Man didn't invent gravity. Man DISCOVERED gravity that has always been here. All anyone has to to is observe the magnetic pull that exists in the earth's atmosphere and give it a name. Again, when scientists discover God's laws, they will always be right. But when they invent their own theories that contradict God's laws, they will always be wrong. The universe works on a cause-effect basis. Electrons attract protons which produces electricity. This has always been the case but man did not understand it until a few hundred years ago.But apes produce apes and humans produce humans. Trying to make a human come out of an ape contradicts the way animals and humans breed. There will always be problems when people try to fit a square peg into a round hole. Because this is impossible, then voluminous explanations have to be manufactured in order to try to make the impossible possible. And that is why evolutionists contradict each other so often and change their theories about how humans could come from primates. Every generation, they alter their theories because the have found the previous ones false. And that is why they've changed the "survival of the fittest" theory to say that man is not improving, but simply changing. Althoug some evolutionists contradict that also.Again, your answers are vague and contradictory. You say that scientists say we came from apes but they say we don't come from apes. In fact, I didn't see one clear-cut statement in your post that can't be taken back. So a more non-contradictory answer would be to say that scientists simply don't know how man evolved. That would explain the conflicting premises.And since there are too few fossils to map out human origins, then how can you say that the bible is wrong? Particularly when the reality that humans breed humans and apes breed apes, and man rules over the animals confirms the biblical account of creation perfectly. In addition, the way the bible descrives why the stars, moon, and sun were created also confirms reality perfectly.It says in Genesis that God created the sun to give light by day and the moon to give light by night. It also says that the stars, sun, and moon were created to mark time and spiritual events which is exactly how we determine days, months and years. And we've already been to the moon and it is nothing more than barren landscape that serves no purpose other than to give light at night. Now people can invent anything they want about the moon. They can say that millions or billions or thousands of years ago, whatever date they can think of, the moon used to be inhabited by green or red or blue men. But this again, is all from the human imagination which is endless in its ability to invent scenarios.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 08:55 PM

I suppose if you post enough you might manage to get a small fact right.So far you are establishing a record for mouthing off and knowing nothing about the topics you tackle.In another post you mention "magnetic" with respect to gravity. It is astonishing (but we've been shown this over and over from your ilk) that someone so utterly ignorant thinks he can make the kind of pronouncements you do.In your post 14 here you:1) Ask the same stupid question about beginnings yet again and have yet to demonstrate that you have attempted to read any of the answers given you. (Though they are not all easy to read I will admit but you aren't reading them anyway.)2)You know jack squat about the hominid (and predicessor) fossil record and you will learn litte more by watching TV. You also know zero about how inferences are made from limited material.3) Carbon dating has been shown to be very accurate for a large number of different circumstances and over a time frame of up to 50,000 years. Your knowledge of how we know that is also zero. If you want to ague with dating then head over to the dates and dating threads.4) They do NOT neglect to look in Iraq. The middle east has been the source of a number of human, near human and pre human fossils. In fact, asia was where we thought humans orginated from at one time until this was changed on the basis of evidence (a concept you seem to have, at best, a tenuous grasp of). The evidence that has been found to date (and it is pretty compelling now) is that we evolved in africa. If you would care to list off the evidence (after all you spent 30 years learning about this sort of thing) and show what you think if wrong with it and why Iraq is a better place to look for the earliest human and pre-human forms then please do so. We would be excited to see it.You manage to commit 3 utterly rediculous errors of fact in the one post not to mention the logical clinker you start off with. Too bad there isn't a good record kept of this sort of thing. You might be on top of the heap as far as errors per post goes with your 96 posts so far.Keep up the good work. Just stay on topic while you do so.

A clarification. Gravity and magnetism are quite different things. Gravity doesn't come from any "magnetic pull". Maybe you just made a poor choice of words.Man discovered evolution in exactly the same sense that man discovered gravity. Biological evolution is just as much one of God's laws as is gravity. That's correct. But I can see how that can be confusing.The offspring of ape parents are a little bit different from their parents. Now imagine just a little bit of difference, time after time, then these differences could all add up to a big change.What makes it confusing to you, is that it looks as if there had to be a time when ape parents had a human child. The problem is that the difference between what is a human and what is an ape, is somewhat vague and hard to determine.The apes we see today are quite different from the humans we see today. But suppose that we could do some time travelling and go back in a time machine to look for the event where a pair of apes had human children. What we would actually see is a pair of creatures that we could not be sure whether we should call them apes or we should call them humans, having children that we could not be sure whether we should call them ape children or we should call them human children.I hope that helps to clear up the confusion.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

Gravity is a pull. You can call it magnetic or not magnetic but it is part of God's design, not human design. It has existed long before man came on the scene.But there is no evidence that shows that primates and humans can interbreed, only speculation that comes from the imagiations of men. Animals and humans don't interbreed today and there is no evidence that they have ever been able to. So man cannot "discover" something he invented from his imagination.Sorry, but God didn't mention anything about evolution in the bible. He never said that humans came out of the womb of a wild animal. He said that he created man out of dust. So evolution very definitely contradicts God's laws.No, I never claim that evolutionists say a human as we know it today came out of an ape. I realize they claim this was a gradual result of "mutation" over millions of years. But since human genes were never present in any ape or primate to begin with, then in order for them to breed offspring that turned into humans, those traits had to get there somehow. Normally, those traits get into a species through the mating between their parents. Are evolutionists claiming this isn't so? Or are they claiming that 2 primates produced a "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" who then produced another "mutant" and on and on for millions of years which would then result in millions of "random" mutations that just happened to occur in each offspring! Not only are the odds that so many mutations would result in ONE species that would make its offspring so different from its parents that it is given several new names, so astronomical as to be considered logical at all, but this again has never happened to one species since the beginning of recorded history! So again, this is all a "what if" which makes it hyothetical and not scientific because none of it can be proven, only theorized. And in fact, it contradicts the way animals and humans have bred since there have been witnesses.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 09:37 PMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 09:39 PMThis message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 09:40 PM

This is a science forum. Please do not use faith issues to try and make a point here.This is a science forum and as such you need to be able to provide objective evidence for any claims made.If you wish to discuss faith issues please do so in the faith and belief forums. I believe this is the second time I've asked you to do this.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Humans are apes. It's a broad taxon that includes all species of genus Homo, like humans. Too few fossils? We have hundreds of hominid specimens. Where did you get the idea that we had "too few?" But the moon does not always give light by night; sometimes it's completely absent. Sometimes the moon is out during the day. Rarely, during the day, the sun is completly blocked for a period of time, and day becomes night.You see, your Bible fails to even predict these stupidly obvious predicitions. Or are you saying that the moon is never visible during the day? Also wrong. Did it escape your notice that there's 12.39 lunar cycles per solar year, but only 12 months in a calendar year? Did it escape your notice that a solar year is 365.25 days long, but a calendar year is less than that?If these objects in space are supposed to be keeping time for us, why aren't they synchronized to the month and year? Do you really believe that the best clock God could build runs slightly fast? "Blind watchmaker", indeed.

Have you not yet grasped that NO ONE has said that animals and humans ever interbred?In addtion, the above paragraph seems to be in contradiction to this paragraph: Which is, like most of what you post, in contradiction with the facts.Every single human born is a mutant! All of us, all 6 billion; you, me and he. We have each of us from a handful to a hundred mutations. So yes, we are claiming that each of those primates produced a mutant.There are 6 billion human mutants on this planet now with something like 100 + billion mutations in them. Some aren't so good, almost all we don't notice and a few are pretty good. The evolutionary model DOES NOT say that an offspring will necessarily be so different from it's parents that it would be a new species. In fact, the explanation stresses the contrary. I could have sworn you said you knew a lot about evolution. Is it possible that you are mistaken or even misleading when you say that?There are, however, rare cases where a species does arise in one generation. So it has not only happened in recorded history it has happened in the last century. Once again you have your facts wrong. (Won't be the last time I'm sure. )

No, it isn't magnetic. I have never suggested that they can interbreed. This is a red herring. God didn't mention anything about automobiles in the bible. Does that mean that your automobile doesn't work? That was a metaphor. Either you misunderstand God's laws, or the God you believe in was wrong. Somewhere around 95% of human genes are also found in chimpanzees.I'm afraid that you have a lot of your facts wrong.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

The evidence now known shows that some notable hominid features developed before the savannah environment (upright walking, possibly hairthinness), and that when that environment did make inroads to the jungle that the early hominids stuck to islands of jungle as a prefered habitat.
http://www.agu.org/...ings/fm04/fm04-sessions/fm04_U14A.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/...briefs/20050829/chimpfossil.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2001/07/010712080455.htmfrom the last: "All older hominids have been found in forested environments."The evidence against the "aquatic" ape hypothesis is more direct and I consider it falsified by it. Not least of which is similar glands as our sweat glands with gorillas, while the aquatic ape posits it's evolution after leaving the pool.Such is the life of scientific theories.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The common ancestor of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis would have Homo characteristics, upright walking, hair thiness, speech, etc.What features the common ancestor has depends on what level of common ancestry you are talking about.The common ancestor to me and my siblings are my parentsThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents and my cousins are my grandparentsThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents and african bushmen likely lived more than 10 thousand years ago but less than 200 thousand years agoThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents, african bushmen and chimpanzees likely lived more than 6 million years agoThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents, african bushmen, chimpanzees and reptiles likely lived more than 200 million years agoThe common ancestor to me, my siblings, my parents, my cousins, my grandparents, african bushmen, chimpanzees, reptiles and bacteria likely lived ~3 billion years ago.It's just a matter of scale. How 'human' the features are depend on how close to 'human' the common ancestor was.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*12*2005 10:50 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Why don't you just credit God for your miracle claims ....then you will have a source ?Ray

Did He mention atomic theory?Carico, you are a trip. I will go to bed tonight happy, thinking about you. You crack me up.

No, your ancestors are those who bred your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. They are not common ancestors, they are simply ancestors. But the "Common ancestor" referred to in the thoery of evolution is a fictious animal that had traits common to both primates and humans and that's what the word; "common" means in that context.The problem we're having is that evolutionists consider humans and primates as the same species. Yet the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus defines a species as; "A classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." And since animals and humans are not capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding, they are not the same species as animals. But within each species, traits will vary, but will be similar to all those in that species and remain in that species.The traits of one species can also resemble characteristics of another without those species being descendants of one another. Examples are; dogs and cats who both have characteristics in common such as; 4 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, whiskers and mammary glands. But they cannot breed with each other so they cannot be desendants of each other. So just because apes and humans have charcateristics in common doesn't at all mean that one descended from the other! That's simply a myth and an impossibility as well.God created many, many different species which look like other animals but are not of the same species. They each have a unique purpose in the world and each breed within their species.This message has been edited by Carico, 12-12-2005 11:00 PM

Many others will point out the myriad mistakes in that post.BUT....This is a science thread. Unless you can provide support that

• there is a God and it is the Christian God
• that God created anything
  

they are off topic, pointless and should be left out of the discussion.

Please try to deal with the forum guidelines and the topic.

---

False. This is what the concept of "common ancestor" means - that it is an ancestor that is common to two (or more) lineages.That makes my parents common ancestors to me and my siblings.This is how simple the concept is.There is no ONE "common ancestor" because the context of "common" changes when you talk about different descendant lineages. Also false. They are in the same family, possibly the same genus but not the same species. See:
http://www.msu.edu/%7Enixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html
For proper terminology. Of course all divisions are created by humans for human communication, and all originally came about through the same process of dividing organisms up as occurred between me and my siblings.I didn't bother with the rest, as you started with a couple of blatant and patently false statements so anything based on them would be logically invalid.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.