Science isn’t always the answer.

[Hollie]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That science has yet to determine the origins of the universe doesn’t mean ‘god’ is the ‘answer.’

However, science has determined much about the origin of the universe - here is another example of how the Bible and science go hand in hand:

Job 38:33
Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?

When Moses wrote the book of Job (c. 1513 BCE) no human even knew there were such laws. Thankfully, science has discovered many of those laws. One reason they have discovered those laws is that they do have authority on the earth so earthling scientists can study them.

For example, the law of conservation of matter and energy embodied in the formula E-Mc^2. This law puts to an end the mythical teachings about our universe coming from nothing - since that would violate E=Mc^2. In fact, we can calculate how much energy was involved in creating the mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) estimated by Eddington years ago.

Btw - some still have blind faith that the universe came from nothing! Believe it or not, some believe the laws of our universe did not come from a lawgiver!

Yet thread title is correct in that while science does tell us many details about the laws and properties of our universe, science does not tell who did this or how this was done. But science can tell us what was done!

Many people believe that we evolved as the result of some huge cosmic accident, and those same people would probably believe that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and leave a fully functional 767 in it's wake.

I think some basic terms and definitions are appropriate. Abiogenesis (the beginning of life), is separate and distinct from biological evolution. Among the relevant science community, biological evolution is not in question.

The "junkyard" analogy is a tired, tedious, creationist meme and one that suggests the creationists are profoundly and willfully ignorant about evolution. Yes, it's unlikely that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could assemble a 747. That has nothing to do with biological evolution. Biological organisms evolve. Mechanical airplane parts do not.

Seems pretty simple.

 

[forkup]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Gotta check it out, the fact is even though I firmly believe in God I could accept evolution since Adam and Eve were not the only humans would just mean that is how God made them.

I could claim with just as much evidence as your claim for Adam and Eve that the first humans where called Mork and Mindy. It would however have ZERO scientific value.

 

[forkup]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

The same goes for your genetics bit. Everything comes from the same building blocks and we have the most building blocks similar with apes that however is no indication of common ancestry?

By the way it's mutually supportive. One can search for a close genetic match between species and as such establish a chronology in the fossil record and then go out and test that chronology.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

 

[forkup]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Long link - thank you but it is hard to respond to so much, so I will zero in on one point from your link:

"Regrettably, development of foot structure in early Homo—i.e., between A. afarensis and Neanderthals—is virtually undocumented by skeletal evidence." The article goes on to discuss theories of bipedalism and admits weaknesses in those theories.

But a much simpler point is that australopithecines are extinct forms of apes, while Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man are human. On the other hand, Orce man may have been a donkey or a horse - or perhaps an ape? (See my thread on this).

I have not researched all of the above fossils but the main point is that species that begin with homo are human while species that begin with australo are apes.

Many do not realize the variation in brain size of current races, btw.

For example, what is the smallest brain size of current races? Are any current races of similar brain size to Homo Erectus?

Here is another link for you to examine:

“Ape-Men”—What Were They? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

The relevant portion is long - but shorter than the Britannica article you linked to.

To make it easier, here is a shorter excerpt:

"30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”⁠44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45 Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47


32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?


32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49"

References:

44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.


45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.


46. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 38.


47. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 86.


48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.


49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.

First finding things that are still uncertain in something as complex as human evolution in no way undermines the assertion that human evolution happened.

Second, you aren't making points you are making assertions. The article provides a summation of the plethora of fossil evidence of species that have both human and simian characteristics something that is the definition of transitional species. You can not simply state one fossil is simian with human traits and another is a human with ape traits because that's just arbitrary.

 

[forkup]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

No, we didn't descend from pigs. But pigs and humans share a common ancestor. By looking at the genetic match and extrapolating we can pinpoint where the divergence occurred and then go out and find the fossil to match in particular strata. Paleontologists have done so on numerous occasions.

And yes I do claim that ALL different species evolved from one common ancestor. That is the nature of evolution. And reading what you write you seem to be claiming the same thing.

 

[barn sour]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Gotta check it out, the fact is even though I firmly believe in God I could accept evolution since Adam and Eve were not the only humans would just mean that is how God made them.

Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied, and people lived hundreds of years in the beginning, which explains how the multiplying resulted in many offspring.

 

[barn sour]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

Adaptation not evolution.

 

[barn sour]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

 

[Newtonian]

Here is a more detailed link:

http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

See p. 302 which refers to variation of brain size [numbers are cubic centimeters] from 428 (St-60) to 1740 (Amud); then variation in brain size; normal individual variation 900 to 2100; group mean (average) ranges from 1085 to 1518.

See also table 1 on p. 306 - range in brain size (male more than female) is 1085-1581.

See also table 11 on p. 313 - Homo Erectus range is 918-1273 cc.

Bottom line - by brain size alone, Homo Erectus falls within the range of modern races of man - such as Vedda of Sri Lanka (aka Ceylon). [The akka brain size is disputed] Evolutionists often point to increased brain size as evidence of their theory but almost never specify the comparitive brain sizes of current races. For example, Neanderthal's average brain size is greater than many races and Cro Magnon man had an even larger brain size. Also, it is the folding (wrinkling) of the brain, not its size, which determines intelligence and fossils do not tell us the degree of folding in various extinct races.

 

[forkup]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

​

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

​

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.​

​

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

 

[forkup]

Here is a more detailed link:

http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

See p. 302 which refers to variation of brain size [numbers are cubic centimeters] from 428 (St-60) to 1740 (Amud); then variation in brain size; normal individual variation 900 to 2100; group mean (average) ranges from 1085 to 1518.

See also table 1 on p. 306 - range in brain size (male more than female) is 1085-1581.

See also table 11 on p. 313 - Homo Erectus range is 918-1273 cc.

Bottom line - by brain size alone, Homo Erectus falls within the range of modern races of man - such as Vedda of Sri Lanka (aka Ceylon). [The akka brain size is disputed] Evolutionists often point to increased brain size as evidence of their theory but almost never specify the comparitive brain sizes of current races. For example, Neanderthal's average brain size is greater than many races and Cro Magnon man had an even larger brain size. Also, it is the folding (wrinkling) of the brain, not its size, which determines intelligence and fossils do not tell us the degree of folding in various extinct races.

What's your point? Does any of it bring you an iota closer to delivering a counter to human evolution? Brain size varies within individuals, race, sex, and this within a single species, does that mean I can't assert we all share a common ancestor?

 

[Newtonian]

I am off to play a game I check this board different times of the day in between playing games so don't declare victory cause I did not post right away.

Take all the time you need. You are grappling with 150 years of theory and evidence, so you will need it.

It is your job not mine to support your claim. You must define what supports your claim then provide evidence to back it up. And no just cause some mammal has some vestigial parts does not support the claim though it does help it I will admit. Take the Horse for example we have thousands of years of evidence to support the claim that the horse evolved, there are actually verifiable bones and fossils to show the evolution. Yet in all that history no evidence it ever evolved into 2 or more DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT species. And you can not provide any such evidence for the claim man came from apes or apes and man came from the same species thousands of year ago.

I accept that science and God both work together, Dinosaurs and such came before man I accept the fact that we all descend from some common things our DNA provides that evidence to many similarities to ignore. I even accept that God didn't just make Adam and Eve, he either allowed other humans to evolve or he made them as Cain had to marry someone as did all of Adam and Eves children. NONE of that means God allowed man and ape to evolve from a single species. And Science can not provide compelling evidence they did.

Human evolution - The fossil evidence These describe fossils that are neither human nor ape but have characteristics of both.
Genetics This describes the genetic similarities between the species. Something by the way that helps in determining as to where fossils can be found. So they are supportive of one another.

Do you accept this as supporting evidence and if no why not?

Long link - thank you but it is hard to respond to so much, so I will zero in on one point from your link:

"Regrettably, development of foot structure in early Homo—i.e., between A. afarensis and Neanderthals—is virtually undocumented by skeletal evidence." The article goes on to discuss theories of bipedalism and admits weaknesses in those theories.

But a much simpler point is that australopithecines are extinct forms of apes, while Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man are human. On the other hand, Orce man may have been a donkey or a horse - or perhaps an ape? (See my thread on this).

I have not researched all of the above fossils but the main point is that species that begin with homo are human while species that begin with australo are apes.

Many do not realize the variation in brain size of current races, btw.

For example, what is the smallest brain size of current races? Are any current races of similar brain size to Homo Erectus?

Here is another link for you to examine:

“Ape-Men”—What Were They? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

The relevant portion is long - but shorter than the Britannica article you linked to.

To make it easier, here is a shorter excerpt:

"30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.”⁠44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45 Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47


32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?


32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49"

References:

44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.


45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.


46. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 38.


47. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 86.


48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.


49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.

First finding things that are still uncertain in something as complex as human evolution in no way undermines the assertion that human evolution happened.

Second, you aren't making points you are making assertions. The article provides a summation of the plethora of fossil evidence of species that have both human and simian characteristics something that is the definition of transitional species. You can not simply state one fossil is simian with human traits and another is a human with ape traits because that's just arbitrary.

Some reason you did not respond to my specific points in post 100?

Btw - homology (similarities) does not imply decent. Have you researched pleiotropy?

So, what animal blood is closest to that of humans.

What animal is used for heart valves and skin?

What animal brain has the most folds comparable to humans?

What animal has the closest eye to humans?

 

[Newtonian]

Y

Here is a more detailed link:

http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

See p. 302 which refers to variation of brain size [numbers are cubic centimeters] from 428 (St-60) to 1740 (Amud); then variation in brain size; normal individual variation 900 to 2100; group mean (average) ranges from 1085 to 1518.

See also table 1 on p. 306 - range in brain size (male more than female) is 1085-1581.

See also table 11 on p. 313 - Homo Erectus range is 918-1273 cc.

Bottom line - by brain size alone, Homo Erectus falls within the range of modern races of man - such as Vedda of Sri Lanka (aka Ceylon). [The akka brain size is disputed] Evolutionists often point to increased brain size as evidence of their theory but almost never specify the comparitive brain sizes of current races. For example, Neanderthal's average brain size is greater than many races and Cro Magnon man had an even larger brain size. Also, it is the folding (wrinkling) of the brain, not its size, which determines intelligence and fossils do not tell us the degree of folding in various extinct races.

What's your point? Does any of it bring you an iota closer to delivering a counter to human evolution? Brain size varies within individuals, race, sex, and this within a single species, does that mean I can't assert we all share a common ancestor?

You can assert anything you wish to. But how about addressing the specific evidence I posted?

You are correct that we share a common ancestor - this has been known a long time through a study of genetics. More recently it has been shown that all human races descend from one mother - through a study of mitochondrial DNA. Even more recently a study of the Y-chromosome has revealed that all human races come from one father.

I don't think they are called Mork and Mindy by scientists - but thank you for your sense of humor!

I might add this question - was Orce man an ape, man, donkey or horse? I have a sense of humor too!

 

[Newtonian]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

​

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

​

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.​

​

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

Are you sure you want to pursue that tangent on this thread? I will simply note that the name Jehovah YHWH contains the Hebrew verb hawah (HWH)/ to be and in the causative sense means "He causes to be." This is in harmony with the scientific principle of cause and effect. I think a separate thread would be in order, don't you?

Back on topic - evolutionists also have the same level of certainty but the evidence should be considered - such as what I posted. For example, why is Homo Erectus considered an ancestor when in reality the brain size is within the range of current races? And why do evolutionists usually hide this fact?

Bottom line: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things" - KJV

 

[sealybobo]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually, humans are arrogant to believe they are special and this world was made for us.

We even believe we are gods ourselves. Who else but gods live in paradise for the rest of eternity after they die? Talk about arrogant.

Science believes we will never know our true origins. It’s unknowable. Religious people claim they know our true origins not science. Get that right.

yes, some of the universes secrets we will never know. And no we are not in charge. But none of that leads to your conclusion that god exists let alone determines all. Nice try though.

 

[sealybobo]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Arrogance is convincing yourself that you have The Answer, in either direction.

No one knows. If you want to have faith that it's one of the 2,500 or so gods that humans have maintained over the millennia, great, cool, run with that.

Some of us admit we just don't know, that it's likely we won't know during our lifetime, and we accept that and move on to things over which we have more control.

Meanwhile, it's fun and interesting and stimulating, watching science try to figure stuff out, and learn as it goes.

I’ll translate what they were trying to say. Science doesn’t have all the answers and we as humans hate not knowing the answers to all our questions. So, since religion claims to have all the answers, they love it.

 

[barn sour]

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

There is evidence all around you. The heavens declare the glory of God. There is also the evidence you have inside you. Your conscience declaring there is a God. Man, himself, is evidence. He has been made in God's image. A rational, thinking, creative, loving being with a free will.

I understand what you're saying, though, I can remember when I felt the same. I always think of the blind man that Jesus healed when He walked this earth. When the people asked this man (who had been blind from birth) how it was that he could see. His reply was the same as mine and other believers, "I don't know, but once I was blind and now I can see."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That does not prove we evolved from the same creature apes did though only that perhaps those were early versions of what would become humans. Evolution with in a species is beyond compelling like I said the horse provides that evidence. As to dna and genetics all of life have similar make ups and we are close matches to more then one species, just means everything came from this planet with same building blocks.

So if species have characteristics from both human and ape that doesn't provide evidence that we have a common ancestor but it does provide evidence that early humans have both ape and human features? Seems convoluted thinking does it not?

Nope or did we descend from Pigs to or are you claiming that one creature somehow evolved in multiple numerous DIFFERENT species? Just means we all came from the same source in the beginning, which could be God or could be the primeval swamp. I believe God created everything, which does not mean science is wrong just mistaken. On some points.

Yes, a common Creator who created all that crept over the ground and flew through the air. They adapted over time.

Gen. 1:20-25​

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​

​

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.​

​

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.​

​

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.​

​

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.​

​

​

They adapt and change over time, and man is trying to explain it while he denies the existence of the CREATOR.

Maybe if anybody would offer a shred of evidence for the existence of the creator people would be less inclined to deny he exists? By the way, I don't deny he exists. I simply deny that I have good reason to assume he exists.

What creator are we talking about by the way? Zeus, Odin, Ra, Jaweh, Jehova, God, Inti, Budha, etc., etc. All where/are worshipped by people who displayed the same level of certainty of the existence of them.

Yawah and Jehoviah are one and the same. As for proof? Just like science one must BELIEVE in God there is NO proof, but there is tons of evidence.

 

[Newtonian]

I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.

Actually, humans are arrogant to believe they are special and this world was made for us.

We even believe we are gods ourselves. Who else but gods live in paradise for the rest of eternity after they die? Talk about arrogant.

Science believes we will never know our true origins. It’s unknowable. Religious people claim they know our true origins not science. Get that right.

yes, some of the universes secrets we will never know. And no we are not in charge. But none of that leads to your conclusion that god exists let alone determines all. Nice try though.

I am religious and I claim our true origins are revealed both from science and from the Bible. For example, Acts 17:26 says all nations come from one man. Science has proven that to be true - note our literature points to the scientific evidence here:

An Ancient Creation Record—Can You Trust It? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it."