I'm New Here!

[Philip]

Uh, ACB, you are alreadyalmost totally devoid of modern, respected, qualified theologians or Biblical scholars that agree with you on GT, but please tell me of some respected scientists that believe that there was a former, destroyed world of humans before this one.

[abelcainsbrother]

Uh, ACB, you are alreadyalmost totally devoid of modern, respected, qualified theologians or Biblical scholars that agree with you on GT, but please tell me of some respected scientists that believe that there was a former, destroyed world of humans before this one.

Actually there are quite alot of scientists but mostly Geologists that believe the GT but they keep it quite for now but you would'nt know of them.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

ACB, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are us.

[RickD]

ACB, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are us.

Don't tell ACB that. You might shatter the bubble surrounding his own little world.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are us.

Yes,you are correct.Thanks for bringing it up.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

First consider the chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical. Next consider how we behave.

You're wrong, that isn't true nor is it claimed by evolutionary scientists.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permane ... and-chimps
on the flipside-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... chimp.html

[melanie]

I'm not sure that chimpanzees don't have a soul/spirit. First consider the chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical. Next consider how we behave. Chimps use tools, humans use tools (we are just better at it.) Chimps have the same emotions we do. Chimps become, angry, jealous, loving, chimps appear to grieve the death of other chimps, chimps laugh, chimps feel joy, chimps feel sadness, chimps fear, they have the whole spectrum of other emotions.

I'm not saying that chimps have a human soul, but chimps have a chimp soul (whatever that may be.) Which I believe all self-aware animals may have their own "mini-souls."

Also since 98.9% of chimp and human genes are identical and many other observable and repeatable facts makes evolution very hard to deny with honesty. If you are insistent that the evolution maybe you should ask yourself if your belief is based on facts or just based on your upbringing and what was taught to you.

Christians should not deny evolution but rejoice in it! It is God's wisdom. What a wonderful and beautiful idea for Him to come up with to make us! I find this whole fixation with evolution by Christians strange. God gave us this beautiful gray matter to discover more about God's creation. He surely intended for us to use it!

Sure, scientists have and will continue to be wrong, but when there is such a huge amount of evidence showing that it is very, very likely true, to deny it is intellectually dishonest.

Again, the biblical story of creation is a parable, like when Jesus says he is the Door He does not mean he is made of wood and has hedges. There is much of the bible that is poetry and not meant to be taken literally. Of course some parts are meant to be taken literally. Like Jesus is not a myth but a real Person who existed in history. The evidence shows it.

I suggest that you who are stuck on evolution to move on and consider the big picture of how God created the universe with a singularity! and then work forward to learn more about Him through his creation...and of course by His word.

Love to all...
GrandpapaPatrick

GrandpapaPatrick I don't necessarily agree with all your views but I really appreciate your delivery. I am a fence sitter, I don't know with any certainly how the Good Lord orchestrated this magnificent creation. I have leaned in all directions and have enthusiastically observed all points of view.
I welcome your input here, dogmatic or not...... I have no issue with conviction. A respectful but consise, non wavering belief is worth its value.
I hope you stick around....
Your point of view is valuable and inline with this forum.
The inerrancy of scripture, where and how symbolism and parables relay the literature of scripture, how science ties into the script are all relevant and needed discussions.

[Kurieuo]

First consider the chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical. Next consider how we behave.

You're wrong, that isn't true nor is it claimed by evolutionary scientists.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permane ... and-chimps
on the flipside-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... chimp.html

Yes, well your amnh.org source is flatly wrong and misleading, they don't qualify just like in GPP's own statement. Rather, it is the "coding DNA" that such figures are drawn from, and that really makes it all really a bad joke at best or swallowed lie at worst. Not to mention such claims are quite dated now. You and I perhaps differ by 1-2 percent in our complete genome, both chromosomes -- chimps and humans however differ much, much more than is always touted and claimed.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

First consider the chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical. Next consider how we behave.

You're wrong, that isn't true nor is it claimed by evolutionary scientists.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permane ... and-chimps
on the flipside-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... chimp.html

Yes, well your amnh.org source is flatly wrong and misleading, they don't qualify just like in GPP's own statement. Rather, it is the "coding DNA" that such figures are drawn from, and that really makes it all really a bad joke at best or swallowed lie at worst. Not to mention such claims are quite dated now. You and I perhaps differ by 1-2 percent in our complete genome, both chromosomes -- chimps and humans however differ much, much more than is always touted and claimed.

by about 5% or so

[Kurieuo]

First consider the chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical. Next consider how we behave.

You're wrong, that isn't true nor is it claimed by evolutionary scientists.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permane ... and-chimps
on the flipside-http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... chimp.html

Yes, well your amnh.org source is flatly wrong and misleading, they don't qualify just like in GPP's own statement. Rather, it is the "coding DNA" that such figures are drawn from, and that really makes it all really a bad joke at best or swallowed lie at worst. Not to mention such claims are quite dated now. You and I perhaps differ by 1-2 percent in our complete genome, both chromosomes -- chimps and humans however differ much, much more than is always touted and claimed.

by about 5% or so

That's correct, but really, while we've mapped out genes, little comparitive analysis has been done. We know little about our own differences (which if we knew, would have great medical benefits), let alone our REAL differences with other mammals like chimps.

It's important to understand what is often labeled as "junk" or "non-coding" regions, anyone who disregards such as unimportant is talking from a position of ignorance. So the 98% similarity is just an ignorant statement to make because such only comes through ignoring such regions.

Consider the elephant shark genome that was released around a decade ago, our earliest "common ancestor" is 1.5 billion years. The conclusion was that what people call our "junk DNA" (non-coding) is conserved that far back at least. Why is that significant? Because such DNA may not have really accumulated over time, as in some kind of vestigal DNA remains, but rather likely has a yet to be discovered purpose. Such purposes will likely become better understood as whole comparisons are made between fully mapped genomic sequences of many, many human beings (work that is being carried out by the likes of Craig Venter).

Meanwhile, claims like grandpapapatrick's, and there was also another thread not too far back about our DNA similarity, continue to be used with over and over. I honed in on GPP's 98% claim to make a point of showing the hubris for what it is. These claims are rather misleading and show a lack of understanding by those who think they're making a significant argument or contribution of some sort. It's really a non-argument anyhow. Even if there were great similarities, the small differences must count for a heck of a lot, because they're are majorly big differences between us and chimps. The most glaring difference besides having less hair, not swinging from trees and the like, is our intelligence and ability to bend nature to our will.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

And all of them things you mentioned "Study Ramapithecus, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-magnons and Neanderthals." are life that lived in a former world and have nothing to do with this world.They are evidence of the kinds of life that lived in the former world that perished completely before God made this world and the kinds of life we have in this world.

Actually it turns out Neanderthals were fully human like us. Besides the hyoid bone being the same as ours and the cultural similarities of them and early Homo Sapiens Sapiens, they had sex with us and most people have some of their DNA. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderth ... mpact.html