• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

Right Divider

Body part
We should pivot back to evidence and see who dodges.

There is solid evidence that Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor:
Continuing to make claims without actual evidence.
It is YOU that should pivot back to evidence and see who dodges.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So would the Apostles be impeached in court then? Or not? I mean they are witnesses (not the only ones) of Christ's Resurrection. I'm not asking you if the uniform witness testimony provided by the Apostles (and other putative eye witnesses to the Resurrection ( = saw Him die and or dead + saw Him alive again)) is sufficient to prove, establish or demonstrate the Resurrection really happened. I'm just asking, Would any of the witnesses (Greek 'martyrs') be impeached in court?
Bump for @Skeeter
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Questions for you to avoid dodging on:

Do you accept the forensic technique that can use degraded DNA to identify the family of the perpetrator?

Do you accept that DNA similarity between species reflect how related they are?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Oh, so you admit there is evidence but reject it because its not perfect?
For a supposed PhD, you surely cannot think straight.

NO, I'm not complaining about "imperfect evidence". My point, which you should have easily understood, was that the EVIDENCE is the same for TWO different interpretations. You interpret similarity as caused by common ancestry (which you have no actual support for), whereas I interpret the similarity as due to a common Designer and Creator.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
For a supposed PhD, you surely cannot think straight.

NO, I'm not complaining about "imperfect evidence". My point, which you should have easily understood, was that the EVIDENCE is the same for TWO different interpretations. You interpret similarity as caused by common ancestry (which you have no actual support for), whereas I interpret the similarity as due to a common Designer and Creator.
Okay, in the interests of moving things along on the substance, we will pretend you answered the questions about DNA.

Next question: Why do you reject the idea that similar DNA between species reflects relatedness, but accept that similar DNA in humans reflects relatedness?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Okay, in the interests of moving things along on the substance, we will pretend you answered the questions about DNA.
There are MANY ways to compare DNA... different methods create different "trees of life". There is no clear linage as you would like to believe.

In some ways humans are more similar to chickens than to apes.
Next question: Why do you reject the idea that similar DNA between species reflects relatedness,
Some sort of actual evidence would be nice.
but accept that similar DNA in humans reflects relatedness?
LOL... PhD ... really?

YES, humans are much more similar to humans than to apes!
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
There are MANY ways to compare DNA... different methods create different "trees of life". There is no clear linage as you would like to believe.

In some ways humans are more similar to chickens than to apes.
Compare 99% with 60% and see if one is greater.
Some sort of actual evidence would be nice.

LOL... PhD ... really?
Just because you are a little slow on the uptake, doesn't mean I don't have a PhD.
YES, humans are much more similar to humans than to apes!
Read carefully. Human DNA can be compared to determine familial relationship in forensics. Why does similarity of DNA mean closer relationship in one arena but not in our wider family?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Compare 99% with 60% and see if one is greater.
Throwing out made up numbers is meaningless.
Just because you are a little slow on the uptake,
Fake news.
doesn't mean I don't have a PhD.
In? Gender studies? Tinker toys? Lip flapping?
Read carefully. Human DNA can be compared to determine familial relationship in forensics.
Indeed, they are ALL HUMANS.
Why does similarity of DNA mean closer relationship in one arena but not in our wider family?
Some actual evidence would be nice.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Throwing out made up numbers is meaningless.
You know the genome has been mapped for chickens, chimps, and humans, right? Shared DNA can readily be calculated.
In? Gender studies? Tinker toys? Lip flapping?
Everything, I would guess.
Indeed, they are ALL HUMANS.
And all living things are living AND related.
Some actual evidence would be nice.
Just answer the questions, you inartful dodger.
 

Right Divider

Body part
You know the genome has been mapped for chickens, chimps, and humans, right? Shared DNA can readily be calculated.
Fake claim. As I mentioned, there are MANY ways to compare DNA and they give vastly differing results.
Everything, I would guess.
Then nothing... got it.
And all living things are living AND related.
Their relatedness is NOT based on inheritance. The KINDS were created by God. THEY have a descendant relationship.
Just answer the questions, you inartful dodger.
Again, present some ACTUAL evidence.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Fake claim. As I mentioned, there are MANY ways to compare DNA and they give vastly differing results.

Then nothing... got it.

Their relatedness is NOT based on inheritance. The KINDS were created by God. THEY have a descendant relationship.

Again, present some ACTUAL evidence.
Why do you deny the field of DNA forensics?

What do you think of this?:

dna compare.jpg

Show me another way DNA is compared.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Nope... it works fairly well when you already KNOW that you are comparing TWO HUMANS.
Please explain why it does not work when comparing other living things then.
It's a cute picture that proves nothing. Going back to your favorite propaganda sites again?

Do more research.
So, I have to present your evidence as well? I think we found the dodger, Stripe!
 
Last edited:

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Great.

Let us know when you actually have evidence instead of a fluffy article that does nothing but promises that there is some.
We should expect that chimpanzees are diverging into multiple evolutionary paths?

And humans are also diverging into multiple evolutionary paths?

Or does the imaginary past in evolutionary theory NOT predict the future?

Doesn't seem very sciencey to me
 
Top