Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Syriusly]

The the earth was likely created roughly 6000 to 10,000 years ago by GOD. When the Fall of Adam & Eve occurred, deterioration kicked in for the entire Universe. Prior to that event everything existed in a continuing state of perfection. Monkeys, gorillas and humans in no way share a common ancestor; however, they do share a common CREATOR. The present state of our planet reflects the continuing deterioration of the environment due to the FALL and the scares from the FLOOD. Meteor and asteroid strikes throughout the Solar system are the result of the FALL.

Well thank you for that religion inspired opinion that is totally devoid of any factual evidence.

And you have all the evidence? Where is it?

I don't have 'all of the evidence' - part of science is accepting that you will never have all of the evidence. What I do have is a preponderance of evidence which all confirms that the Theory of Evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence that we have for the diversity of life on earth.

 

[Syriusly]

Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?

I can't think of any.

The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.

I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.

Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.

So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Not being a believer in species-to-species evolution, no. But I don't think the similarities are coincidental, either. I think when more than one species has a similar trait, it's because that trait serves a useful purpose which both species require.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?

Presumably, it was a different, more primitive type of ape, or primate anyway. The idea is that humans and various modern species of apes both evolved from that primitive species.

 

[abrere]

nobody has ever claimed anything of the kind, you lying pos creationists. All darwin said was that humans and primates had a common ancestor, many millions of years ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But then, if we came from monkeys, why aren't monkeys still turning into people?

Allegedly, it takes longer than our recorded history has existed, so it's not exactly something that can be witnessed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We didn't. We evolved from a common ancestor.

Most of us.
Who knows where Republicans came from?

The higher beings who created leftists as a drunken practical joke.

 

[james bond]

Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?

I can't think of any.

The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.

I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.

Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.

So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.

Nice. You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins (which I mentioned via chemical evolution). CE is part of ToE.

As for creation, you have continued to be ignorant of the evidence presented. We have bushes of life vs tree of life. The bushes are being discovered as we speak. Creation also has rapid evolution by natural selection and catastrophism. We also have the human population of the Earth to being what it is currently from Adam and Eve's time.

 

[Syriusly]

Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?

I can't think of any.

The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.

I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.

Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.

So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.

Nice. You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins .

The Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life originated on earth. How often do I have to teach you what the Theory of Evolution is?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Not being a believer in species-to-species evolution, no. But I don't think the similarities are coincidental, either. I think when more than one species has a similar trait, it's because that trait serves a useful purpose which both species require.

Certainly there are similar adaptations from whole different families of species- such as the Tasmanian 'wolf' to dogs. Both their actual physiology and their DNA show that those species are only distantly related- since the all of the native Australian/Tasmanian mammals are marsupials.

But house cats and Tigers- humans and orangutans are much, much closer related with common ancestor much more recent than that of the common ancestor of placental and marsupial mammals.

 

[Syriusly]

Has there ever been a Jew who was a Creationist? A modern Jew who believes in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and uses pretend science like the Creato-Christians do- to somehow bolster their own feeble faith in their God?

I can't think of any.

The Creato-Christian movement is a rather odd Christian cult that somehow feels a need to deny science in order to somehow convince themselves that Jesus is their savior.

I seriously could go on literally till the day I die pointing out to you how dumb evolution is and how it makes zero sense but I have better things to do.

Please do not waste your time regurgitating Creato-Christian cult talking points.

The Bible is a wonderful book of great tales and some really important moral lessons- but it makes zero sense as to explaining how live on Earth has come to exist in across all of Earth.

And without GOD you have no idea explaining how life came about without making up a tale you imagine is "scientific" because it's godless. I'm not impressed!.

So you prefer a tale without any evidence to support it at all? You operate on faith- nothing wrong with you believing in your big book of fairy tales- but that isn't science.

Nice. You just ignored the evidence that ToE has holes in the origins (which I mentioned via chemical evolution). CE is part of ToE.

As for creation, you have continued to be ignorant of the evidence presented. We have bushes of life vs tree of life. The bushes are being discovered as we speak. Creation also has rapid evolution by natural selection and catastrophism. We also have the human population of the Earth to being what it is currently from Adam and Eve's time.

'Creation' is nothing more than a euphemism for a Creato Christian cult who subscribes to a literal Bible creation story. There is no evidence to support the fairy tale creation stories of the Bible. You can continue to repeat 'bushes of life' like a parrot- but those are not evidence of God creating any life- just of your faith in your fairy tale book.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

How did you reach that conclusion?

I read the article. And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers.

Meet the Ancestor of Every Human, Bat, Cat, Whale and Mouse

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

How did you reach that conclusion?

I read the article. And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.

I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion. They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.

Anyway, enough of this debate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I get so enormously tired of "scientific" types stating theory as established, proven, witnessed fact. ACTUAL scientists do it in the certainty that other scientists will understand the difference, but lay-twerps can't keep from conflating.

From your link:

"They have predicted how much it would have weighed, the number of molars in its jaws, the shape of its sperm, and the path that its carotid artery took up its neck. None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants, including some that are still alive and others that joined it in extinction."

In other words, they looked at a bunch of current and recent critters with similar traits and said, "I'll bet they all came from an animal who looked like THIS!"

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

How did you reach that conclusion?

I read the article. And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.

I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion. They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.

Anyway, enough of this debate.

I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."

Run along.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Sure, it is a theory, it is speculation, but it is likely a very good estimate. They did a very comprehensive study looking at 4600 different skeletal traits across 86 different species.

Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.

How did you reach that conclusion?

I read the article. And then I used logic.

Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."

So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"

They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.

Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.

I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion. They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.

Anyway, enough of this debate.

I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."

Run along.

There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.