• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the Grand Canyon take 65 million to form?

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
18,467
Reaction score
8,149
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I have no problem with the upheaval of the earth from a fault or other catastrophic event. In fact, the Noah's flood wasn't just a bunch of rain that filled the earth. Waters came up from the earth as well from the firmament in the heavens as well. There was much upheaval going on with the plates of the earth as well. But, the smoothing out erosion came from the reseeding waters quickly and violently. I mentioned that the GC was formed one million years ago because that's what another poster here posted with reference. The fact is, it used to be 250 - 500 million years of the Colorado River carving out the GC. Do you still believe this to be true?
No, because I believe the current science. 5-6 million years.

Any science to buttress Noah?
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
2,626
Gender
Male
You don't believe in hell or God. So, there is no such think as lying, murder, evil, sin, stealing and so on. Our DNA doesn't prove anything about evolution. And, how does DNA prove we evolved? It doesn't.

Epigenetic Study Produces 'Backwards' Human-Ape Tree - https://www.icr.org/article/epigenetic-study-produces-backwards
A recently published study in the epigenetic modification of DNA regions similar among humans and three different apes not only provided a completely mixed up picture of evolution, but one that was entirely backwards.1
While the DNA code is closely similar in all cells throughout the human body, the epigenetic code and its patterns vary depending on cell and tissue type.2 Because these epigenetic patterns control how genes are expressed in the cell, evolutionists have been interested in comparing the patterns between humans and apes to check for commonalities and dissimilarities. Interestingly, a comparative epigenetic study just published by evolutionary scientists completely contradicts the standard, inferred evolutionary tree for human-ape evolution. Major differences between human and chimp epigenetic profiles have been noted before.4 But these study results are particularly interesting because they utterly defy all predictions in the evolutionary paradigm—literally turning it on its head and showing that it is a fallible model of human origins.
The only thing this research is evidence of is a fundamental misunderstanding of what epigenetics is. Epigenetics is the study of how environment and behavioral changes can alter the expression of a genome. Therefore, epigenetic differences between different species of great ape are a result of differences in behavior and environment, which control the expression of their genetic code, which itself is broadly similar among great apes. Therefore, epigenetic research on its own cannot in any way be used to extrapolate an evolutionary tree.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
58,503
Reaction score
22,152
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have no problem with the upheaval of the earth from a fault or other catastrophic event. In fact, the Noah's flood wasn't just a bunch of rain that filled the earth. Waters came up from the earth as well from the firmament in the heavens as well. There was much upheaval going on with the plates of the earth as well. But, the smoothing out erosion came from the reseeding waters quickly and violently. I mentioned that the GC was formed one million years ago because that's what another poster here posted with reference. The fact is, it used to be 250 - 500 million years of the Colorado River carving out the GC. Do you still believe this to be true?
The Grand Canyon was carved over some 6 million years.
The oldest human artifacts found in the Grand Canyon are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period. There has been continuous use and occupation of the park since that time. Photo of granaries above Nankoweap by National Park Service.

https://www.doi.gov/blog/13-things-...acts found,Nankoweap by National Park Service.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,602
Reaction score
51,423
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Sigh.....It's too bad there is no hell because there would be place for you there. God has no patience for false idols and liars.

48d709558f5cf7ca81e02bd7c3720c7e.jpg
LOL you have no idea how offensive some fundie Christians find that.

Somehow, it insults them to the core that something that does not reflect on them in any realistic or personal way today relates back to hairy apes.

God "promised them that they're the best, superior, meant to rule all, pure, set apart." The stages of human evolution kinda throw a monkey wrench in that. (pun intended)
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
36,715
Reaction score
25,623
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The flood or the ice age 10,000 years ago did. I bet on the flood for this one. And, God sent the floods from the water in the earth, water in the atmosphere and water in the heavens that surrounded the earth at the time of the flood. You probably always wondered how the people before Noah lived so long. Well, the waters in the heavens surrounded the earth shielding out much of the harmful rays of the Sun so that people just lived longer.

Did the long lived people have lamps on their heads to see where they were, before Noah and light arrived? Did the crops grow in darkness too?
 

Grasshopper121212

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
323
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sigh.....It's too bad there is no hell because there would be place for you there. God has no patience for false idols and liars.

48d709558f5cf7ca81e02bd7c3720c7e.jpg
Once again, atheist scientists have shown the DNA does not support this evolution. This stupid diagram is only a person's individual belief with no evidence of any missing links along the way. Especially since 40 million years ago we were to have evolved from a chimp. The DNA article I provided you does not support this model. It's a big lie. God said we are made in God's image. Not an apes.
 

Grasshopper121212

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
323
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Did the long lived people have lamps on their heads to see where they were, before Noah and light arrived? Did the crops grow in darkness too?
There was light. But, the bad rays we try to avoid today that causes cancer did not get through the firmament as much as they did after the flood. I believe I explained this clearly for those with good reading comprehension skills.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,602
Reaction score
51,423
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Once again, atheist scientists have shown the DNA does not support this evolution. This stupid diagram is only a person's individual belief with no evidence of any missing links along the way. Especially since 40 million years ago we were to have evolved from a chimp. The DNA article I provided you does not support this model. It's a big lie. God said we are made in God's image. Not an apes.

aaaannnndddd/scene
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
21,255
Reaction score
11,923
Location
Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
You can keep repeating old ideas between 1500-1815. What's happening in the past 20 years is that the same natural scientists are finding holes in their own theories. "Creation Scientists" who were once not creation scientists have simply taken these holes and have shown that young earth can be an answer to the same information that was once used to discount young earth. I've given you several articles to read on the subject. You can't counter my belief by ignoring what I'm studying. I've studied your beliefs for 60 years. I find it interesting that there are questions old earth science cannot answer. If you read the articles in ICR and other publications, you will find that there are plenty of single layers of rock and sediment that do fit with the global flood of Noah. The question is, will you read them?
What do you claim is happening in the past 20 years that is so revolutionary? Please support your claim.
 

Grasshopper121212

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
323
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Grand Canyon was carved over some 6 million years.
The oldest human artifacts found in the Grand Canyon are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period. There has been continuous use and occupation of the park since that time. Photo of granaries above Nankoweap by National Park Service.

https://www.doi.gov/blog/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-grand-canyon-national-park#:~:text=The Grand Canyon was carved over some 6 million years.&text=The oldest human artifacts found,Nankoweap by National Park Service.
12,000 years ago? Was there anyone there to see this, take pictures? No. You are relying on methods of dating things and beliefs of opinions about migrations of people. And, the GC's formation has gone from 250 million to 6 million to one million now. Keep going. You'll eventually get there. I've read all the stuff you are putting out over the past 60 years. Have you read anything I've put out today? Nope.
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
2,626
Gender
Male
Once again, atheist scientists have shown the DNA does not support this evolution. This stupid diagram is only a person's individual belief with no evidence of any missing links along the way. Especially since 40 million years ago we were to have evolved from a chimp. The DNA article I provided you does not support this model. It's a big lie. God said we are made in God's image. Not an apes.
Human beings did not evolve from chimps, and evolutionary science does not and never has made such a claim. The only people who think that are people who do not understand how evolution works.

Humans did not evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor with chimps. They are our closest surviving relatives, because all of the other species which were more closely related to us have since died out. You can think of chimpanzees as very distant cousins, who live a very different lifestyle, but who still share many biological similarities with us.
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
21,255
Reaction score
11,923
Location
Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Once again, atheist scientists have shown the DNA does not support this evolution. This stupid diagram is only a person's individual belief with no evidence of any missing links along the way. Especially since 40 million years ago we were to have evolved from a chimp. The DNA article I provided you does not support this model. It's a big lie. God said we are made in God's image. Not an apes.
God didn't write the bible. It didn't fall out of the sky and be discovered on top of Mt Sinai. It was written and died m by men that didn't have the benefit of even a GED unless you can prove that your god fact checked it?
 

Grasshopper121212

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
323
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Human beings did not evolve from chimps, and evolutionary science does not and never has made such a claim. The only people who think that are people who do not understand how evolution works.

Humans did not evolve from chimps. We share a common ancestor with chimps. They are our closest surviving relatives, because all of the other species which were more closely related to us have since died out. You can think of chimpanzees as very distant cousins, who live a very different lifestyle, but who still share many biological similarities with us.
I wish people who claim evolution knew how evolution works. They don't either. Showing silly pictures of less hairy apes along a time line is as dumb as the formation pictures of life from the fertilization of the egg that we look like chickens, frogs...that are still in text books today. Including this chart of human evolution. We actually don't have that much similarity of DNA between Chimps and Humans. Not even close. The guy that put together a bones of the so-called ancestors back 5 million years ago had to force the bones to try and make them appear to be human related.
To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct "gut structure," upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a "precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors," mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an "unusually energy-thirsty brain."3
Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps. Consistent with this is the broad use of speculative verbiage on the part of the authors. In the eleven papers in Science, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. - https://www.icr.org/article/4982

Ardi, Ardi, Ardi... how about Lucy? Same problems...Evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations permeates evolutionary science. Fuzzy words used to fool the suckers into thinking these scientists know what they are talking about.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
36,715
Reaction score
25,623
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm simply suggesting that they can't hear, see, or touch the truth. Even if God appeared in the sky and said, "Hello, I'm God" they would claim it was an anomaly of the atmosphere and 100 scientists would agree.

This is normal behavior for those who are separated from God from birth.

If nobody told them about gods from birth, how would they know them? "They" are not the deluded ones who can't see their delusion.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
36,715
Reaction score
25,623
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There was light. But, the bad rays we try to avoid today that causes cancer did not get through the firmament as much as they did after the flood. I believe I explained this clearly for those with good reading comprehension skills.

Can you show any science for water vapour shielding some "bad rays" which cause massive ageing? Which part of the spectrum of sunlight is that?
 

Irredentist

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
2,626
Gender
Male
I wish people who claim evolution knew how evolution works. They don't either. Showing silly pictures of less hairy apes along a time line is as dumb as the formation pictures of life from the fertilization of the egg that we look like chickens, frogs...that are still in text books today. Including this chart of human evolution. We actually don't have that much similarity of DNA between Chimps and Humans. Not even close. The guy that put together a bones of the so-called ancestors back 5 million years ago had to force the bones to try and make them appear to be human related.
To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct "gut structure," upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a "precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors," mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an "unusually energy-thirsty brain."3
Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps. Consistent with this is the broad use of speculative verbiage on the part of the authors. In the eleven papers in Science, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. - https://www.icr.org/article/4982

Ardi, Ardi, Ardi... how about Lucy? Same problems...Evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations permeates evolutionary science. Fuzzy words used to fool the suckers into thinking these scientists know what they are talking about.
There is currently no proof that the species of ardipithecus are the direct ancestors of humans. Rather, they are more likely a separate branch of our family tree, which occurred after the previous divergence between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. This would put them in a similar category as australopithecines, for example, in that while they are a member of our broader evolutionary group, they are not a direct ancestor of modern humans.

However, modern humans did likely originally evolve from a species that looked very similar to them. You point out that the features of these species are very different from modern humans, but that makes sense, as these fossils are more than four million years old, which is not very long after the original split between the ancestors of chimps and humans, meaning that their traits would still be very "chimp-like" in nature. In fact, the more uniquely "human" traits, such as our greatly enlarged brain capacity, would not emerge until much later on in our evolutionary history.

It seems to me that much of the criticism leveled against the work of evolutionary scientists is a result of an extremely flawed understanding of the actual mechanics of evolution itself. If one means to debate productively, it is better to at least understand the basic principles of the subject being debated.
 

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
21,255
Reaction score
11,923
Location
Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I wish people who claim evolution knew how evolution works. They don't either. Showing silly pictures of less hairy apes along a time line is as dumb as the formation pictures of life from the fertilization of the egg that we look like chickens, frogs...that are still in text books today. Including this chart of human evolution. We actually don't have that much similarity of DNA between Chimps and Humans. Not even close. The guy that put together a bones of the so-called ancestors back 5 million years ago had to force the bones to try and make them appear to be human related.
To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct "gut structure," upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a "precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors," mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an "unusually energy-thirsty brain."3
Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps. Consistent with this is the broad use of speculative verbiage on the part of the authors. In the eleven papers in Science, the word "probably" appeared about 78 times, and "suggest," "suggesting," "suggestive," or "suggests" were used 117 times, among other terms that are associated with an unsubstantiated story rather than a scientific description. - https://www.icr.org/article/4982

Ardi, Ardi, Ardi... how about Lucy? Same problems...Evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations permeates evolutionary science. Fuzzy words used to fool the suckers into thinking these scientists know what they are talking about.
I assume that you aren't a math major. 96% out of 100% is very high. You are a lousy liar or did you think that I would not fact-check your claims?

We share about 96 percent of our DNA with gorillas, meaning that we're, in a sense, more than twice as much like a chimpanzee as we are a gorilla. But, again, it's not so simple when it comes to DNA. We are indeed very closely related to our ape counterparts.

Is there such a thing as creation math as well?
 
Last edited:

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,602
Reaction score
51,423
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent

Lisa

Salem ac Leporem
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
21,255
Reaction score
11,923
Location
Ohio,
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
92,602
Reaction score
51,423
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
58,503
Reaction score
22,152
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
12,000 years ago? Was there anyone there to see this, take pictures? No. You are relying on methods of dating things and beliefs of opinions about migrations of people. And, the GC's formation has gone from 250 million to 6 million to one million now. Keep going. You'll eventually get there. I've read all the stuff you are putting out over the past 60 years. Have you read anything I've put out today? Nope.
And your religion went from the Earth being the center of the universe with everything revolving around it to it orbiting a nondescript star on an arm of the milky way galaxy which is 100,000 light years across. We are but a tiny planet orbiting a very ordinary star that is part of a universe with as many stars as there are grains of sand on Earth. Keep going you will eventually get there. But not by reading the reading that ludicrous garbage and no I do not read such stuff. It rots the brain and it is meant to fool the gullible. Also there were people at the Grand Canyon 12,000 years ago we know this because we found their bones and took pictures of them.
 
Last edited:

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
58,503
Reaction score
22,152
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I knew that it was well above 85%, but I wanted to be sure.

Even bananas and humans share 60% of DNA.


We share DNA with plants because they came first. Animals need oxygen to survive and there was no oxygen in the earth's air until plants (or more specifically blue-green algae) put it there by breaking apart CO2 molecules.
 

MamboDervish

Looking Forward
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
7,775
Reaction score
6,635
Location
The Big Apple
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
??? Nonsense. Here on planet Earth, we can't get all of any demographic to agree with anything. But fortunately, our view of the truth of the world doesn't have to be unanimous. The overwhelming preponderance of earth and planetary scientists - well over 90% - all do agree with the facts presented every day by observable reality. We live on a very old earth.
If you're going to quote me, at least have the courtesy of posting that attribution. What you did here is rude.
This is the typical response of atheists or old earth-universe religious people. It's called, safety in numbers. Just like the farse Global Warming fruitcakes that had to change the name to Climate Change because the earth began to cool. Remember back in the 1970's when the overwhelming preponderance of planetary scientists claimed we were heading into another ice age? Oops! Remember that 90% of the scientists in periods of history that proved the earth was flat? Or, today, claim that the Big Bang and man is the cause of Climate Change is settled science. Or, even how the Grand Canyon was formed. Scientists used to say it was a river that carved it out over millions of year. Hundreds of millions of year. Now, it was an upheavel due to faults and happened only a million years ago. Well, why not 4,500 years ago then due to catastrophic events that happened during Noah's flood? Like that's the purpose or belief that science is settled. You are doing the same thing here. Planetary science is not settled.
Wrong - by many miles. When dozens of DIFFERENT planetary sciences all come to the same conclusion, by taking different paths, by using different disciplines, by measuring different dynamics, and doing it at different times over more than a century, those aspects of planetary science very much ARE SETTLED!
It's about observation of the past in which we did not live nor were able to record.
No - it isn't about that at all. Wherever do you get those silly ideas? We don't have be living in the past through the creation of sedimentary rocks when we can duplicate those dynamics in a lab, and learn exactly what it takes, what pressures, what temperatures, and how long. We have tens of thousands of boring records through sediment that we know are creating rocks as we speak.
Yet, the Bible is a record of the past. God's past. Again, creation scientists don't claim that their evidence or conclusions are fact either. They simply put out that their conclusions answer problems of old earth claims that even scientists have.
Which is a lie. It's a feeble projection based on cherry picking favorable statistics, while completely dodging the big picture.
Yet, you seem fearful of this? Why?
Quite the contrary, I have no stake in this game at all. I don't give a shit what you believe. I only insert my comments to correct the record, because you're regurgitating misinformation that you don't even understand. You're projecting your own feelings, because it is you who are terrified of the truth. The entire foundational effort in using the oxymoron "creation science" is the act of desperate, fearful religious religious adherents who feel the facts of science based on observable reality will destroy the underpinnings of their faith - because they CHOOSE to believe in the literal inerrancy of the bible. But the cosmology of the book of Genesis is bullshit. It's a tale told to a precocious child. It isn't science.
 

Grasshopper121212

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
323
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can you show any science for water vapour shielding some "bad rays" which cause massive ageing? Which part of the spectrum of sunlight is that?
Which ever rays that caused dying before 600 years old. Since the covering over the earth no longer exists, haven't a clue. But, in Genesis Chapter 1, verse 6 says on the second day, "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Verse 7 continues, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament..." Later, it was the waters under the firmament or heaven that was gathered to make seas when the earth was formed and it was all dry land. That was on the third day. So, the waters remained above the firmament possibly surrounding the earth. The sun, moon and stars didn't appear until after life appeared (grass, trees...) If we think of the standard way of the solar system being created, that would make some sense. There would be a lot of gas clouds obscuring the sun. Light would appear and there would be other forms of light energy around the earth for the grass and trees to grow. And, of course, the Light of Christ as well as it was Christ who was the Architect in charge of building the Earth. In any even, there was a large mass of water above the earth or heavens for extra water for the Flood of Noah which was also obscuring the light ray that were harmful that cause skin cancer and stuff. We cannot go back to that time to do your science experiments.
 

Grasshopper121212

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2021
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
323
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is currently no proof that the species of ardipithecus are the direct ancestors of humans. Rather, they are more likely a separate branch of our family tree, which occurred after the previous divergence between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. This would put them in a similar category as australopithecines, for example, in that while they are a member of our broader evolutionary group, they are not a direct ancestor of modern humans.

However, modern humans did likely originally evolve from a species that looked very similar to them. You point out that the features of these species are very different from modern humans, but that makes sense, as these fossils are more than four million years old, which is not very long after the original split between the ancestors of chimps and humans, meaning that their traits would still be very "chimp-like" in nature. In fact, the more uniquely "human" traits, such as our greatly enlarged brain capacity, would not emerge until much later on in our evolutionary history.

It seems to me that much of the criticism leveled against the work of evolutionary scientists is a result of an extremely flawed understanding of the actual mechanics of evolution itself. If one means to debate productively, it is better to at least understand the basic principles of the subject being debated.
"likely?" There is one of those fuzzy words to try and dupe people into believing their unknown proof and authority to pronounce how we humans got here. Am I supposed to take your likely word on "faith" because you "hope" you are correct in your assumptions? Actually, we have very few bones of any of those creatures of that time. They were most likely, a form of animal that looked like apes of some sort. And, died off. And, there is no missing link of the split you reference. So, your science is based on faith. Not any mechanics of evolution either. There is no proof that one species morphs into a higher form of the same species. I presented that information from ICR about the DNA of 3 types of apes, Gorilla, Orangatun and Chimps in which the evolution of the DNA was opposite of what it should have been. Now what? Oops! Your evolution is different than natural selection where the species doesn't change into a new species. It just adapts to it's natural surroundings. Like the wolf changing into cute little dogs. They are still wolves. Still animals. I'm open if you have anything else than fuzzy words. But, like I said, I went to college and studied all of what you have and have kept up with the science as well.
I'd also note that the Prophets don't use fuzzy words.
 
Top Bottom