God used Evolution to 'create' man

[Eman_3]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:37 AM, omega2xx said:

How can a mutation that can only alter the trait of a gene be the mechanism for a change of species?

The chimpanzee has 99% commonality with humans. Gorillas have 98% commonality. Orangutans have 97%, and the  rhesus macaque 93%.

 

From http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

[omega2xx]

11 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

The chimpanzee has 99% commonality with humans. Gorillas have 98% commonality. Orangutans have 97%, and the  rhesus macaque 93%.

 

From http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.

You didn't answer the question because you can't, and close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. You don't l even understand DNA.  It separates species, it does not link them.

Talk is cheap.  As  usual you evos make dogmatic statements but offer no evidence.  When you can explain how apes obtained the ability to talk,  scientifically  of course, get back go me,

Humans did not evolve---Let us make man in our image and likeness.

"After their kind" is proved thousands of times every day, and you can't falsify it and neither can real science.

genesisapologetics.com/faqs/human-and-chimp-dna...

This link says the similarities between chimp and human DNA is only 84.4%, So the evolution evangelist have continued o deceive you.  You have accepted what they say by faith alone.

 

Love, peace joy

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by omega2xx

[Eman_3]

1 hour ago, omega2xx said:

This link says the similarities between chimp and human DNA is only 84.4%, So the evolution evangelist have continued o deceive you.  You have accepted what they say by faith alone.

 

I did not get my information from any "evolution evangelist", but science. DNA is now a mature and established science, it's results are admissible in a court of law.

And even if your proposition is correct, would it not be reasonable that if God created man as a completely different species, the DNA match would be much lower, not as high as 84.4%? In fact, man should not share any DNA with chimps.

[The Barbarian]

On 10/30/2019 at 9:13 AM, Alive said:

In a localized regional flood, what would contain the waters to allow for 'covering'?

A basin.    For example, what is now the Black Sea was once an inhabited land, with settlements, rivers, and mountains.    Then about the right time in Biblical terms, the Mediterranean Sea apparently broke through, and rapidly submerged it all.

In 1997, Walter Pitman and Bill Ryan of Columbia University proposed a controversial hypothesis: that the sea level abruptly rose about 7,200 years ago, due to salty Mediterranean water breaking through a natural dam across the Bosporus Strait and flooding the freshwater Black Sea — timing that they note coincides roughly with the biblical story of Noah’s Flood (see Geotimes, February 2004). The hypothesis is still disputed, and archaeologists, historians and oceanographers continue to search for evidence of Neolithic sites that might have been inundated by the rising sea.

“Most of looking for these archaeological sites is an exercise in geology — looking for evidence of ancient shorelines,” Coleman says. Additionally, he says, geological training is necessary to sort out those ancient shorelines from modern sedimentary environments on the shelf, which are likely due to the density gradient in the Black Sea.

That strong density difference, which keeps the sea’s layers mostly stable and in place, can still produce some interesting effects, Coleman says. For example, sonar pulses sent from the upper layer can bounce off the higher-density layer. Additionally, internal “waves” that never see the surface can travel along the interface between the high- and low-density layers of water, he says. Once those waves reach the shelf, they break. “At 150 meters deep, we see evidence of sedimentary bedforms that look like sand waves,” he says. Those bedforms can easily be confused for buried shorelines.

Correctly interpreting evidence of ancient shorelines, therefore, requires understanding “landscape archaeology, or environmental archaeology” as well, Coleman says. “We’ve mostly identified places where paleoriver channels have flowed across the shelf, evidence of terrestrial flora such as grass growing, and peat deposits and deposits within cores that are evidence of an arid and subarid landscape,” he says. The researchers also identified sites with shoreline features such as smooth, well-rounded beach stones and intact bleached mollusk shells — a freshwater species dating to more than 7,000 years ago, he says. Such mollusks could only have lived in nearshore environments that became inundated and were preserved by rising sea levels.

The team has also mapped the layers of sediment that lie underneath parts of the Black Sea floor, using a “sub-bottom profiler,” also mounted on the towfish Echo. The sub-bottom profiler sends sound pulses toward the seafloor. As in seismic reflection surveys, some of the sound reflects off the seafloor and some of it may penetrate it, providing information about the thickness, composition and slope of the seafloor’s layers. These data, collected about 15 to 30 kilometers off the coasts of northern Turkey and southern Ukraine and up to 50 kilometers off the coast of Bulgaria, could potentially be interpreted as representative of coastal and nearshore structures and paleo-shoreline deposits, Coleman says.

The data also reveal that the sea hides other features fascinating to geologists and oceanographers, Coleman says. “We have compiled some geologic cross sections that show active slumping going on off the slope, and other geologic processes,” such as underwater landslides likely triggered by earthquake activity and turbidity currents, he says.

http://www.geotimes.org/jan07/feature_BlackSea.html

 

[The Barbarian]

On 10/30/2019 at 4:39 AM, Abdicate said:

That's a lie. It does say that.

Actually, it doesn't.   You've merely assumed that "eretz" means "global."  And of course, it does not.   "Eretz Israel" does not mean the whole world.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, Abdicate said:

And it doesn't say "Eretz Israel" is says eretz.

Which means "land."  As in "the land of Israel."    Or "my land."   Or "hereabouts."    And so on.   

NAS Exhaustive Concordance

Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
earth, land
NASB Translation
common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3).

So that doesn't support a global flood, which the Bible does not say happened.

 

 

 

[enoob57]

35 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So that doesn't support a global flood, which the Bible does not say happened.

all my children can easily teach you this simple understanding within God's Word...

Gen 7:17-22

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
KJV
 

[one.opinion]

It really doesn’t matter how many times the passage is repeated. The actual words used originally in the Bible do not require a global flood. This is a fact.

If you want to be true to the Bible, and I assume you do, then you must face what the Bible says, as well as what it doesn’t say.

[omega2xx]

21 hours ago, Eman_3 said:

I did not get my information from any "evolution evangelist", but science.

I also go my info from science, which differs from your and gave reasons for he difference.  Believe what you want but look at other scientific evidence before you believe something by faith alone.

DNA is now a mature and established science, it's results are admissible in a court of law.

Yes it is but you don't understand what it does.  In court it separates.  It identifies a specific person as the only one who did r did not do something.  Same  in animal life.  It says this sample came from not only a man but from a specific man.  Mutations do not hang DNA and unless a mutation can change DNA, they can't change a species.

And even if your proposition is correct, would it not be reasonable that if God created man as a completely different species, the DNA match would be much lower, not as high as 84.4%? In fact, man should not share any DNA with chimps.

You are making a statement for which you have no evidence.  Let me give you a scientific truth---to be the same the DNA has to be exactly the same, or the results to prove something is of no value.  I may e wrong about this think and I may remembering it wrong, but I think man and bananas have some similar DNA.

Maybe evolutionists should try this for an answer for ape evolution---while the first ape, and no one know what it was before it became an ape,  but evolutionists are very good at guessing, was eating a banana it gave it indigestion.  This indigestion cause a mutation that changed its DNA and later it had a human as it kid.

Why don't you try to falsify "after their kind?"

love, peace, joy

 

[Eman_3]

31 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

 

I did not make a statement but offered a possibility. My original statement was ...

"And even if your proposition is correct, would it not be reasonable that if God created man as a completely different species, the DNA match would be much lower, not as high as 84.4%? In fact, man should not share any DNA with chimps. "

You are committing the " reductio ad absurdum " facllacy, the the appeal to extremes.