

 

[I am free]

Hmmm interesting replies all. I still am not able to understand something.....do biblical creationists believe that humans did not evolve at all? But that other animals might have?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

Juan, are you seeing one tree for many species? or many trees, like one tree for each specie? or something different.
the other thread seemed like everyone was seeing each branch of a tree as a different specie.

Ultimately, yes, I see one tree from which all came. But that is not how things are generally broken down. More like each branch as a tree (fish, birds, insects, mammals, etc) and each twig as a branch. To further complicate things, sometimes twigs on one branch can grow back together.

Speciation is a complicated subject I learned, and the simple explanation of not interbreeding is accurate only in one use of the term, and not in the other. So it becomes necessary to interpret what a given author actually means by the term "species." Most examples of the use of the term I have seen relate to observed physical differences (coloring, beak size and shape, things like that) and nothing to do at all with interbreeding. And then there's "ring species." In my estimation, as long as there is the possibility of interbreeding, then such is not a species in the strict sense of the term. Sub-species, variant (or variety), breed, race perhaps, but not species. Not in the literalist sense.

As much as I enjoy this discussion, I am burnt out and my time is very limited to participate. That is why the link to the other thread. I suppose I could find more to say, but I have said so much already in the other thread.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, E99, and welcome to CR!

The fact is, the Genesis account fits in with scientific knowledge that we know today, and the other creation accounts held by peoples of the world derived from the original one found in the bible. The source of the varied creation accounts came from ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia where all civilisation spread from. These ancient peoples were descendants of the pre-flood civilisations that had carried the 'story' of the true creation account with them. When they spread outwards, after God confused their languages, the account was taken with them. Throughout time the creation account of these various races that had dispersed from Babylon became more and more distorted, but the theme remained the same.

In general, I agree with you here, but I have highlighted a couple of things. I agree with your assessment regarding development of society from the fertile crescent with the advent of agriculture as pertains to the West. We did a thread on the origins of language, and frankly I began with the assumption that all world languages could be drawn back to a common source. Boy, was I surprized! The languages of the West are acknowledged to stem (mostly) from a common source; sanskrit. However, I was not able to find any resource that tied the oriental languages of the East back to the same common source. In short, while I am an ardent student of the Bible, I do not see from archeological or anthropological sources a clear and distinct primary source that ties all of the world languages together. As I am familiar with the seminal works of Hyslop and Frazer (The Two Babylons and The Golden Bough), I agree with the common source idea concerning certain creation myths and accounts of the flood, as well the great similarities between the various multi-god pantheons. I only wish I could confirm the common source for language, it isn't there. Or if it is, I would be grateful to have someone direct me to the research.

Of course, depending how much of a literalist one happens to be, I thought the flood story of Genesis stated that only eight human souls were saved alive in the Ark, so those of the "pre-flood" civilisations would have perished... Perhaps you meant to say post-flood from the time of the dispersal from Babel?

 

[Bandit]

Hmmm interesting replies all. I still am not able to understand something.....do biblical creationists believe that humans did not evolve at all? But that other animals might have?

some creationists might see it that way. i see it like this too-


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
______________________________

the line is the earth. the exclamation marks are the individual flesh & blood species & each evolved on there own & in there own time...the common ancestor being earth. That presents a big HOW?
It appears to me, that with DNA the way it is, they have no choice but to start studying it that way.
a tulip bulb is a tulip bulb & it produces tulips & maybe different varieties of tulips if you mess with it enough. it does not change into a maple tree.

i know that does not make sense because everyone has been taught that everything started as a fish & kept changing into different species.

all of the prehistoric bones are exactly what they are. dead bones of a dead extinct species but some insist that we 'evolved' from those species.

i think i am burned out on this for awhile.

 

[Jaiket]

a tulip bulb is a tulip bulb & it produces tulips & maybe different varieties of tulips if you mess with it enough. it does not change into a maple tree.

i know that does not make sense because everyone has been taught that everything started as a fish & kept changing into different species.

Bandit, are these example (and others littered throughout the thread) deliberate strawmen created to fudge the issue, or simple misunderstandings?

 

[Bandit]

Bandit, are these example (and others littered throughout the thread) deliberate strawmen created to fudge the issue, or simple misunderstandings?

oh. like Jaikets & mr diamonds incomplete example & misunderstandings of how people are a species of chimp.

humans beget humans. tulips produce tulips.
what makes that fact a strawman?

 

[Andre']

Hi Bandit, thanks for all the responses, sorry it took awhile, been really busy. I'm glad you feel that way about Cladisitics, as well as some of the questions that you have addressd is exceptionally intersting, especially the one on the decomposing body recycling itself. If you are into engery continum theories I have a great theory for you to read on, the math is absoultely unbelievably hard, but the good part is it is all put in the back into an Appendix for Scientists, if you don't want to follow the math, just don't read it. The main body of the text is math-free, except for just little x= stuff. This book is asserevating the Omega Point Theory, which is a very complex theory, it really is, which is why I saying to read the book. You should grasp it fine, but you need a sceince background in physics, just simple stuff though. This theory is trying to prove within the axiom of physics that there is a God and that we will continue living for ever, our spirit that is or energy is infinite. Tipler, the author, is trying to say that if you can prove the infinite existence of the human beings, then it can be further suggested that it correlates with the Christian Bible's perception of Heaven. He is a physicist at heart, but is a Christian who is trying to make a diffrence and present a good argument for people within his field. The book is called "The Physics of Immortality" By Frank Tipler and, obviously, comes highly reccommended. Yes, I do believe that not necessarily decomposing, but death is a form of energy continum. Decomposoing is just the recycling of organic tissues. Now if you are implying a Hindu explainination, like everything is Atman, a continuity of selfhood throughout, then I would agree that decomposition is a form of energy continum. I can say much more on this, but specify if you mean the actual scientific process of atmoic recycling, or do you mean on a metaphysical level.

On what you said about Darwin, I really don't consider Darwin to much. So many people, I'm not saying you, cherish him and quote him, and factualize him, he is antiquated. The only idea that can persist to this day and even the way he had it has been revised is Natural Selection. Many people aren't aware that Darwin contemplated heavily and it was very hard for him to implicate what he did about the world that he did. He was raised in a strict Christian family and contemplated heavily. I don't ever talk about him much because he is just so antiquated and doesn't hold in modern science. He makes up one mechanism of evolution, let's all get out over him, I can't stand these evolutionists who really aren't educated within the field and quote him to prove their point. Little soap box of mine, sorry.

Yes I would like to see this video anytime you want to get back to me. It sounds interesting.

I wonder why you can't find the thread? All I can say is it is under Eastern Thought, in the Buddhism forum, and the thread name is Zen and Qunatum Mechanics meet, Silverbackman made a comment but the thread hasn't had anyone else hit it, it is a rather specified subject. I don't know how I could send it to you, this is my third day in this comparative-religions forum site. I'm new to it, as you can see from my posts.

I was wondering what you were refering to when you said "And tell me what you think may have happened in all of this from your studies." I didn't know if it was something specific and if it was let me know?

Yes, I have enjoyed convesing to someone who is learned on this subject. This subject takes quite a lot of background in order to discuss.

 

[Bandit]

I was wondering what you were refering to when you said "And tell me what you think may have happened in all of this from your studies." I didn't know if it was something specific and if it was let me know?

all i meant by that is, in short, your version of how life came to be. i think somewhere you mentioned giving the best educated guess & that is all i was refering to.
it is a big mystery that is for sure.

i will get back to you on Tidler ( a guy i work with has talked about the same things). i will get the origins of life video, decompisation & some other comments on your post out in a day. i think a new wheel might be starting to turn in my head from some of this. i just find it hard to put into words without too many misconceptions of what i am thinking & really trying to say.
putting evolution & creation into a good perspective is not easy.
have nice day Andre

 

[Silverbackman]

macro has not been proven dear boy. get your facts right.

why are you so horrified that the bible is true? is the bible that ugly to you? it sounds like you hate it.
as far as i am concerned the bible is very scientific & has been proven correct in all sciences all the time.

i do not discuss the bible & God with people who have your attitude & this is not the first time i have detected that you do not like the bible & per say Christians for there beliefs.
if you choose not to believe in the bible then dont believe it. believe what best fits you .
you are entitled to your opinion about the bible & so am I.
from here, you wont be getting a discussion about the bible & creation from me, so that should make you happy.

you are an ape according to your belief. i am a man according to mine. get over it.

I don't hate the Bible, I think its a great book and has some divine origins. But you can't take what everything the Bible says literally. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that we ain't apes, does it? Yes of course your a man, so am I! But man is an ape, or at least something very close.

It isn't just belief brother, it is scientific fact. Just because I listen to scientific fact doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts. You can believe a dog is a primate if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that dogs are carnivoras.

Now just because man is an ape, it doesn't mean that evolution is true. All it means is that Yahweh, your God, created you as an ape. He didn't create you into a species of canine or feline. He didn't create you a dolphin. He created you as an ape. Get over it.

 

[Quahom1]

I don't hate the Bible, I think its a great book and has some divine origins. But you can't take what everything the Bible says literally. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that we ain't apes, does it? Yes of course your a man, so am I! But man is an ape, or at least something very close.

It isn't just belief brother, it is scientific fact. Just because I listen to scientific fact doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't change the facts. You can believe a dog is a primate if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that dogs are carnivoras.

Now just because man is an ape, it doesn't mean that evolution is true. All it means is that Yahweh, your God, created you as an ape. He didn't create you into a species of canine or feline. He didn't create you a dolphin. He created you as an ape. Get over it.

he, he, there is absolutely no evidence conclusive beyond a doubt, to back your "facts" ? NONE. We have no idea who we are, when it comes down to brass tacks.

I will agree on that.

v/r

Q

 

[Bandit]

I don't hate the Bible, I think its a great book and has some divine origins. But you can't take what everything the Bible says literally. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that we ain't apes, does it? Yes of course your a man, so am I! But man is an ape, or at least something very close.

It isn't just belief brother, it is scientific fact. Just because I listen to scientific fact doesn't mean I hate the Bible.

i would say you do not know the bible very well & have issues with it.

what you mean is, in your 'belief' God created YOU as an ape.
& in my belief He created me as a man & in his image. the bible does not say animals & fish are in his image but it does say man is created in His image.


& where is all this scientific proof that proves the bible cant be taken literally.
that sounds more like an opinion to me than scientific fact.

& where is your scientific fact that the bible only has SOME divine origin?
that sounds like a belief, not a scientific fact.

 

[Silverbackman]

he, he, there is absolutely no evidence conclusive beyond a doubt, to back your "facts" ? NONE. We have no idea who we are, when it comes down to brass tacks.

I will agree on that.

v/r

Q

Really? Is that so?

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

"Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, including humans. Currently, there are two families of hominoids:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

"The hominids are the members of the biological family Hominidae (the great apes), which includes humans , chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Or you can search on google. Whichever you like to do it doesn't change the facts. Now you can always dispute whether humans should be classified as a different type of ape or as a great ape, its all up to you. But right now we know for sure humans are some type of ape.

I hope Bandit takes a look at it as well.

 

[Silverbackman]

i would say you do not know the bible very well & have issues with it.

what you mean is, in your 'belief' God created YOU as an ape.
& in my belief He created me as a man & in his image. the bible does not say animals & fish are in his image but it does say man is created in His image.


& where is all this scientific proof that proves the bible cant be taken literally.
that sounds more like an opinion to me than scientific fact.

& where is your scientific fact that the bible only has SOME divine origin?
that sounds like a belief, not a scientific fact.

So you know what that means then? That means the image of God is an ape. That might offend a lot but it doesn't change the facts. We are classified as apes, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God did not put us in the same family or superfamily of apes.

Again I think your offended by the name "ape". What is so wrong about being an ape? What is wrong if our image (which maybe the image of God) is an ape?

Also do you also doubt that we are primates, mammals, and vertebrates? Because if you doubt that then something is really wrong here.

As for my opinion on the Bible having some divine origin, that is my opinion and faith. What I believe does not conflict science. I believe for example Jesus is a Godman, there is no scientific way to prove it right but at the same time there is no scientific way to prove it wrong.

But it is scientific fact that humans are classified as apes, then primates, then mammals, then vertebrates, then Chordata, and then finally Animalia. That is scientific fact and to my knowledge the Bible never disputes this, but never confirms it as well. If it does (dispute it), then you have yourself a flawed book, but the Bible by many is not a flawed book.

 

[I am free]

So you know what that means then? That means the image of God is an ape. That might offend a lot but it doesn't change the facts. We are classified as apes, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that God did not put us in the same family or superfamily of apes.

Again I think your offended by the name "ape". What is so wrong about being an ape? What is wrong if our image (which maybe the image of God) is an ape?

I dont know where you got this from Silver. The evolutionary theory does NOT say that God "created" apes in his image and humans then evolved from those apes. Never heard of such a theory sorry.

Also the classification of humans and apes under primates happened even before the theory of evolution was proposed. It was purely classification....nothing to do with evolution.