Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Hum Dinger]

I believe that I was created by the hand and in the image of GOD.

However, I also believe that my wife's family is clearly descended from monkeys.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?

No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this. The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.

As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.

So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Bible is historical fact. Man's values and opinions are tainted, compromised, skewed, and bias. Science study without any regard for GOD is incomplete at best and incorrect to one degree or another.

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

". . . and our ability to state assumptions as fact should be enough for you, peon."

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here is something to ponder. Things are seldom what they seem.
What percentage of human DNA is shared with other things?

6 Answers

Xu Beixi, loves Nature.
Answered Mar 24 2014 · Author has 4.7k answers and 31.1m answer views


It depends on what you mean by share.

What do you consider the premise of your study? It it genome size, number of genes, chromosome number, phylogeny, etc. etc.? What constitutes alike as to different?

Also, it doesn't help that we don't know what all our genes are for, how they're used, what proteins they make, and there are so many ways for post-transcriptional modification that we can't begin to figure all of them out.

Finally, to answer:

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated.

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans.

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.

Yes, we're all related due to evolution!

Had God Created Spontaneous Creation, we would not share those similar genetic traits.

Really? Why not? What rock-solid evidence, or any evidence, do you have that says that Creation would require everything to be 100% genetically different? We all have to exist on the same planet. Why wouldn't He use similar traits, in different combinations, to fit us to live in the same place?

A master artist's work, no matter what the subject matter, can be identified by the similarity of brush strokes, after all.

100% genetically different is impossible, unless it's a different origin. We are all related due to evolution and therefore share very many similar genes.

If all organisms were instantaneously "created" by a "God", all organisms wouldn't share such a similar gene pool.

The similarity of the gene pool, from bacteria to humans, shows that is was a gradual thing that took billions of years, of evolution....

More assertions of personal opinion as fact.

Didn't I ask you before why creation necessitated 100% difference? Interesting that instead of answering the question, you simply skipped it and went on with repeating it as settled.

The similarity of the gene pool shows relation. You ASSUME it shows relation from evolution, but you have no proof it is not relation from the same Creator, because of the same biosphere requirements.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Some of the Bible addresses history - the early state of Israel as an example. But Genesis and the story of creation is mythology.

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought this way before, but found the Bible is a non-fiction book. After investigating and comparing with evolution, I thought creation was true instead of evo. For example, last year, we found the chicken came before the egg. That's a fact. What parts do you think is myth?

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.

So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" ad infinitum.

Cut to the chase. Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Finally answered! Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Basically, many, many moons ago there was a chicken-like bird. It was genetically close to a chicken but wasn't a full-blown chicken yet. The video calls it a proto-chicken. So proto-hen laid an egg, and proto-rooster fertilized it. But when the genes from ma and pa almost-chicken fused, they combined in a new way, creating a mutation that accidentally made the baby different from its parents. Although it would take millennia for the difference to be noticed, that egg was different enough to become the official progenitor of a new species, now known as... the chicken! So in a nutshell (or an eggshell, if you like), two birds that weren't really chickens created a chicken egg, and hence, we have an answer: The egg came first, and then it hatched a chicken.

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.

So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" ad infinitum.

Cut to the chase. Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?

Don't have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Syriusly you believe in myths.

There's also the problem of infinite regression. If there was a proto-chicken and proto-rooster, then where did they come from? The proto-proto-chicken? And where did the proto-proto-chicken come from? The proto-proto-proto-chicken? Ha ha.

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.

So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" ad infinitum.

Cut to the chase. Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?

Don't have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine: we exist, therefore . . . But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.

I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories. That's actually been my point the whole time: they're theories, so stop waving them around as proven fact. And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them. Being questioned is the purpose of a theory.

 

[Likkmee]

Please define: "WE"

 

[ChesBayJJ]

The proto-chicken and proto-rooster evolved from egg laying reptiles.

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.

So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" ad infinitum.

Cut to the chase. Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?

Don't have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine: we exist, therefore . . . But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.

I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories. That's actually been my point the whole time: they're theories, so stop waving them around as proven fact. And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them. Being questioned is the purpose of a theory.

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's a very definitive assertion, for someone who wasn't there.

And where did the reptiles come from?

Older reptiles. And amphibians. Which previously had evolved from transitional species that had come from the ocean. And so on and so on and so on.

So basically, you have "it must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else, which must have evolved from something else" ad infinitum.

Cut to the chase. Where did it start, and how, and what's your proof?

Don't have any proof other than the fact we and millions of other species exist here on earth. How it started? A number of theories, none proven.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

So basically, you have the same proof of your belief that I do of mine: we exist, therefore . . . But somehow, yours is more valid than mine, presumably because you use scientific words to dress it up.

I didn't ask you for proof that your theories exist, or that they ARE theories. That's actually been my point the whole time: they're theories, so stop waving them around as proven fact. And stop telling other people that they're stupid and uneducated for daring to question them. Being questioned is the purpose of a theory.

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

Okay, let me start from the end, and work my way back.

"I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact."

"They won't. We homo sapiens are the result of a different evolutionary path, not taken by our fellow simians. We evolved bipedalism, opposable thumbs, and larger brains." - Post #15 of this thread

"Sure it does. Eventually, species will evolve and become so different they no longer interbreed and they are then considered different species." - Post #19 of this thread

"Cats and seals both evolved from a common ancestor, a very early mammal, which quite likely had whiskers." - Post #712 of this thread

So yes, you HAVE claimed things as fact. That's what one is doing when one makes declarative statements such as these, absent any temporizing, such as "It is believed" or "it is theorized".

Working backward, you say, "I don't take Genesis literally. I believe in science." Is it scientific to simply assume the two are mutually exclusive, and dismiss one entirely? How much time have you actually spent trying to learn about the Bible from a scientific standpoint?

"There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis." Is there? Then why haven't you shown us? Unless I missed something, all you've given us is a bunch of vague, one-offs like "the fossil evidence and DNA say so" and links to other people stating theory as settled fact, which proves no more than YOUR statements of theory as settled facts.

I have actually listed instances where scientists started out deriding the Bible, until advancing science proved it true. Now it's your turn.

 

[MikeK]

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?

The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin.
Explains it all.

 

[Syriusly]

The Earth is a little over 4.5 billion years old, its oldest materials being 4.3 billion-year-old zircon crystals. Its earliest times were geologically violent, and it suffered constant bombardment from meteorites. When this ended, the Earth cooled and its surface solidified to a crust - the first solid rocks. There were no continents as yet, just a global ocean peppered with small islands. Erosion, sedimentation and volcanic activity - possibly assisted by more meteor impacts - eventually created small proto-continents which grew until they reached roughly their current size 2.5 billion years ago. The continents have since repeatedly collided and been torn apart, so maps of Earth in the distant past are quite different to today's.


The history of life on Earth began about 3.8 billion years ago, initially with single-celled prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria. Multicellular life evolved over a billion years later and it's only in the last 570 million years that the kind of life forms we are familiar with began to evolve, starting with arthropods, followed by fish 530 million years ago (Ma), land plants 475Ma and forests 385Ma. Mammals didn't evolve until 200Ma and our own species, Homo sapiens, only 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

BBC Nature - History of life on Earth

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution,.

Nothing about 'blind faith' when it comes to looking at the evidence and making a decision based upon the evidence we have.

Evolution is the theory that best fits the actual evidence we have.

The Bible is a book that calls for blind faith and a rejection of most of the evidence.

 

[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?

The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin.
Explains it all.

Yeeeaaahh . . . no.

 

[Syriusly]

[ctable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

I like the 'about' part.

The difference between science and a literal interpretation of the Bible is that science expects to wrong some of the time- because science depends on looking for the correct answers- and whatever is shown to fit the known facts is considered correct- and if new information comes along- science will use the new information- even though it disproves previous assumptions.

The Bible? When science shows there is no evidence of a flood that covers every Mountain on earth at the same time- the literal interpretation crowd do not consider change their interpretation of the Bible- they rationalize about how the science must be wrong.

No one has argued that the Bible may have some historical facts correct- certainly I don't- there are some things which have been either well connected or very loosely connected. But there is no evidence at all to support the Biblical story of Noah and flood- and that some 4,000 years ago every animal on earth was dumped off on Mt. Ararat and then somehow dispersed to their new island homes on the Galapagos and New Zealand and Australia and Madagascar- but nowhere else.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Best book about evolution I ever read