• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are you Greater than an Ape?

for lack of ability?.....does animals believe?

  • no....they cannot

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • we are dust as they are dust

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • faith saves

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
Status
Not open for further replies.

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
3. The Human Genome, aka that which separates us from other Great Apes, is present in all the so-called races. It's development can be traced to Africa, and from there our species migrated around the word. THAT is what the evidence shows. and is far more significant than the genetic diversity.
Lovely, so you then agree with the statement that all people descended from two ancestors.
A male and female Human.
Sounds a bit Biblical to me.
And by the way, how do you know that our ancestors came from Africa?
This is also a lie!
What if the African humans came from the middle east?
And you now wish it to be from Africa because you want the Lucy's to be the parents of Africans, and the Africans the parents of the rest of the world!
There is no way to determine geographical origins by DNA!
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
You do not have any theory to explain life that has supporting evidence and you deny the evidence that shows you are genetically associated with apes. Go through any discussion presented on evolution and there has been given more that sufficient evidence by everyone who took the time to present the evidence with links.
Wow, and when I read the publications on the origins of man by Evolution, and I check the claims I find only an attempt to prove something without facts.
let me put it to you this way.
All the supposed evolutionary evidence the atheist pseudo scientists produces that man originated from a Humanoid, is so flimsy.
10% possibility and 90 % made up opinion.
This is no evidence at all, and to try to tell me that I should go to other threads where it was discussed and links supplied, is no argument at all.
I will not continue with this discussion on this forum, but will open a thread tomorrow where I will give you the opportunity to see what I am talking about.
We will dwell in the dark concoction of Human origins and see what evidence you have.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Wow, and when I read the publications on the origins of man by Evolution, and I check the claims I find only an attempt to prove something without facts.
let me put it to you this way.
All the supposed evolutionary evidence the atheist pseudo scientists produces that man originated from a Humanoid, is so flimsy.
10% possibility and 90 % made up opinion.
This is no evidence at all, and to try to tell me that I should go to other threads where it was discussed and links supplied, is no argument at all.
I will not continue with this discussion on this forum, but will open a thread tomorrow where I will give you the opportunity to see what I am talking about.
We will dwell in the dark concoction of Human origins and see what evidence you have.

At least science makes sense even if it hasn't all the answers, whereas you take on it makes absolutely so sense at all, imo.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
At least science makes sense even if it hasn't all the answers, whereas you take on it makes absolutely so sense at all, imo.
Well, if you are of opinion, as your friend wild Fox that 40 % of Lucy's carcass is almost a complete body, perhaps believing in 90 % assumptions with 60% shortcommings, any theory can be assumed to be science!
And with such a lot of BS, this is now 10% evidence of 40% fossil, you have a mere 4% "Science that makes sense".
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Well, if you are of opinion, as your friend wild Fox that 40 % of Lucy's carcass is almost a complete body, perhaps believing in 90 % assumptions with 60% shortcommings, any theory can be assumed to be science!
And with such a lot of BS, this is now 10% evidence of 40% fossil, you have a mere 4% "Science that makes sense".

Oh dear!:D
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
At least science makes sense even if it hasn't all the answers, whereas you take on it makes absolutely so sense at all, imo.
At least Science takes all evidence in perspective and dont use bias to produce the wonderfull inventions we use today.
This is the part of science that is science.
Wishfull theorizing on how an ape and human is connected is simply, well wishfull thinking.
Never claim science as your platform to further Evolution.
There is no science in Evolution at all.
Science stands above and beyond theories that exists without any experimental or observable support.
And untill there is experimental evidence, or any observed evidence, evolution is a hoax.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
OK, so we found an ape carcass, the legbone 500 meters away, in the area we found pebble size tools, and you know it was Lucy.
Why so gullable?
Sharp pebbles in the area of the fossil can also mean that humans killed Lucy and ate its flesh.
I mean, we have the Laeotoli footprints to show that Humans were living close to these apes.
Nope, you are relying on lying sources. Lucy was found at one site. Other Australopithecus were found elsewhere. Why assume that there was only one? Your source was rather idiotic when they assumed that.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
At least Science takes all evidence in perspective and dont use bias to produce the wonderfull inventions we use today.
This is the part of science that is science.
Wishfull theorizing on how an ape and human is connected is simply, well wishfull thinking.
Never claim science as your platform to further Evolution.
There is no science in Evolution at all.
Science stands above and beyond theories that exists without any experimental or observable support.
And untill there is experimental evidence, or any observed evidence, evolution is a hoax.
So you have no clue at all as to what you are talking about.

Would you like to learn?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Nope, you are relying on lying sources. Lucy was found at one site. Other Australopithecus were found elsewhere. Why assume that there was only one? Your source was rather idiotic when they assumed that.
Oh dear!
I replied on the post that was placed about Lucy.
I did not even go further in taking note how another distinct ape found 6 000 miles away was somehow the very same as the first.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
All the supposed evolutionary evidence the atheist pseudo scientists produces that man originated from a Humanoid, is so flimsy.
10% possibility and 90 % made up opinion.

This is what's called "bearing false witness".

This is no evidence at all, and to try to tell me that I should go to other threads where it was discussed and links supplied, is no argument at all.

Well you do keep on ignoring the evidence provided - why not try to actually address some of it?

Human Evolution Evidence

Here's another thread in which I gave just a tiny sample of the genetic evidence (remains of egg yoke making gene in humans):

Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia #975
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top