We're Really Chimps???

It's obvious that man evolved from chimps. Just look at the similarities; arms, legs, hands, fingers, etc. Even a child can see we look alike. Isn't that enough? Who needs the science of DNA? And most of DNA is junk DNA anyway that has no purpose. No, wait; they already changed that idea (more and more JUNK DNA is turning out to be VERY useful DNA after all, but nevermind that).
But, what did the chimps evolve from?

Well, you answered it yourself by indicating that I believe the Bible. And if that's true, then I believe: And: Male and female did not evolve; we were created that way.Yes, I believe the Bible, and believe God created as he stated (in 6 literal days) and did NOT need millions/billions of years of pain, suffering and "survival of the fittest" before he could pronounce his creation "good".Ah, but you ask if I believe in "evolution" then we have a problem, because we'll wind up with all sorts of evolutionists responding to this post! Because we clearly have the terms Macro and Micro evolution. Micro is observable, but Macro is not (and doesn't even make sense). But there's already a forum that haas debated Micro and Macro evolution, so DON'T start with me here!!!
LOOK OUT!!! Here comes ADMIN!!!

Sorry, I was just being facetious to make a point. I probably shouldn't have done that. It's the part about how much apes resemble man, but yet evilutionists have no clue what the apes evolved from (AND no evidence whatsoever despite their sputtering about fossil evidence). I'll be more serious in the future."Junk" DNA has become a laughable term, yes indeed. And I predicted this would happen, along with many other Christians (and even NON-Christians!). Evilutionists used to spout the idea of "junk" DNA and that our God must be STUPID if he made something that contained so much USELESS stuff. No matter what we said, the scientists still claimed that MOST of DNA was JUNK and had no purpose. Well, all that has CHANGED recently! What a surprise! They have found JUNK DNA plays a VERY important role after all! And now the evilutionists are acting like this is an incredible discovery and they're even making a big deal out of "discovering" this! Unlike the Bible, their scientific theories continue to change.

I've already apologized (on another post) for being over-facetious. I'll be more serious in the future. But thanks for pronouncing such harsh judgement upon me.

It was a response to Literalist, thus the spelling evilutionist. I have use the term several times on other posts in response to evolutionists and have spelled it correctly out of respect. I think I can use some friendly code language, which is better than foul language that some of your people use.

Oh, I'm just going by different things in the news that I see. I can't verify anything, don't look now, NEITHER CAN YOU. You only CHOOSE to believe what you WANT to believe. Just like voting republican, democrat, or whatever; YOU CHOOSE to believe the candidates or not. Since I don't keeps NOTES on news articles I read, I can't give you anything off the top of my head. But a quick web search will help you shake the rust loose for you. For example, an article in the BBC offers bits like: Hey, don't look at me... I'm just going by what scientists are saying. And that article is from last MAY 2004, so it's not exactly breaking news.Here's another interesting article about Junk DNA that has crazy dates going back to 1994 and 1996. Interesting reading. How much of it do I believe? Idunno. And neither do scientists. They just have to keep the information moving so they can keep getting their government grants (paid for by you and me, yes!).
And the web is FULL of this topic (rethinking Junk DNA, etc). I'm surprised you act so surprised....Based on the info that's I see out there right now, I could cut and paste web info for hours.

No, you can't assume the Creator's motives. But you CAN read what the Biblical record states and draw some conclusions. First, Eve was made to be perfect. But after she sinned, God CHANGED SOMETHING that caused her body to go through extreme pain when giving birth (pain didn't exist before the fall). God also CHANGED something to make the earth bring forth thorns and thistles. God couldn't just let Adam's sin go unpunished, or he would not be a just God. Should god have given Adam a spanking instead?Mankind heaped sin upon sin on himself, so how do we know God didn't continue making changes as time went on? The Biblical record (wether you choose to believe it or not) indicates that God shortened our lifespans (which required a CHANGE in perhaps, DNA or our environment, or both, or more) because we seemed to get more and more evil the longer we lived. God decided that 70 or so years was enough time to decide if we would follow him or not.God continued to make changes every so often, and includes the animal kingdom (over which we were given dominion). God includes ALL of creation when he deals with us; notice what he said to Noah after the flood: Wow, hot stuff, eh?And look at what God else did: Obviously, God made a CHANGE. Changes in DNA perhaps? Or changes in areas that we have yet to discover or even imagine? To your specific question about the broken GLO, maybe it had something to do with Adam's fixation with a certain tree? Beats me. But I don't call God stupid or vile names.As for your 486SX analogy, you might want to check your history a little better rather than reading too-young-to-remember-college-kid essays reporing on what they got out an encyclopedia or cliff notes. The original 486SX chip was nothing more than a full blown 486 chip that FAILED to PASS quality control testing! The first 486SX chip was the result of someone at INTEL (who was most certainly smarter than either one of us) who realized that they didn't really need the math co-processor so why throw it in the garbage??? Just sell it cheap! They even realized some of the benefits of the SX like lower power consumption, and laptop useage. The SX chip wasn't DESIGNED out of stupidity; it was a SALVAGED DX chip that couldn't pass inspection!!!! Intel didn't promote the "vulcanized rubber" type mistake/discovery idea because they wanted to look "smart". But the more they talked, the dumber they sounded so they just dropped it and decided not to tell anyone anything (as you mentioned.)
And MAN is basically a salvaged, fallen creation. Sorry, but we did it to ourselves (and we keep it, and keep it up, and keep it up.)The creation was made to be PERFECT. It was cursed for the sake of our disobedience, rebellion against, and rejection of, God. You're trying to pick on God for what YOU THINK is poor design, when you're actually looking at a fallen creation. Like examining a freshly totaled Mercedes, then blaming Mercedes for making a lousy car that won't run.

You might also want to check out the excellent POST # 13 on this thread.

Regulatory or structural functions. That sounds pretty important; certainly not worthy of being called junk. Awesome post, CF. Might want to let Corgyps know; I think he/she was looking for an answer like this. I tried my best earlier in a different post, but your post is better (said more with fewer words). Wish I would have read this first. I buy into that, but I thought someone from your camp wrote a post about humans being directly related to chimps because we share the same broken GLO gene (or whatever DNA sequence). Or did I misunderstand, or is that just incorrect information?

The vitamin C thing was just PURE, ABSOLUTE thinking out loud; nothing more. Here's one more speculation:God made chimps as a result of Adam's "request" for a close companion. God had made LOADS of animals and brought them all to ADAM and he named each one. Seems to me that God was setting up the world to suit Adam, sort of like when we "set up" our kids' bedrooms or playrooms to be "fun" environments. After the kids get ideas of there own, we ask them what else they would like. Adam, certainly not being as creative as God himself, probably pointed out that each animal had a "companion" that seemed to fit (males and females that looked similar). Adam probably offered God some IDEAS on what his companion should look like. Probably like many of us would have, he perhaps drew a picture in the dirt of what he thought a proposed companion should/could look like. Or maybe God just read Adam's mind, or whatever. Anyway, after creating lots of different monkeys, gorillas, etc., perhaps the one Adam liked best was the chimp and they became close buddies sort of like my daughter is close buddies with her loyal dog. But it didn't take long for Adam to realize that this just wouldn't do this trick. So, God took over and made a creature from Adam's rib, who was far more beautiful and fitting than Adam could have ever imagined or designed. As for the chimp, I'm sure they were still super-buddies (like perhaps our dogs today, only on a much high level (I say perhaps!) They probably hung out together, ate together, etc., and the chimp's high intelligence (God given) was part of what Adam needed in a companion. When God stuck the vitamin C gene in Adam, he nailed his close buddy as well since they shared their meals. Or whatever. Again, this is ALL pure SPECULATION, and doesn't really matter. God created this stuff for his and our pleasure, and we were ungrateful to him so instead of wiping us out for joining forces with the enemy, he would lightly touch (curse) his creation for our sake because he had to take some kind of action for our rebellion. WHY did he do certain things in cetain ways? We usually can only speculate. But just like evolutionists say about the origin of life itself: "We don't know HOW it happened; we just know it DID".

That's exactly what I meant.This message has been edited by Juhrahnimo, 01-17-2005 12:08 AM

God made changes in the evrionment and possibly DNA or whatever, as I speculated in my post. But for certain, God didn't make thorns and thistles as part of the creation either, but they showed up later for the reason mentioned. Neither did God create Eve to feel pain during chilbirth; that came later for reasons already mentioned. Neither did God create the animals with fear of man; that change was made AFTER the flood. God did not bring death into the world. We did that. And that was followed by murder (Cain and Abel), pain, disease, suffering, and sins heaped upon sins. What else can I say? I don't have absolute knowledge; I'm just going by the Biblical record. Sorry.

Well, I've chosen to enjoy the games from the audience as I'm working on far too many projects at this point in my life. Responding to posts on this board is just barely off my priority list for the moment.But, since you think I'm so far off in left field regarding this "retina" issue, I'll engage you. But FIRST you must point me to the post(s) where you claim I made my "original argument" about the retina: If you can't point me to the post, or simply fail to respond this post, I'll assume our deal is off.

I know.

Agreed, Crash. But Rrhain's tone was a little, well... Nevermind. Let's just say, had it been NosyNed, buzsaw, Sylas, or even you, my response would have been different. I'm not saying that's right, but in my line of work, I automatically (usually subconsciously) wear a different hat (communication style) depending on who walks into my office. Kind of comes with the territory after a while. I'm not saying that was the case this time; but then, maybe it was. Sometimes I type way too fast when I'm dealing with several things at a time (who doesn't?). I'm usually sitting here with a PC running, a wireless laptop often on my knee, as well as my wireless PPC blaring reminders, multiple phones, plus that darn cell phone that won't quit ringing. If I need a break I'll check what I've got going on Ebay and Amazon, and if I'm REALLY starting to lose it I check to see what's happening on . So now you probably think my office is a padded room with bars on the windows and a door that locks from the outside, right? Nope; I escaped from that place last summer and they're still trying to catch up with me (don't take me too seriously. You'll know when I'm serious. Then again, maybe not).
Anyway, we all need a bit of thick skin if we want to be on this forum (as you may have noticed by some railing posts against me from a couple of people). As a matter of fact, since you stated: ...I've already done that, been called on it (CharlesKnight) and it was trumpeted loudly. My skin was think enough to take it, though (hey, it was a DOHHH! moment of speedreading and typing too fast). But in THIS case, I didn't call Rrhain any names, make derog remarks about his physical or mental ability to read, or otherwise imply anything about his intelligence. Just tried to bring a smile to his face, perhaps (sorry about the thinly veiled attempt at humor). I know it's hard for a creationist to get a laugh out of some of the evos, but I try anyway. Not often though, because, honestly, the standards are quite different for each group (don't say you haven't noticed it; there's even a thread for it); for example, I humorously used the spelling "evilutionist" once (and wasn't even directed at anybody!) and it erupted into a hilarious food fight that even spread to another thread. But my "God" has been called everything from "bastard" to "stupid" and the faith he's authored has been called bullsh__t by evos, without creationists being allowed to get upset. Plz don't engage me on that here. Sorry for the tangent; my cellphone battery just died and can't find the charger!.But your point is, no doubt, well taken.