Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

Thus, we know humans did not come from apes. Too much evidence against it

Please share some...

God created humans on a different day.

Religious evidence, got it. Any scientific evidence?

Religion and science are two sides of the same coin. They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.

For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood. They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming. These people lived hundreds of years. While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced. They had to learn things all over again. These are the people you claim to have come from apes.

 

[skye]

monkeys come from one branch of beings

spiritual human beings from another

may be the two will meet at the end.....who knows

I certainly don't.

 

[harmonica]

so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha

That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.

Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven. It also backs up the Bible.

that's is some amazing stuff--like Star Trek

 

[alang1216]

Religion and science are two sides of the same coin. They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.

Exactly wrong, they are opposite worldviews and mutually exclusive. Science is based on evidence and can be verified by anyone who cares to try. Religion is based on faith and cannot be verified since the tenets are revealed and not discovered. The revelations cannot be independently verified.

For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood. They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming. These people lived hundreds of years. While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced. They had to learn things all over again. These are the people you claim to have come from apes.

There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

 

[james bond]

so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha

That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.

Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven. It also backs up the Bible.

that's is some amazing stuff--like Star Trek

It's not sci-fi, but history.

 

[james bond]

Religion and science are two sides of the same coin. They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.

Exactly wrong, they are opposite worldviews and mutually exclusive. Science is based on evidence and can be verified by anyone who cares to try. Religion is based on faith and cannot be verified since the tenets are revealed and not discovered. The revelations cannot be independently verified.

I don't think you understand how much faith is involved in science. These aren't truths that we agree upon. It's a worldview.

Yet, I've heard some people call these "facts," such as evolution is fact. Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory. Most of us who aren't scientists are educated with these theories.

So, what you just stated about science being based on evidence, or the facts, is only partially true. The other part of science is interpreting the evidence, interpreting the facts. Thus, you are partially wrong. Your view is not complete.

If we can't even agree on what we agree on, then there's no point in discussing matters with you.

For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood. They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming. These people lived hundreds of years. While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced. They had to learn things all over again. These are the people you claim to have come from apes.

There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

 

[harmonica]

so--a fully formed man just ''appeared'' ....hahahahhahahahha

That's what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible.

Also, in 2017 the chicken came before the egg was proven. It also backs up the Bible.

that's is some amazing stuff--like Star Trek

It's not sci-fi, but history.

actually it's fairytale land

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Can you all imagine the level of self-delusion it takes not just to believe this hilarious, magical nonsense that is contradicted by ALL of the evidence...

...but also to parade about an internet message board, regurgitating blogs from uneducated morons, and declaring victory...as if you have upended the global scientific community?

Embarrassing. We know evolution is a fact, just as confidently as we know the Earth revolves about the Sun. There is no debate. This is an exercise for school children.

 

[alang1216]

Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

[
There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

 

[james bond]

Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

[
There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

K, since you've read it. Let's start after Adam and Eve. One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer. He had tools and knew how to use them. So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard. A bit later we get to the begots. These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc. In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself. So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?

 

[LuckyDuck]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

We aren't descendants of "monkey's." We are however, descendants of "primates."
DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees. If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.

 

[alang1216]

Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

[
There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

K, since you've read it. Let's start after Adam and Eve. One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer. He had tools and knew how to use them. So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard. A bit later we get to the begots. These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc. In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself. So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?

I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate. So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not? Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?

 

[james bond]

Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

[
There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

K, since you've read it. Let's start after Adam and Eve. One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer. He had tools and knew how to use them. So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard. A bit later we get to the begots. These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc. In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself. So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?

I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate. So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not? Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?

I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story. However, I can't accept it. I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).

The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book. Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source. You believe what wikipedia tells you. I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes. Nor birds came from dinosaurs. It's two different worldviews. We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true. I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority. God is my authority. I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made. The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity. In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong. Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain. There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side. We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us. It's right in front of our noses. It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.

Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year. My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written. Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life. Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.

We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.

Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations. Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true. It is the only thing supernatural that we believe. We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons. In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.

Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood. Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi. Those were apes or chimpanzees. What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God. Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible. The new generation of humans were much weaker. Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.

I argue fossils, too. Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii. They were more perfect then such as straight teeth. The prehistoric humans didn't have that. The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up. You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.

 

[james bond]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

We aren't descendants of "monkey's." We are however, descendants of "primates."
DNA doesn't lie and we share 99% of the same DNA with chimpanzees. If you refuse to recognize the DNA similarity, then any crime committed against your family in which DNA was left behind, should be denied by you as not belonging to a specific individual.

That's just statistics being used to back your theory. Mark Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." No court in the world will convict anyone based on DNA evidence alone.

I have the statistics that 35 million molecules are different from apes and humans. Of those 35 million, 5 million molecules are structured differently in the DNA.

 

[alang1216]

Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

[
There is almost nothing here that makes sense. What are 'ancient humans' and 'prehistoric humans'?

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

K, since you've read it. Let's start after Adam and Eve. One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer. He had tools and knew how to use them. So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard. A bit later we get to the begots. These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc. In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself. So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?

I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate. So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not? Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?

I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story. However, I can't accept it. I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).

The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book. Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source. You believe what wikipedia tells you. I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes. Nor birds came from dinosaurs. It's two different worldviews. We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true. I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority. God is my authority. I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made. The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity. In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong. Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain. There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side. We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us. It's right in front of our noses. It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.

Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year. My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written. Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life. Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.

We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.

Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations. Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true. It is the only thing supernatural that we believe. We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons. In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.

Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood. Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi. Those were apes or chimpanzees. What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God. Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible. The new generation of humans were much weaker. Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.

I argue fossils, too. Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii. They were more perfect then such as straight teeth. The prehistoric humans didn't have that. The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up. You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're right we have different worldviews. Yours is based on faith, mine is not. Where you are wrong is when you say:

I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.​

You're right, I do trust those who have earned the title of teacher, scientist, or authority. Where you are wrong is implying you trust in God and not men. Has God spoken directly to you or does your faith tell you that the Bible is God's word? Whatever the Bible may be, it was written down by men and contains all the errors, typos, and contradictions that you'd expect. So you too trust other humans whom you call prophets or apostles but whether you know it or not you are also trusting the scribes and oral historians that preserved the Bible stories.

 

[Syriusly]

They lied to you as well, maybe.

Creationist theories and their corresponding religions are based on deception.

They will make you believe anything they want you to believe, and you are forced to believe it because your parents did.

This is the science forum, so will stick with creation science.

'creation science' lol

reminds me of the "marijuana initiative'

 

[Syriusly]

Thus, we know humans did not come from apes. Too much evidence against it

Please share some...

God created humans on a different day.

Religious evidence, got it. Any scientific evidence?

Religion and science are two sides of the same coin. They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.

For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood. They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming. These people lived hundreds of years. While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced. They had to learn things all over again. These are the people you claim to have come from apes.

LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.

There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.

While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.

None at all.

 

[james bond]

Science is not in the business of facts nor proofs, but theories. Science deals with facts and comes up with an explanation. It starts with hypothesis and if enough science people accept it, then it becomes a theory

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

Have you read the Bible at all? I invite you to read the part about Adam and Eve and their ancestors.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

K, since you've read it. Let's start after Adam and Eve. One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer. He had tools and knew how to use them. So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard. A bit later we get to the begots. These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc. In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself. So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?

I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate. So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not? Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?

I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story. However, I can't accept it. I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).

The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book. Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source. You believe what wikipedia tells you. I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes. Nor birds came from dinosaurs. It's two different worldviews. We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true. I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority. God is my authority. I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made. The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity. In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong. Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain. There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side. We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us. It's right in front of our noses. It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.

Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year. My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written. Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life. Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.

We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.

Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations. Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true. It is the only thing supernatural that we believe. We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons. In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.

Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood. Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi. Those were apes or chimpanzees. What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God. Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible. The new generation of humans were much weaker. Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.

I argue fossils, too. Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii. They were more perfect then such as straight teeth. The prehistoric humans didn't have that. The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up. You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're right we have different worldviews. Yours is based on faith, mine is not. Where you are wrong is when you say:

I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.​

You're right, I do trust those who have earned the title of teacher, scientist, or authority. Where you are wrong is implying you trust in God and not men. Has God spoken directly to you or does your faith tell you that the Bible is God's word? Whatever the Bible may be, it was written down by men and contains all the errors, typos, and contradictions that you'd expect. So you too trust other humans whom you call prophets or apostles but whether you know it or not you are also trusting the scribes and oral historians that preserved the Bible stories.

First, we established that you haven't read the Bible much so I wouldn't insult God saying it contains errors and contradictions. Nor do you understand how it was put together or how to approach reading it. You'll pay for it in the end.

Yes, God has spoken to me like teachers, scientists and other authority. After reading the Bible, I've come to the conclusion it is indeed God's Word. Otherwise, it would have been contradicted long ago. God's Word cannot change, but we know science texts change yearly. We know throughout history and in the Bible that many people have died over it. And people have died over Darwin's racist ideas, too.

I've read Darwin and those who seem to place him as a position of authority like God. They found that he was wrong, but had to check their findings because it went against him. Today, we find Darwin was wrong about most of his theories and Lamarckism has returned.

(I don't trust the prophets, but the prophecies in the Bible. For human prophecies, I look at it like a system such as those by Nostradamus or Dr. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. The latter gets paid for political adversarial predictions such will Iran build a nuclear weapon.)

 

[Syriusly]

You're all over the place:

Science is not in the business of facts
and
Science deals with facts​

Science deals with observed facts. Theories are hypothesized that fit these facts. The theory is accepted so long as no new facts contradict the theory. Theories with an enormous amount of facts behind them are accepted as truths.

I have read the Bible and I can tell you there are no 'ancient humans' or 'prehistoric humans' anywhere in it.

K, since you've read it. Let's start after Adam and Eve. One of their sons was Cain and he was a farmer. He had tools and knew how to use them. So, he ends up killing his brother the shepard. A bit later we get to the begots. These people during that time knew how to use fire, make tools, forge iron, make helmets with horns on them, make weapons, make musical instruments etc. In Genesis 7, we got Noah who built a huge Ark by himself. So, it never occurred to you that these people were more advanced than your prehistoric humans?

I said I read it, I didn't say I accepted it as historically accurate. So I take it that the 'ancient humans' are in the Bible but the 'prehistoric humans' are not? Were the 'prehistoric humans' the Neanderthals and other hominids known from the fossil record?

I can believe your ignorance that you only get one side of the story. However, I can't accept it. I've told you I studied both evolution and evolutionary thinking and am still studying the Bible (since 2012).

The Bible is a history book of the first humans and a non-fiction book. Don't think I don't have a source or a mythical source. You believe what wikipedia tells you. I know you would not accept it, but I don't accept humans come from apes. Nor birds came from dinosaurs. It's two different worldviews. We are both going on "faith" that our worldview is true. I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority. God is my authority. I explain the Piltdown Man which fooled an entire generation and no correction was made. The tree of life and common ancestor theory continues to teach its falsity. In fact, it's come down to atheist science trying to show creation science is wrong. Thus, we have to have multiverses and a universe from nothing and other weird beliefs such as we came from fish and apes and it took billions of years in order to explain. There was no intelligence behind anything because if there was any intelligence, then it would be evidence for the my side. We have intelligence and beautiful design all around us. It's right in front of our noses. It's no accident, but science wants you to believe that it's common and can just happen.

Now, you're going to state that your view is science, but it's a theory and science changes every year. My theory can't change and hasn't changed since it was written. Moreover, I've stated the tree of life is being shown by epigentics that it is really the bushes of life in the orchard of life. Not the tree of life and common ancestor theory.

We continue to argue the evidence of who is right or wrong.

Furthermore, your science does not accept the Bible as a source while my "religion," actually creation science, does not put on such limitations. Just because something has a supernatural explanation, it does not mean it is not true. It is the only thing supernatural that we believe. We do not believe in ghosts, but only God (Trinity), angels and demons. In fact, the Bible states to not believe in other supernatural or get advice by those who speak to the dead such as mediums.

Yes, the prehistoric "human" fossils are the early humans after the flood. Not australopithecines, ardipithecus or homo naledi. Those were apes or chimpanzees. What the global flood did was, some theorize, that a canopy of water above the Earth was removed by God. Thus, we experienced radiation and had our lives cut short to a maximum of 120 years as stated in the Bible. The new generation of humans were much weaker. Our having sex with our ancestors again further weakened our genetics until we can't have sex with close ancestors anymore.

I argue fossils, too. Look at the remains of ancient humans such as Pompeii. They were more perfect then such as straight teeth. The prehistoric humans didn't have that. The other evidence is other planet is covered with water and our mountains were formed during the catastrophe when the foundations from below the seafloor rose up. You have no plausible explanation to explain the water on Earth.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You're right we have different worldviews. Yours is based on faith, mine is not. Where you are wrong is when you say:

I trust God while you trust other humans whom you call teachers, scientists or authority.​

You're right, I do trust those who have earned the title of teacher, scientist, or authority. Where you are wrong is implying you trust in God and not men. Has God spoken directly to you or does your faith tell you that the Bible is God's word? Whatever the Bible may be, it was written down by men and contains all the errors, typos, and contradictions that you'd expect. So you too trust other humans whom you call prophets or apostles but whether you know it or not you are also trusting the scribes and oral historians that preserved the Bible stories.

. Today, we find Darwin was wrong about most of his theories and Lamarckism has returned.)

Today, we find that some Christians claim that Darwin was wrong about most of his theories- as part of their general attack on the science behind the theory of Evolution.

However, the central thesis of Darwin-


"Charles Darwin proposed that all living species were derived from common ancestors. The primary mechanism he proposed to explain this fact was natural selection: that is, that organisms better adapted to their environment would benefit from higher rates of survival than those less well equipped to do so. However he noted that there were many examples of elaborate, and apparently non-adaptive, sexual traits that would clearly not aid in the survival of their bearers. He suggested that such traits might evolve if they are sexually selected, that is if they increase the individual's reproductive success, even at the expense of their survival (Darwin 1871). "

has never been proven wrong.

 

[james bond]

Thus, we know humans did not come from apes. Too much evidence against it

Please share some...

God created humans on a different day.

Religious evidence, got it. Any scientific evidence?

Religion and science are two sides of the same coin. They're worldviews and influence us throughout our entire lives.

For evidence, let's look at the ancient humans vs the prehistoric humans that came after Noah's flood. They knew how to use tools and quickly adapted to farming. These people lived hundreds of years. While the prehistoric humans that came after the flood weren't so advanced. They had to learn things all over again. These are the people you claim to have come from apes.

LOL- tell us more about the scientific evidence for ancient humans who 'lived hundreds of years'.

There are no 'ancient humans vs prehistoric humans after the Flood'- there are prehistoric humans- and there are historic humans.

While our hunter gatherer ancestors did live longer than our farming ancestors, there is no evidence that any early humans lived any longer than modern humans with access to modern healthcare and sanitation.

None at all.

Heh. Another skeptic and critic of God's Word.

As evidence, would you pay me as follows? First day, I get a penny. Second day, two pennies. You double my pennies every day for thirty days and that's what you'll end up owing me. At the end of 30 days, I'll return 50% of what you owe me and call it square.

Who taught this idea in regards to population growth? How can you apply it to Adam and Eve?