[[If not a monkey than what was the "common ancestor of both chimps and humans"?]
It was an ape.]
yeah, and apes came from monkeys, animals, and eventually you even believe they came from bacteria
So my argument is not wrong
Now, evolutionists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is. If you want to claim humans came from animals, you have to provide a lineage, period. If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals.
33 comments
Now, creationists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is. If you want to claim humans are the pinnacle of God's creation, you have to provide evidence for this God, period. If you can't show that God exists, you can't claim humans are God's creation.
Fixed it for you.
Your own Bible disagrees.
Ecclesiastes 3:18-22 (King James Version)
18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
"Now, evolutionists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is."
Yet, in case we fail, could we agree that does not make the biblie right?
"...you have to provide a lineage, period"
o......kay.......
Humans are animals if they are multi-cellular living entities that are not plants.
Humans are apes if they are large brained, tailless primates.
NB: this is a simplification, but it will suffice for all but the most nit picking biologist.
We have provided a lineage from simple organism to complex.
Animalia
lol. Also, there is a rough lineage. Do you even know what an animal is?
Take THAT Darwinists! All I can see here is a bunch of ad hominiems (that means personnal attacks) on the messenger - but YOU CANNOT ATTACK THE MESSAGE!
That's because its true. In the 100 or so years of the new-age, communistic religon of Evolution, there is NO evidence!!! IT'S ALL BASED ON FAITH!!!
So...we have to provide an uninterrupted lineage of all mankind to the beginning of time, but all you guys have to do is jump onto a peach crate and shriek "GODDIDIT!"
If you're gonna apply burden of proof, it goes both ways.
You have to love the "no evidence" school. The evidence has been accumulating for 148 years. No other scientific theory is buttressed by as much evidence as evolution is. It overflows the world's libraries and museums. All educated persons accept the evidence, and modern biology is based on the theory. The only thing to be said for the "no evidence" dullards is,since they are completely ignorant of the evidence they actually believe themselves to be right.
This is in response to the "chicken" guy who so rudely interrupted our venting. (As a note, we all know ad hominem isn't a valid logical criticism. We're just all so sick and tired of explaining evolution to fundies who won't listen. So we let off steam and have a laugh here.) Now then.
Evolutionary theory predicted that because many great apes have 24 chromosomes and humans have only 23, a pair of our chromosomes must have fused together at some point in our evolution afer we branched away from the common ancestor. And guess what? Human chromosome #2 has the telltale markings of fused chromosomes, namely, elements that should be at the end of the chromosome are in the middle too.
We have the fossil of a fish with a head characteristic of amphibians - found in a strata of earth at just about the age where evolutionary theorists predicted it should be. We have a bird-like fossil with teeth and a tail characteristic of dinosaurs. Oh, and there's a little lady fossil you should meet. Her name is Great Aunt Lucy.
This is the tip of a massive iceberg of evidence that points to evolution.
Your turn, chicken. Why don't you prove, scientifically, that a random supernatural omnipotent being made everything go *poof*?
"If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals."
Then humans must be vegetables or minerals. Which do you think it is?
If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals
What is meant by "showing the lineage"? The only guaranteed way to show lineage is through DNA analysis. Without DNA analysis, Jake can't even show the lineage between him and his father. The techniques used to trace paternity are based on the same principles used to trace the common ancestry of humans and other apes: the common presence of inherited mutations (e.g., HERVs). And those tests indicate a common ancestry.
I see this tosser is still providing FSTDT quotes a-plenty. I've just submitted yet another one - at this rate he'll be setting some kind of FSTDT record.
Correction. Make that two. Jakey boy is on a roll!
I dropped this in his lap as regards lineages - the Tetrapods. Made not the slightest bit of difference, he still carried on regurgitating his usual combination of blind assertion and witless woo.
Jake M is one of those people who make eugenics seem like a good idea.
Jake's explanation of how humans are not animals (and it's a doozie):
An animal is completely within nature and the natural flow and workings. An animal is exactly in it's right place, and it is completely of the same nature as the earth.
Humans...well, it's a little bit complicated, but basically you probably know that humans "fell" to the material earth plane.
Humans originally are of a higer vibration than the material plane, and although they were integrated into the material world and nature when they came to be, we still are not completely of the same nature as the earth and material plane.
Empress:
Go read Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale . It's a long read, but it's absolutely amazing. It travels the long road back from modern humanity to the start of life, who we 'meet' on the way, when they join our trek, and in which order, as scientists currently know it. Seriously. It's a great book.
Just because you don't go to the museum, look it up, or watch the discovery channel or animal planet, does NOT mean it doesn't exist. There IS a lineage. A rather expansive one- that leads to humanity. It's not even close to being the only one, too.
>>If you want to claim humans came from animals, you have to provide a lineage, period. If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals.
Jake M<<
I give you a reconstruction based on genome sequencing and cross-comparison.
Here is all life on Earth, less the viruses (we're all at the red dot):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/f4/20070515220719!Tree_of_life_with_genome_size.png (BIG image)
Here is a zoom in on the primates, specifically focused on the apes (we and the last five to seven million years of our ancestors plot in the line labeled "hominidae s.s."):
image
Or does Jake M think that "a lineage" requires an unbroken sequence from one generation to the next? Because then I will remind him of the lesson of Zeno.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
