Fash20:


Its still part of evolution. When a stucture is not in use, it starts to diminish untill it finally disappears. A typical example is the lack of tail in human and other closely rated apes. Our ancestors stopped using their tail for balance, hanging on tree e.t.c thats why we don't have tail today.

Even if evolution isn't entirely true, which i doubt, I believe its the closest thing to the truth cus the evidence is overwhelming

Its still part of evolution. When a stucture is not in use, it starts to diminish untill it finally disappears. A typical example is the lack of tail in human and other closely rated apes. Our ancestors stopped using their tail for balance, hanging on tree e.t.c thats why we don't have tail today.
Everything is being interpreted as evolution, So, the theory seems unfalsifiable. Like I said, we need to avoid the fallacy of equivocation by calling changes observed in any life form as evolution. What evolutionists want us to believe is that organisms increase in complexity (for example; from fish to fisherman- through intermediates) even against all what is known in different field of operational science (theory of information, Biochemical irreducible complexity, etc). So 'devolution' where organisms loose structure should not be hyped as example of evolution.
Also, the bolded is another example of just-so-story that we get from evolutionist. Who was there to witness such event? Because a Ph.D Scientist has said that does not mean that he can't be challenged especially if it can't be observed.

Even if evolution isn't entirely true, which i doubt, I believe its the closest thing to the truth cus the evidence is overwhelming
If you are able to see evolution as a historical science and not 'hardcore' operational science, you should not just doubt it, but also to see that it is full of inconsistencies due to its commitment - MATERIALISM.
The bolded is the national anthem that we here everyday, committing the fallacy of question begging. Where is the evidence (that overcomes all scientific hurdles of biogenisis, information theory, irreducible complexity and so on) before we talk of it being overwhelming

BigDawsNet:

Why do museums have old dinosaur bones?

Because they can't afford new ones

Nice one

FunFact:

You're either ignorant about how evolution works or you’re just dumb as hell... Humans did not evolve from any species of apes that currently exist.We did not evolve from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. Instead, we evolved from a “common ancestor”
with chimpanzees and bonobos. Going even further back, a“ common ancestor”of gorillas and then further back a “common ancestor” of orangutans. Meaning, at some point in the very distant past, there was a species of ape that no longer exists and, eventually, all extant species of ape, including humans, evolved from that species. The other species of apes that currently exist are not our ancestors; instead, they are more like our cousins.

Evolution does not work the way you reason it does. One species can diverge into several different species and, over time, these species can grow further and further apart.

What you said is just like saying “Since dogs all came from one specie of wolfs why don’t all the other dogs change to German Shepherd, or rot willers”or “ since I came from my grandfather , why do my cousins exist?”.

There is no reason why non-human apes should have evolved into humans. They have adapted to their environments in their own ways, which just happen to be different from the ways in which humans have adapted to our environments over the course of our evolutionary history. There is no more a reason why a gorilla should have evolved into a human than there is a reason why a human should have evolved into a gorilla.
I’m sure the gorilla is better equipped to survive in the jungle than we are. Your statement is like a gorilla saying: “Why havent’t these humans evolved to be strong and brutal like me”.

To throw you off your balance can you explain to me how Neanderthals who share the same amount of chromosome with us modern humans, breed with us? Although there species have been wiped out, a small percent of their DNA can be found in most Caucasians.

Can you also explain why humans and chimps have almost the same number of chromosomes?

Can you explain why upon gorillas and chimps are more aesthetically similar, chimps are more genetically related to humans than they are to gorillas?

Can you explain why diseases found in our DNA existing a long time ago can also be found in that of chimps?

Can you explain why chimps share 98% of our DNA?

Humans did not evolve from any species of apes that currently exist.We did not evolve from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. Instead, we evolved from a “common ancestor”
with chimpanzees and bonobos.
You are right that he misrepresented the evolutionary story of one ape (say gorilla, turning to human) but the question can be modified that why is it that we don’t see evolution (increasing complexity) happening.

Evolution does not work the way you reason it does. One species can diverge into several different species and, over time, these species can grow further and further apart.

This is not really an argument for evolution but for creation fall model. It was predicted that organisms should diversify from their BARAMIN (created kind) as the scripture said: “…reproduce according to their kinds”. This is possible by sorting and loss of information in the organism’s genome. Hence, we should expect from complex to less complex. But evolution on the other hand tells us that organisms increased in complexity – from simple to complex

“Since dogs all came from one specie of wolfs why don’t all the other dogs change to German Shepherd, or rot willers”
The bolded claim begs the question. What is the prove that dogs came from wolf? Then your question is a false analogy. Since German Shepherd is a dog, we can’t say that all DOGS should turn to German Shepherd (which is a DOG in the first place)

There is no reason why non-human apes should have evolved into humans. They have adapted to their environments in their own ways, which just happen to be different from the ways in which humans have adapted to our environments over the course of our evolutionary history. There is no more a reason why a gorilla should have evolved into a human than there is a reason why a human should have evolved into a gorilla.
Begging the question yet. This assumes that humans share a common ancestor with some of those apes and can not be proven. The questions you asked later were good but MUST NOT ONLY be interpreted as shared ancestry. The problem is that the alternative is dismissed

To throw you off your balance can you explain to me how Neanderthals who share the same amount of chromosome with us modern humans, breed with us? Although there species have been wiped out, a small percent of their DNA can be found in most Caucasians.
That is the problem again. Many studies show that they are fully human. In fact, the creation model explains that they are likely those group of people who emigrated from Babel but may not have been able to go with the technology (since not everyone would be technologically inclined. Some groups may be tasked with getting raw materials like straw). It is only an evolutionary bias that is portraying them as not humans and by the way, the narrative has been changing. A book: The Neanderthals Discovered documents them.
So it is the evolutionary propaganda that believed that they were not humans but studies is turning that believe upside down

Can you also explain why humans and chimps have almost the same number of chromosomes?
Can you explain why upon gorillas and chimps are more aesthetically similar, chimps are more genetically related to humans than they are to gorillas?
Can you explain why diseases found in our DNA existing a long time ago can also be found in that of chimps?
Can you explain why chimps share 98% of our DNA?
All these questions have a simple answer from a Biblical believer point of view. God is the creator who creates however he wish. Using analogy of a Designer, he can produced different stuff with almost the same materials. The difference between the stuff could be accounted for with the amount of materials used and the amount of ‘foreign’ materials used.
A common designer for a military chopper and fighter jet could use same materials for the production of these two products. In fact, he could produce variants of chopper and variants of fighter jet so that one fighter jet is enhanced than another, though, they were produced with same materials and run on almost the same software.

Riener:



Nice one

Thanks bro

Finnestgreat:
nope u first dumbas.s

nope u first dumbas.s

ibuildstuff:

nope u first dumbas.s

f**k u

Finnestgreat:
f**k u

Fûck u too

ibuildstuff:
Fûck u too

ndo,sorri 4 u

Pelecius:


Humans did not evolve from any species of apes that currently exist.We did not evolve from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, or gibbons. Instead, we evolved from a “common ancestor”
with chimpanzees and bonobos.
You are right that he misrepresented the evolutionary story of one ape (say gorilla, turning to human) but the question can be modified that why is it that we don’t see evolution (increasing complexity) happening.

Evolution does not work the way you reason it does. One species can diverge into several different species and, over time, these species can grow further and further apart.

This is not really an argument for evolution but for creation fall model. It was predicted that organisms should diversify from their BARAMIN (created kind) as the scripture said: “…reproduce according to their kinds”. This is possible by sorting and loss of information in the organism’s genome. Hence, we should expect from complex to less complex. But evolution on the other hand tells us that organisms increased in complexity – from simple to complex

“Since dogs all came from one specie of wolfs why don’t all the other dogs change to German Shepherd, or rot willers”
The bolded claim begs the question. What is the prove that dogs came from wolf? Then your question is a false analogy. Since German Shepherd is a dog, we can’t say that all DOGS should turn to German Shepherd (which is a DOG in the first place)

There is no reason why non-human apes should have evolved into humans. They have adapted to their environments in their own ways, which just happen to be different from the ways in which humans have adapted to our environments over the course of our evolutionary history. There is no more a reason why a gorilla should have evolved into a human than there is a reason why a human should have evolved into a gorilla.
Begging the question yet. This assumes that humans share a common ancestor with some of those apes and can not be proven. The questions you asked later were good but MUST NOT ONLY be interpreted as shared ancestry. The problem is that the alternative is dismissed

To throw you off your balance can you explain to me how Neanderthals who share the same amount of chromosome with us modern humans, breed with us? Although there species have been wiped out, a small percent of their DNA can be found in most Caucasians.
That is the problem again. Many studies show that they are fully human. In fact, the creation model explains that they are likely those group of people who emigrated from Babel but may not have been able to go with the technology (since not everyone would be technologically inclined. Some groups may be tasked with getting raw materials like straw). It is only an evolutionary bias that is portraying them as not humans and by the way, the narrative has been changing. A book: The Neanderthals Discovered documents them.
So it is the evolutionary propaganda that believed that they were not humans but studies is turning that believe upside down

Can you also explain why humans and chimps have almost the same number of chromosomes?
Can you explain why upon gorillas and chimps are more aesthetically similar, chimps are more genetically related to humans than they are to gorillas?
Can you explain why diseases found in our DNA existing a long time ago can also be found in that of chimps?
Can you explain why chimps share 98% of our DNA?
All these questions have a simple answer from a Biblical believer point of view. God is the creator who creates however he wish. Using analogy of a Designer, he can produced different stuff with almost the same materials. The difference between the stuff could be accounted for with the amount of materials used and the amount of ‘foreign’ materials used.
A common designer for a military chopper and fighter jet could use same materials for the production of these two products. In fact, he could produce variants of chopper and variants of fighter jet so that one fighter jet is enhanced than another, though, they were produced with same materials and run on almost the same software.

but the question can be modified that why is it that we don’t see evolution (increasing complexity) happening.
It appears you have not studied much about evolution either. Evolution takes place over a VERY long time thousands if not millions for larger beings like us. Except you could exceptionally live for a million years else you wouldn't really observe evolution happen with us.
But then again it does happen everyday. People of the Turkanna people of east africa have totally adapted to a diet that has milk in it (they digest lactose well). Other nearby tribes are lactose intolerant and they can't live on the same diet as the Turkanna. I think that the estimates are that for a human population to adapt to a diet containing lactose, you need about 3000 years for this genetic ability to dominate a population. In the Turkanna, their life is spent so close to the edge of survival, that anyone that was lactose intolerant would simply die. The evolution of a gene like "adult ability to digest lactose" should be able to happen in a very short period of time if the choice is "digest lactose" or die from lack of calories.

Evolution also quickly happens in things that live the shortest lives and reproduce hyper fast. Bacteria have adapted (evolved) to cope with our anti-biotics so quickly, that you probably don't want to go to a hospital unless you would die if you stayed at home. It was amazing how effective some "very gross and poorly produced penacillin" was at killing infections when first introduced. Today many organism's just shrug off penacillin's effects like it wasn't there.

There are lots of cases of seeing evolution right before our eyes
Stick Insects Evolution -- Evolving before our eyes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515163836.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2Bsciencedaily%2B(Latest%2BScience%2BNews%2B--%2BScienceDaily)

7 species' evolution -- evolving before our eyes
http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=companion

This is not really an argument for evolution but for creation fall model. It was predicted that organisms should diversify from their BARAMIN (created kind) as the scripture said: “…reproduce according to their kinds”. This is possible by sorting and loss of information in the organism’s genome. Hence, we should expect from complex to less complex. But evolution on the other hand tells us that organisms increased in complexity – from simple to complex
You're not entirely correct about this. I'll edit and explain why later.

The bolded claim begs the question. What is the prove that dogs came from wolf? Then your question is a false analogy. Since German Shepherd is a dog, we can’t say that all DOGS should turn to German Shepherd (which is a DOG in the first place)
There are tons of proof about this. Dogs are a diverged specie of wolves who followed humans, you can look it up. This wasn't a question it was more of a comparison, read my op where I made the statement and you would understand why I used it. Dogs make up different species just as apes make up different species, humans are apes by definition (tailless primate).

That is the problem again. Many studies show that they are fully human. In fact, the creation model explains that they are likely those group of people who emigrated from Babel but may not have been able to go with the technology (since not everyone would be technologically inclined. Some groups may be tasked with getting raw materials like straw). It is only an evolutionary bias that is portraying them as not humans and by the way, the narrative has been changing. A book: The Neanderthals Discovered documents them.
Why are you stating completely incorrect facts? Why are you creating this false ideologies to defend your religion.

The Neanderthals were human but a different species. Your creation model story is nonsense. It states that only one man and woman were created (I have always wondered seeing as Adam and Eve had 2 sons, where did the rest of humanity come from?)
Also, It is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for just 2 individuals belonging to a complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing animal species to give rise to, and maintain a genetically healthy population consisting of billions of descendants without eventually going extinct caused by detrimental inbreeding.

Neanderthals also have DNA distinct from modem humans, so we are not the same tribe.
People of European descent have around 2% Neanderthal DNA indicating that they interbred with them at some point.

Hundreds of Neanderthal skeletons have now been recovered since the first discovery in Belgium in 1829. They range from Spain to Belgium, Germany and across to south-west Asia and all existed before about 50,000 years ago.
50,000 years is a long time. Any story's about them would have been forgotten way before the bible was written. The writers of the bible had zero knowledge about their existence.
Neanderthal skulls are easily identified from those of modern humans because of the low forehead, protruding brow, non-projecting jaw, large nasal cavity and pronounced occipital bun at the back of the head. Neanderthals were shorter but immensely strong in comparison to modern humans, and had great muscle mass and thick bones.

According to the bible, the tribes who created these stories were from the middle east. If we were descended from ‘Adam and Eve’, everyone would have Middle Eastern DNA - but we don’t.

If you believe the biblical time line, Adam and Eve were created ‘ about 5000–10,000 years ago, depending on how you interpret it.
Aborigines have been in Australia for 65,000 years.
Humans have been on Earth for more than 350,000 years.
Our ancestors for millions of years before that.
The tribes that invented the Adam and Eve myth didn’t even exist until around 900–1100 BCE.

Finnestgreat:
ndo,sorri 4 u

Sorry for ur parents

Pelecius:

Its still part of evolution. When a stucture is not in use, it starts to diminish untill it finally disappears. A typical example is the lack of tail in human and other closely rated apes. Our ancestors stopped using their tail for balance, hanging on tree e.t.c thats why we don't have tail today.
Everything is being interpreted as evolution, So, the theory seems unfalsifiable. Like I said, we need to avoid the fallacy of equivocation by calling changes observed in any life form as evolution. What evolutionists want us to believe is that organisms increase in complexity (for example; from fish to fisherman- through intermediates) even against all what is known in different field of operational science (theory of information, Biochemical irreducible complexity, etc). So 'devolution' where organisms loose structure should not be hyped as example of evolution.
Also, the bolded is another example of just-so-story that we get from evolutionist. Who was there to witness such event? Because a Ph.D Scientist has said that does not mean that he can't be challenged especially if it can't be observed.

Even if evolution isn't entirely true, which i doubt, I believe its the closest thing to the truth cus the evidence is overwhelming
If you are able to see evolution as a historical science and not 'hardcore' operational science, you should not just doubt it, but also to see that it is full of inconsistencies due to its commitment - MATERIALISM.
The bolded is the national anthem that we here everyday, committing the fallacy of question begging. Where is the evidence (that overcomes all scientific hurdles of biogenisis, information theory, irreducible complexity and so on) before we talk of it being overwhelming

You think evolution is a unidirectional process but it is not. In fact, evolution is not directional. evolution encompasses everything including "Devolution".

I will rather put my trust in a scientist with a Ph.D because the probability that he/she will be wrong in his field is low compared to someone with say, B. Sc in the same field.

I love science for one thing; the ability to predict future and past event to a high degree of accuracy (which of course depends on the parameters). I wasn't there when the earth was formed but I know everything were all made from the debris of a dead star. From the carbon in my muscle t0 the calcium in my bones. Every single element apart from hydrogen was baked in a star that existed billions of years ago.

Evolution has been juxtaposed with other hypotheses that were aimed at explaining life on earth as we know it but the theory of evolution is always superior to all of them. Come up with a theory that works better than evolution and see how the theory of evolution will be discarded.

ibuildstuff:

Sorry for ur parents

and urs too,infact sorry 4 ur whole generation both born and unborn

Finnestgreat:
and urs too,infact sorry 4 ur whole generation both born and unborn

PLC

ibuildstuff:
PLC

GGPU

Finnestgreat:
GGPU

.

ibuildstuff:
.

LTP,ewu

FunFact:


but the question can be modified that why is it that we don’t see evolution (increasing complexity) happening.
It appears you have not studied much about evolution either. Evolution takes place over a VERY long time thousands if not millions for larger beings like us. Except you could exceptionally live for a million years else you wouldn't really observe evolution happen with us.
But then again it does happen everyday. People of the Turkanna people of east africa have totally adapted to a diet that has milk in it (they digest lactose well). Other nearby tribes are lactose intolerant and they can't live on the same diet as the Turkanna. I think that the estimates are that for a human population to adapt to a diet containing lactose, you need about 3000 years for this genetic ability to dominate a population. In the Turkanna, their life is spent so close to the edge of survival, that anyone that was lactose intolerant would simply die. The evolution of a gene like "adult ability to digest lactose" should be able to happen in a very short period of time if the choice is "digest lactose" or die from lack of calories.

Evolution also quickly happens in things that live the shortest lives and reproduce hyper fast. Bacteria have adapted (evolved) to cope with our anti-biotics so quickly, that you probably don't want to go to a hospital unless you would die if you stayed at home. It was amazing how effective some "very gross and poorly produced penacillin" was at killing infections when first introduced. Today many organism's just shrug off penacillin's effects like it wasn't there.

There are lots of cases of seeing evolution right before our eyes
Stick Insects Evolution -- Evolving before our eyes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515163836.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%2Bsciencedaily%2B(Latest%2BScience%2BNews%2B--%2BScienceDaily)

7 species' evolution -- evolving before our eyes
http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=companion

This is not really an argument for evolution but for creation fall model. It was predicted that organisms should diversify from their BARAMIN (created kind) as the scripture said: “…reproduce according to their kinds”. This is possible by sorting and loss of information in the organism’s genome. Hence, we should expect from complex to less complex. But evolution on the other hand tells us that organisms increased in complexity – from simple to complex
You're not entirely correct about this. I'll edit and explain why later.

The bolded claim begs the question. What is the prove that dogs came from wolf? Then your question is a false analogy. Since German Shepherd is a dog, we can’t say that all DOGS should turn to German Shepherd (which is a DOG in the first place)
There are tons of proof about this. Dogs are a diverged specie of wolves who followed humans, you can look it up. This wasn't a question it was more of a comparison, read my op where I made the statement and you would understand why I used it. Dogs make up different species just as apes make up different species, humans are apes by definition (tailless primate).

That is the problem again. Many studies show that they are fully human. In fact, the creation model explains that they are likely those group of people who emigrated from Babel but may not have been able to go with the technology (since not everyone would be technologically inclined. Some groups may be tasked with getting raw materials like straw). It is only an evolutionary bias that is portraying them as not humans and by the way, the narrative has been changing. A book: The Neanderthals Discovered documents them.
Why are you stating completely incorrect facts? Why are you creating this false ideologies to defend your religion.

The Neanderthals were human but a different species. Your creation model story is nonsense. It states that only one man and woman were created (I have always wondered seeing as Adam and Eve had 2 sons, where did the rest of humanity come from?)
Also, It is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for just 2 individuals belonging to a complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing animal species to give rise to, and maintain a genetically healthy population consisting of billions of descendants without eventually going extinct caused by detrimental inbreeding.

Neanderthals also have DNA distinct from modem humans, so we are not the same tribe.
People of European descent have around 2% Neanderthal DNA indicating that they interbred with them at some point.

Hundreds of Neanderthal skeletons have now been recovered since the first discovery in Belgium in 1829. They range from Spain to Belgium, Germany and across to south-west Asia and all existed before about 50,000 years ago.
50,000 years is a long time. Any story's about them would have been forgotten way before the bible was written. The writers of the bible had zero knowledge about their existence.
Neanderthal skulls are easily identified from those of modern humans because of the low forehead, protruding brow, non-projecting jaw, large nasal cavity and pronounced occipital bun at the back of the head. Neanderthals were shorter but immensely strong in comparison to modern humans, and had great muscle mass and thick bones.

According to the bible, the tribes who created these stories were from the middle east. If we were descended from ‘Adam and Eve’, everyone would have Middle Eastern DNA - but we don’t.

If you believe the biblical time line, Adam and Eve were created ‘ about 5000–10,000 years ago, depending on how you interpret it.
Aborigines have been in Australia for 65,000 years.
Humans have been on Earth for more than 350,000 years.
Our ancestors for millions of years before that.
The tribes that invented the Adam and Eve myth didn’t even exist until around 900–1100 BCE.

It appears you have not studied much about evolution either. Evolution takes place over a VERY long time thousands if not millions for larger beings like us. Except you could exceptionally live for a million years else you wouldn't really observe evolution happen with us.
But then again it does happen everyday
Well, that has been the claim. “We can’t observe it” but “it is happening before our eyes”. It is a fallacy of equivocation to equate adaptation or sorting of gene within the gene poop with evolution (increasing complexity).

People of the Turkanna people of east africa have totally adapted to a diet that has milk in it (they digest lactose well). Other nearby tribes are lactose intolerant and they can't live on the same diet as the Turkanna. I think that the estimates are that for a human population to adapt to a diet containing lactose, you need about 3000 years for this genetic ability to dominate a population. In the Turkanna, their life is spent so close to the edge of survival, that anyone that was lactose intolerant would simply die. The evolution of a gene like "adult ability to digest lactose" should be able to happen in a very short period of time if the choice is "digest lactose" or die from lack of calories.

Evolution also quickly happens in things that live the shortest lives and reproduce hyper fast. Bacteria have adapted (evolved) to cope with our anti-biotics so quickly, that you probably don't want to go to a hospital unless you would die if you stayed at home. It was amazing how effective some "very gross and poorly produced penacillin" was at killing infections when first introduced. Today many organism's just shrug off penacillin's effects like it wasn't there.

There are lots of cases of seeing evolution right before our eyes
The examples you gave are simply categorized into any or all of the above mentioned mechanisms. And it is important to note that NONE OF THOSE MECHANISMS CAN INCREASE THE INFORMATION CONTENT WHICH WILL LEAD TO DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FUNTIONAL STRUCTURES THEREBY, INCREASING COMPLEXITY.
This is what we expect to see – INCREASE IN THE INFORMATION CONTENT present in the genome of an organism. This is what definitely distinguishes an organism from another which is higher in complexity

You're not entirely correct about this. I'll edit and explain why later.
You seem not to show me where I made error by claiming that I am not entirely correct

There are tons of proof about this. Dogs are a diverged specie of wolves who followed humans, you can look it up. This wasn't a question it was more of a comparison, read my op where I made the statement and you would understand why I used it. Dogs make up different species just as apes make up different species, humans are apes by definition (tailless primate).
It still begs the question. Who was there to know that they followed humans? I can agree that they diverged from what is called ‘wolf kind’ in creationist circle. And not just dogs, but coyotes, dingo and others of the canine family.
I said that the question is a false analogy because German Shepherd are dogs but man and apes are distinct (even with the 98% DNA comparison, while ignoring the difference which has been shown to reduce the number to about +/- 86%) and it is only the initial assumption that would make one believe that humans and apes are tailless primate

Why are you stating completely incorrect facts? Why are you creating this false ideologies to defend your religion.
You must have skipped the word ‘LIKELY’ in my statement. Then, you have you read the book which I mentioned? It was reviewed here https://creation.com/the-neanderthals-rediscovered-review and the evidence used in the book were just interpreted from through a creation/fall model. After all, evidence don’t interpret themselves, humans do interpret through whatever worldview he agrees with.


Neanderthals also have DNA distinct from modem humans, so we are not the same tribe.
People of European descent have around 2% Neanderthal DNA indicating that they interbred with them at some point...
It’s good that you said they are human. But we need to define what a specie is. In creation model, we don’t call it specie, rather, created kind it is defined as organisms (say A and B) which can breed together to produce offspring (definitely, A and A are same species and so is B and B). Also, if A and B can breed with C independently, they are all created kinds. But even if two organisms don’t breed to produce offspring, it can’t be ruled out since we have couples that don’t produce but we can’t call them different species. So I never claimed that we are of the same TRIBE, I only said that they were humans just as we are

The Neanderthals were human but a different species. Your creation model story is nonsense. It states that only one man and woman were created (I have always wondered seeing as Adam and Eve had 2 sons, where did the rest of humanity come from?)
Also, It is physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for just 2 individuals belonging to a complex, multicellular, sexually reproducing animal species to give rise to, and maintain a genetically healthy population consisting of billions of descendants without eventually going extinct caused by detrimental inbreeding.
You said it is nonsense without even knowing what it says. But ignorance is not an excuse. You didn’t read where it says Adam “begot sons and daughters” [Genesis 5:3-4]
Again, your theory is flawed because it is ignorant of the creation model. When God said his creation was GOOD, it means there was no death nor disease of any kind hence without any form of degradation. The fall according to the Bible brought all those and when it was not safe for inbreeding (marriage of close relatives). And a simple calculation (even putting death caused by many factors such as war, famine, disease, etec) agrees that with just 2 healthy couples, we can arrive at our present population in about 7,000 years since Population growth is increasing currently at a rate of approximately 1.8% per annum (World Book Encyclopaedia), or doubling every 39 years, while from Adam to present population will give a average of doubling rate every 33 years (putting the factors I mentioned above into consideration)

According to the bible, the tribes who created these stories were from the middle east. If we were descended from ‘Adam and Eve’, everyone would have Middle Eastern DNA - but we don’t.
The figure attached should answer your skepticism. The three mDNA perfectly agrees with what the Bible says about the sons of Noah which is what we expect after population bottle neck of the flood.

If you believe the biblical time line, Adam and Eve were created ‘ about 5000–10,000 years ago, depending on how you interpret it.
Aborigines have been in Australia for 65,000 years.
Humans have been on Earth for more than 350,000 years.
Our ancestors for millions of years before that.
The tribes that invented the Adam and Eve myth didn’t even exist until around 900–1100 BCE.
I have no problem with the dates as Scientists in creation circle have explained the anomalies for getting older dates using real observations

[center]Several factors indicate the 14C clock is unreliable. Firstly, different species of plants take up 14C at different rates, and this (if at all possible) has to be corrected for.15 Secondly, the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 has not remained constant; for instance, in recent history the industrial revolution and also atomic testing has changed the ratio. The earth’s magnetic field has not remained constant, and this affects the carbon-12 to carbon-14 ratio by changing the number of cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere. The cosmic rays displace neutrons and it is these energetic neutrons which convert nitrogen into carbon-14. 12C ‘contamination’ can arise from volcanic carbon dioxide which alters the carbon ratio in the wood of trees growing in the area of a volcano, making the wood appear older. The end of the Ice Age also affected the atmospheric ratio of carbon due to the release of carbon from cycling of fresh water with saline.16 And lastly, the Flood drastically changed the carbon ratio by burying unquantifiable amounts of 12C in vegetation, thus giving an inflated age to any sample tested[/center]
Even if 'molecular clocks' were used, it has been shown that the calibration is still done with the uniformitarian assumption of deep time. And they explained that:
...the methods have multiple problems: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates, 2) different taxa exhibit different rates for homologous (similar) sequences, and 3) divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite being calibrated by it. And finally, the molecular clock idea is directly tied to the neutral model theory of evolution, which assumes mutations occur in the so-called junk DNA. However, recent discoveries undermine the idea of pervasive junk DNA, thus negating its foundational premise.

The article Empirical genetic clocks give biblical timelines shows that when measured rates of genetic change are applied, ‘molecular clocks’ yield ages consistent with the biblical timescale. The article concludes, “A straightforward empirical approach constricted to analyses within a single taxa, typically yields dates of not more than about 5,000 to 10,000 years. Thus, when the hypothetical evolutionary constraints are removed, and the data is analyzed empirically, biblical timelines are achieved.”
https://creation.com/dna-research-australian-aborigines-50000-years-ago
You can read the whole article and see the references quoted for yourself

Fash20:

You think evolution is a unidirectional process but it is not. In fact, evolution is not directional. evolution encompasses everything including "Devolution".

I will rather put my trust in a scientist with a Ph.D because the probability that he/she will be wrong in his field is low compared to someone with say, B. Sc in the same field.

I love science for one thing; the ability to predict future and past event to a high degree of accuracy (which of course depends on the parameters). I wasn't there when the earth was formed but I know everything were all made from the debris of a dead star. From the carbon in my muscle t0 the calcium in my bones. Every single element apart from hydrogen was baked in a star that existed billions of years ago.

Evolution has been juxtaposed with other hypotheses that were aimed at explaining life on earth as we know it but the theory of evolution is always superior to all of them. Come up with a theory that works better than evolution and see how the theory of evolution will be discarded.

You think evolution is a unidirectional process but it is not. In fact, evolution is not directional. evolution encompasses everything including "Devolution".
Of course, I know that evolution does not add to complexity but the mechanisms that are trumpeted for evolution can only lead to degradation (as shown in the loss of digit of the Dino in the article). This is what is being observed
I will rather put my trust in a scientist with a Ph.D because the probability that he/she will be wrong in his field is low compared to someone with say, B. Sc in the same field.
Sure, you are right but my claim is not about his qualification, it was about lack of proof

I love science for one thing; the ability to predict future and past event to a high degree of accuracy (which of course depends on the parameters). I wasn't there when the earth was formed but I know everything were all made from the debris of a dead star. From the carbon in my muscle t0 the calcium in my bones. Every single element apart from hydrogen was baked in a star that existed billions of years ago.
Saying it does not make it true. They are called ‘just -so-stories’. The cosmic evolution hypothesis is fatally flawed and honest scientist know with some of their honest admissions sometimes as shown

In 1988, physicist James Trefil stated in his book The Dark Side of the Universe, "There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. . . . [it] is one of the thorniest problems in cosmology. . . . It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."

John Horgan, a senior staff writer for Scientific American, noted that one of the big questions unanswered by the big bang theory is "How and when did galaxies form?"

In 1998 the scientists at NASA admitted "We have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed [or] how galaxies evolved, whether they were formed from aggregations of smaller units or from subdivisions of large ones."

Another Physicist, Prof John Harnet said:
The universe is, by definition, the planets, stars, and galaxies that surround us. Insofar as big-bang theory does not explain the origin of these objects, then we can say that big-bang theory does not even address the question of the origin of the universe. It does not even get to first base. Big-bang theory produces, at best (given the benefit of every doubt), an expanding mass of gas. It does not produce even one solar system, let alone a whole galaxy of billions of solar systems.

Professor Abraham Loeb of Harvard's Center for Astrophysics: "We don't understand star formation at a fundamental level."
The stories are being promoted by media but Scientists know that it is not the case

Evolution has been juxtaposed with other hypotheses that were aimed at explaining life on earth as we know it but the theory of evolution is always superior to all of them. Come up with a theory that works better than evolution and see how the theory of evolution will be discarded.
Again, that is another claim but it is known to be false deep within many scientists as evidence on evidence keep shredding the theory into pieces.
The theory is held on due to commitment to MATERIALISM. See Professor of Biology, Richard Lewontin’s quote
[center]‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[/center]
Though, he equated science with evolution which is a fallacy of equivocation, but it is clear that there is a bias which will never allow any other theory that is not committed to materialism.

Pelecius:

You think evolution is a unidirectional process but it is not. In fact, evolution is not directional. evolution encompasses everything including "Devolution".
Of course, I know that evolution does not add to complexity but the mechanisms that are trumpeted for evolution can only lead to degradation (as shown in the loss of digit of the Dino in the article). This is what is being observed
I will rather put my trust in a scientist with a Ph.D because the probability that he/she will be wrong in his field is low compared to someone with say, B. Sc in the same field.
Sure, you are right but my claim is not about his qualification, it was about lack of proof

I love science for one thing; the ability to predict future and past event to a high degree of accuracy (which of course depends on the parameters). I wasn't there when the earth was formed but I know everything were all made from the debris of a dead star. From the carbon in my muscle t0 the calcium in my bones. Every single element apart from hydrogen was baked in a star that existed billions of years ago.
Saying it does not make it true. They are called ‘just -so-stories’. The cosmic evolution hypothesis is fatally flawed and honest scientist know with some of their honest admissions sometimes as shown

In 1988, physicist James Trefil stated in his book The Dark Side of the Universe, "There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are. . . . [it] is one of the thorniest problems in cosmology. . . . It's hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."

John Horgan, a senior staff writer for Scientific American, noted that one of the big questions unanswered by the big bang theory is "How and when did galaxies form?"

In 1998 the scientists at NASA admitted "We have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed [or] how galaxies evolved, whether they were formed from aggregations of smaller units or from subdivisions of large ones."

Another Physicist, Prof John Harnet said:
The universe is, by definition, the planets, stars, and galaxies that surround us. Insofar as big-bang theory does not explain the origin of these objects, then we can say that big-bang theory does not even address the question of the origin of the universe. It does not even get to first base. Big-bang theory produces, at best (given the benefit of every doubt), an expanding mass of gas. It does not produce even one solar system, let alone a whole galaxy of billions of solar systems.

Professor Abraham Loeb of Harvard's Center for Astrophysics: "We don't understand star formation at a fundamental level."
The stories are being promoted by media but Scientists know that it is not the case

Evolution has been juxtaposed with other hypotheses that were aimed at explaining life on earth as we know it but the theory of evolution is always superior to all of them. Come up with a theory that works better than evolution and see how the theory of evolution will be discarded.
Again, that is another claim but it is known to be false deep within many scientists as evidence on evidence keep shredding the theory into pieces.
The theory is held on due to commitment to MATERIALISM. See Professor of Biology, Richard Lewontin’s quote
[center]‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[/center]
Though, he equated science with evolution which is a fallacy of equivocation, but it is clear that there is a bias which will never allow any other theory that is not committed to materialism.

Let me ask a question whats your stance on evoultion. What do you think it explains perfectly and what are its shortcomings

Pelecius:

Suppose you are honest and not in the business of “publish or perish” in academia...
Unfortunately, the “publish or perish” persecution that many scientists face in the academia. You have people that are denied of their tenure, papers are refused to be published, funding are stopped the moment you try to challenge cosmic and biological evolution

...our universe when it began. It came from absolute nothing...
That is the greatest nonsense that have been swallowed by the general public. NOTHING exploded. Someone even made it sound more annoying by summarizing it as “nothing exploded and produced hydrogen…”

Using high-school calculus, you can integrate the differential equation backward in time to find that the moon would hit the earth in only 1.55 billion years. It is much earlier by about 3 billion years!
That is another instance of how historical science (cosmology in this case) fails when confronted with real science

To reconcile the contradiction, planetary scientists are saying that the moon retreated more slowly in the past due to hypotheses such as shifts in plate tectonics. But how could you have plates if the earth was in the “molten state”?
This is how intelligent folks ridicule themselves because of ‘faith’ in materialism. Plate tectonics in a molten earth; very funny of them

Since the first discovery by Mary Schweitzer, other research groups have also found biologically degradable tissues in other dinosaurs. It is quite a mystery how such tissues could have survived such a long time.
The funny thing is that her discovery has now made her an authority in field of Paleobiology. She received so many backlash but was able to stand by her results, though trying to interpret it from evolutionary lens so as to ‘appease the gods’.
Whenever such discovery is made, they resort to claiming that it must have been contaminated. That is a very nonsense approach to science. If ruling paradigm are protected at all cost (including stupidity), how will it advance?

We are now observing at one point of the cosmic age and how do you extrapolate back in time without some other reference point in the past? In the absence of observations, say 1 million years ago, scientists in the epoch-dependent fields have no choice but to trust and believe that their hypotheses and assumptions (e.g., the rate of radioactive decay does not change, dark energy and dark matter are real, etc) work
This last one is where my wannabe science guys in NL do amuse me. They fail to differentiate operational science which fulfils the scientific method from historical science that is more or less just-so-stories.

Otherwise, how could you get your papers accepted for peer-review journals? How could you get funding for your science projects?
These questions are just there and makes life difficult for honest scientists.

Doff my hat for you

I belong to a Nigerian group chat, The Secular society.. It consist of Nigerians from all over the world who are Atheists. I tried to make them understand that the big bang theory and theory of evolution are pure nonsense. They behave just like the Christians of old who try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them, even though they have no real way to prove what they believe is right.

The last statement challenged them with is, nothing can come of nothing. Look around you, nothing that functions well and was designed follows that pattern, watches, cars or anything you can think of.

Thy said the big bang was an exception to that rule, that it came from nothing. I was disappointed, people that pride themselves as intelligent than creationist simply for having a different view from them.

Fash20:


Let me ask a question whats your stance on evoultion. What do you think it explains perfectly and what are its shortcomings

Let me ask a question whats your stance on evoultion
I should explain my stance on evolution first.
It is a form of history. Why? History tell us what happens in the past. The authenticity of a historical materials depends on some criteria that are used in historical methods. Also, evolution tends to tell us what happens in the past. I differentiate it from operational science because its stories cannot be observed, repeated nor tested. Hence, it is historical science.
Secondly, Darwin’s origin of species is an interesting part of his life as some experts show. Being born into a church going family, he found it difficult to conceive the idea that God created life to suffer as he experienced that of some of his children. [the reason for his skepticism has been discussed in books such as; ‘why a loving God allows evil’ and so on]. His voyage to Galapagos island made him discover the adaptive abilities of animals to environmental pressure, hence giving rise to changes in there appearance and so on. With other observations, he concluded that life must have risen and diversify form natural cause instead of coming from God. Many naturalists of his time got what they were waiting for – a scientific argument for origin of life and folks like Charles Lyell, Ernst Haeckel and so on rode on Darwin’s publication, promoting is within the scientific circle.
Fast forward 250 years now, it has become the reigning paradigm since it has support of the consensus in which one’s career is on the line if you try to publish anything which challenges it. Funds and grants for research are threatened, academic tenures can end, one could even be fired if you challenge the theory in academia. These have been documented in peer-reviewed journals that are not controlled by evolutionists

What do you think it explains perfectly and what are its shortcomings
I will regard it as an alternative to supernatural creation, that is, a creation from chemicals to complex life and which diversified to all what we have and can see now. I won’t be able to say exactly what it explains as Darwin’s lack of knowledge of genetics made him believe that mutation + natural selection is the prime mover of evolution which explains how a paramecium could turn to a paramedic over millions of years. This will lead me to its short comings
1. Many Darwin’s contemporary refuted his theory with stronger scientific arguments. Louis Pasteur for example experimentally proved the law of BIOGENESIS. This itself has knocked evolution out before the match even start. Only life can begat life, non-life chemicals will never lead to life no matter the millions of years you allow them to do trial by error
2. Limited knowledge of genetics during Darwin's time made the theory to thrive. Now it is known that a sophisticated and large amount of information is stored in the DNA of cells. These ‘manual’ that describes how components of cells should function, how molecular machines should be built, what the machines should do. Where do these manuals come from?
3. Again, from the information problem. Complex organisms differ from simpler ones in amount of information. How did an organism add information to the existing in its genome so that it becomes complex than it used to be. For example, legless reptiles developing legs. Where did the information to produce legs come from? Evolutionist attempted gene duplication coupled with mutation but this can be likened to making extra copy of a page in a book to mean that new information has been added (even if the extra copy has deleted parts in it)
4. Professor of Biology and Biochemistry, Michael Behe coined a term he called irreducible complexity. He discovered that there are some biochemical pathways that must all be present for a structure to be functional. For lay folks like us, he used the mouse trap analogy where he explained that for it to work, the base, release mechanism, strike hammer and other parts must be present, else the mouse trap won’t catch anything. He gave different examples of such in organisms and though evolutionists attacked him, he defended his position with sound knowledge. This has now become a form of subject in which many more irreducible complex system are being discovered. E.g a biomimetics and Engineer explained that of the human knee and so on.
5. Evolution has failed to explain the origin of consciousness, morality in humans and other behavior that has no survival advantage
6. It can’t explain the origin of gender since asexual reproduction is more economical that sexual reproduction and thus, have a survival advantage.
7. Living structures shows tons of evidence of being designed (though from a biblical perspective, the fall led to degradation and hence, less optimal capacity of designed structures). But evolution want us to believe that it is not the case. Life came by chance and blind chemistry. Obeys laws that also came by chance and so on
Like the Lewontin’s quote that I used before, the idea is just to exclude an intelligent cause which points to creator God, hence, a material cause is invoked even when it goes against common sense. Unfortunately, it has become a form of religion that cannot be challenged and is forced down people’s throat with statements such as ‘the evidence is overwhelming’, ‘anyone who does not accept evolution is retarded’ and it is promoted as if it is sound science like medicine, physics or chemistry.