Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

a reply to: Ghost147

It's two fold ghost
Firstly to explain that atheists believe we didn't evolve from fish and or monkeys,, I would like to see the science behind that, the evidence and the particular common ancestor you have to justify it

And that evolutionists like yourself believe our common ancestor is dirt and water, before abiogenesis.
That's the starting point, irrelevant abiogenesis, before life we where supposed to be dirt and water, wouldn't you agree

So as silly as it is for a creationist to say evolution teaches fish or monkeys. A statement that irks evolutionists because for some reason, lacking scientific evidence, I wanted to point out how the scientific community believes ultimately our first common ancestor was dirt and water

I am amused by the idea that creationists are wrong for saying evolution teaches fish and monkeys yet you guys have no other option than accept the beginning was dirt and water

Don't you see how strange it sounds when evolutionists get all navy when creationists say the wrong thing, though you believe in dirt and water as life gives

So far not one comment with any science relevant to my op

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Raggedyman

You decide.

What do you want me to decide?

I don't believe they are descendants of dirt and water

I don't believe we have a common ancestor, created uniquely, individually.

Nice picture but irrelevant

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

Care to explain an alternative?

Oh, don't forget the proof so we can compare it with the proof for evolution.

The alternative that our common ancestor is that God created

Yours is dirt and water

originally posted by: Keplero
a reply to: Raggedyman

Errr sorry, do you know what "creationists" means?

Good point I did come back and yes the op is vague, if not deceptive in some ways

What I should have said is creationists believe evolutionists think, wrongly, that fish and monkeys are a common ancestor

That was an error, my apologies

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer


Of course if you go back far enough you'll find all species share a common origin.

Great picture, does it go waaaaay back to when we where supposed to be dirt and water, that would be cool, way cooler

originally posted by: smurfy

Oops! I nearly forgot the most important bit, regardless of the whacky opening post, Creationism is a belief system, while Evolution remains a theory, albeit a pretty good one.

Regardless

I think the evolution is a reasonable theory, baseless, lacking evidence though without any other options it must be considered reasonable in the circumstance

Do you believe our common ancestor is dirt and water

Does it upset you when a creationists says evolution teaches our common ancestors are monkeys and fish
Do you have any evidence to prove them wrong that's not assumption

I would love to hear it

So do you get angry when creationists assume you believe that evolution teaches a common ancestor is monkeys and fish
It doesn't bother you that a common ancestor is dirt and water

Do you have any science that's not assumption about mankind not having fish as a common ancestor, please bring back the t along

originally posted by: gambon
i dont think fish are even the same species / genus as each other

old.qi.com...

so we cannot have descended from fish as such,because fish dont exist...lol

Yet humanity doesn't have the same genus as dirt and water yet you accept that as scientific truth?

You believe that? Fine, are you one of those evolutionists who complains f a creationist thinks you believe evolution teaches fish and monkeys, why, what evidence do you have they are wrong?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you believe our common ancestor is dirt and water

There is ONE source and ONE source ONLY that claims that our common ancestor is dirt ... Genesis 2:7.

Science does not yet know exactly how life began (and may never do), but it is pretty sure that it did NOT begin with dirt and water.

In my opinion, the most likely locale for the Garden of Eden is at the bottom of a primordial sea near a hot sea vent. I doubt that Adam and Eve could have survived there in comfort however; there was still a lot of work to do.

You need to start try focusing on the difference between study of how life got started and the study of what happened to life AFTER it got started. The first one is hard, the latter is much easier.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Firstly to explain that atheists believe we didn't evolve from fish and or monkeys,, I would like to see the science behind that, the evidence and the particular common ancestor you have to justify it

And I would like to present it to you, but you've made a habit out of rejecting nearly everything to do with science in biology. But, if you've turned a new leaf and are humbly inquiring, I can post about it

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
And that evolutionists like yourself believe our common ancestor is dirt and water, before abiogenesis.
That's the starting point, irrelevant abiogenesis, before life we where supposed to be dirt and water, wouldn't you agree

I don't really consider dirt and water a 'we', but we are made up of the same matter that makes up the universe. It would be a stretch to state that 'our common ancestor is star dust' mainly because well, it's not an 'ancestor'. They may makeup the materials that existed before life on earth, but that doesn't make them our 'ancestors'

Furthermore, Abiogenesis involves Organic Molecules, not "dirt and water".

Also, There isn't any such thing as an "evolutionist". In all scientific fields you are free to accept or reject the hypothesis or theory, but that doesn't make someone a 'gravitationalist' or "heliocentralist" or "atomist".

That being said, for the people whom accept the theory of evolution as a valid description of how life diversifies on Earth, why would abiogenesis or anything before that have anything to do with Evolution or the people whom accept it?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
So as silly as it is for a creationist to say evolution teaches fish or monkeys.

Go on

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
A statement that irks evolutionists because for some reason, lacking scientific evidence, I wanted to point out how the scientific community believes ultimately our first common ancestor was dirt and water

Sorry, but no one 'believes' this, nor is it a scientific hypothesis or theory. I believe you may have misunderstood something in order to come to this conclusion.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I am amused by the idea that creationists are wrong for saying evolution teaches fish and monkeys yet you guys have no other option than accept the beginning was dirt and water

Citation please

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Don't you see how strange it sounds when evolutionists get all navy when creationists say the wrong thing, though you believe in dirt and water as life gives

When did anyone ever claim this? I have no idea where you came up with "people whom accept evolution believe our ancestor is dirt and water"

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
So far not one comment with any science relevant to my op

Perhaps that's because the concept of "ancestor = dirt and water" doesn't exist?

a reply to: rnaa

I don't have to do no such thing

This thread is based on the beginnings of life, you may leave it if YOU so choose

You have no theory without an origin, you just can't accept that

a reply to: Ghost147

No I love science, just not religiously science like evolution.

Let's not play one upmanship

And stardust has no life, though it must be an ancestor as what else could we be?
Those organic molecules, please go on, they came from, space? Where if not star dirt

I choose the term evolutionist as it is simple and clear, happy to use something more socially, politically correct if I come across a better description

and why is abiogenesis important, to many it is, just because your science faith dismisses it so casually, doesn't make it irrelevant, doesn't make it invalid to others and its relation to evolution.
You don't decide what others think, what others need to understand

I guess that science can say hat ever it likes as long as it is classified a theory, so far there are no other options than dirt and water, our common ancestor

a reply to: Raggedyman

We share a common ancester I'll agree. The Father of all humanity.
Our Creator, our Father, our God. Period. He is where science
and the supernatural combine. And the result is us.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Raggedyman

We share a common ancester I'll agree. The Father of all humanity.
Our Creator, our Father, our God. Period.

"And no amount of evidence, logic, reasoning, and simple explanations will ever change my mind!"

a reply to: Ghost147

As I said further. He is where science and the
supernatural combine to make us. It's actually quite logical even.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Let's not play one upmanship

I wasn't trying to

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
And stardust has no life, though it must be an ancestor as what else could we be?

It's not an ancestor because we aren't biologically related to it. It is the predecessor of life. If you want to call it "ancestor" go ahead and do so, just know that using that term in that context does not reflect the meaning it has in biology.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Those organic molecules, please go on, they came from, space? Where if not star dirt

When stars reach the end of their lives they expel their outer-layers into the interstellar medium. These atoms that they expel resemble the full diversity of the periodic table, and spontaneously react with one another, canalized by the cosmic radiation originating from stars, black holes, and cataclysmic events all around us.

In order to see these, as well as the intensity in the areas they inhabit, we measure varying wavelengths that we cannot perceive through our own eyes, such as radiowaves, microwaves, X-rays, and Infrared light. What we find when we do this are the same organic molecules associated with life here on Earth; things like Sugars, Alcohols, amino acids, incredibly complex carbon chains and rings (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - the precursor to many carbon based compounds), so on and so forth.



Above is a photo of the Murchison Meteorite. You can learn more about it here. It landed on earth in 1969.

We have 20 unique amino acids that are used in life processes here on Earth. But when we analyze the amino acids found in this meteorite we find nearly 100 unique amino acids inside, as well as tens of thousands of unique molecular compounds.

So organic molecules are actually extremely prevalent throughout space.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I choose the term evolutionist as it is simple and clear, happy to use something more socially, politically correct if I come across a better description

Such as "Evolutionary Biologist", or "a person whom accepts the theory of evolution"?

It's not a belief system

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
and why is abiogenesis important, to many it is

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just saying that you group different fields of science together as if when a person accepts one, they must accept them all.

This is not how science works.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
just because your science faith dismisses it so casually, doesn't make it irrelevant, doesn't make it invalid to others and its relation to evolution.

When did I dismiss Abiogenesis? All I'm saying is that it's irresponsible to state that "to accept evolution is to accept things, events, information, and so forth outside of it"

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
You don't decide what others think, what others need to understand

But you do?

This entire topic is about you stating what people whom accept evolution 'believe'

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I guess that science can say hat ever it likes as long as it is classified a theory, so far there are no other options than dirt and water, our common ancestor

There is no "common ancestor" before life on Earth. There are events that certainly lead to life on earth, but that is not Evolution, so the use of the term "common ancestor" is misleading and inaccurate.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

As I said further. He is where science and the
supernatural combine to make us. It's actually quite logical even.

No... "I don't know" does not equal "it must have been god".

"God did it" is a cop-out answer. In fact, it doesn't answer anything at all. It just excuses the mind from being used to answer a difficult question.

Where do rainbows come from? God

What makes the sun rise? God

How is lighting and thunder formed? God

If you want to remain ignorant because you don't feel like making the effort to think in general, then that's on you. It is certainly not the 'logical answer'

a reply to: Raggedyman

This thread is based on the beginnings of life, you may leave it if YOU so choose

Not according to the opening post.

It is firmly rooted in the discussion about whether humans are descended from fishes or monkeys.

It mentions nothing about dirt, water, or the origins of life - it mentions only questions about Evolution. It is your opening post, I would have thought you would have understood it.

Evolution is about how life changes - Evolution is NOT about how life begins.

There is a reason for this: figuring out how life began is hard - noticing that life changes over time is easy, its in your face all the time. It is something that can be worked on and yield results.

Of course there is no life to study before life begins and science would like to know how it happened. Knowing what life is and how it changes over time helps in the study of origins.

How life changes can be studied without understanding how life began. The origin of life cannot be studied without understanding how life changes.

I know this pains you, but 'that's the fact Jack'.

a reply to: Ghost147

I think you are as wrong as you can possibly be.
I also think you are completely and ultimately biased.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

I think you are as wrong as you can possibly be.
I also think you are completely and ultimately biased.

How am I biased? I would instantly change my position on the matter if new evidence comes to light. You, on the other hand, wouldn't ever change your position no matter how many mounds of evidence we presented.

You are more than welcome to 'think I am as wrong as I possibly can be", however, you're opinion doesn't matter. If my position is 'as wrong as it can possibly be' then why not prove that it is?

The great thing is, once you prove to me it's wrong, I'd instantly drop that position and never return to it again.