Did the Grand Canyon take 65 million to form?

[Grasshopper121212]

If you're going to quote me, at least have the courtesy of posting that attribution. What you did here is rude.

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!

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.

Which is a lie. It's a feeble projection based on cherry picking favorable statistics, while completely dodging the big picture.

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.

There are no scientists that say science is ever settled. There are politicians and lunatics that claim science is settled. But, there are no scientists that claim any science is settled. Especially when it's depended on observational science and interpretations. Your claim is as looney as Christians who claim their religion is settled religion and theirs is the only truth. That atheists and religious have in common. Both don't understand truth.
As for your reasoning about recreating things in the lab, that's how we have Covid19 now. Not to great of science, was it thinking they could control a virus. You can't even do that let alone recreate the creation. You have simulations not recreations which allows for small and large errors of interpreting the experiments. It's obvious that you know nothing about experimentation in the lab. By the way, no one ever said the Bible is science. It's just the Gospel truth of what took place. How it did is slowly being explained by science. But, the Millennium will happen first.

 

[Colin Norris]

Or...those of us who believe in God on faith and faith alone, dont need to desperately seek and grasp at 'facts' and pseudoscience in order to prove He exists.

Of course you don't. Facts to the contrary would upset your fantasies.
Faith is belief in something without evidence. That's you.
If you had evidence he exists, faith is no longer required. It becomes fact. But you seem content to believe fairy tales.

All this desperate scrambling to defend crap pseudoscience...which does nothing but reveal how science education failed so many people..

There is no use calling science silly names. Science does not lie, bibles do that.
You cannot name anyone who was totally diluted by scientific facts. If you did, the person who obviously would be a godbotherer like you, couldn't accept the findings. No one has ever been fooled by science m or has science ever attempted to fool anyone. It's typical of you to make those baseless accusations from religious ignorance.

.does is show that these people have weak faith. The stronger the need to PROVE God exists...the weaker the true faith in Him and His Word.

Rubbish. Religion teaches people not to enquire alternatively. They preach they have ALL the answers and scorn dissent.
The stronger the need to prove God indicates people are not buying the immaculate conception and virgin birth rubbish.

 

[Colin Norris]

You are partially correct. You do have to ask God if they exist. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.

And if you do ask, we all know that your God will confirm it. How did I know that? But we all know no such thing exists. So do you.

It's funny that within this thread that we have people who demand that everyone ignore creation science altogether. Yet, you want empirical evidence of the existence of God.

There is no such thing as creation science regardless of how you try to connect the two. Not one scientist worth his salt would accept that fallacy.
What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence. The whole religious movement has no evidence to support one word of their doctrine. After evolution, nature and physics, the rest is pure opinion.

While creation science doesn't directly put the Godhead on the TV screen, it does provide evidence of a creator.

Really??? You show me where science of any kind provided evidence. I know you cant so I accept your apology.

Even your science is proving the same that there is intelligence with the creation of the universe.

Again, Show the evidence of that. You are getting more outrageous with your claims as you go.

Creation science is an attempt to bring empirical evidence to the truth of the Bible.

Again, you trying to link two thongs that don't exist. Creation science and God.

That, in of itself, doesn't prove the existence of the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But, for those who believe that God is the author of the Bible through visions,

God was not the author of any bible and nothing indicates that. In fact, you fabricated that.

prophecy and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it does strengthen their testimonies of the Godhead of the Bible. It gives them hope, faith and charity. What does your science give you?

Science gives evidence which can be tested and verified continuously. The bible has changed many times through each re issue. It can't be fact while that is going on. It won't be long when it claims it was instrumental in establishing the internet.

 

[Manc Skipper]

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.

It appears your ignorance is encyclopaedic! Rays that stop you dying until you're 600 that come from the Sun? Why isn't the government doing something about it?

 

[Lursa]

Of course you don't. Facts to the contrary would upset your fantasies.
Faith is belief in something without evidence. That's you.

Exactly. It looks like you finally got a dictionary. Where have I claimed anything differently? Please quote it.

If you had evidence he exists, faith is no longer required. It becomes fact.

Good for you with the definitions! Yeah!

But you seem content to believe fairy tales.

I have faith that God exists. You seem unable to articulate that without misrepresenting it, but that's ok. It's a reflection on your own personal rigid dogma...not my faith.

There is no use calling science silly names. Science does not lie, bibles do that.

Where did I do that? Quote it please or do not lie about me. I was very clear in my use of the term 'pseudoscience'. It means fake or false science...so you pretending otherwise is weak and dishonest. Unless you need that dictionary again?

You cannot name anyone who was totally diluted by scientific facts.

Never said I did. What an odd comment. Please clarify your meaning.

If you did, the person who obviously would be a godbotherer like you, couldn't accept the findings.

Give me an example. Again, put up or....? You have failed to do so 100% of the time in our discussions. "Na huh" is not discussion.

And please dont call me names, it's a forum violation and I dont even know what that is. Do you have a dictionary definition to post for me?

No one has ever been fooled by science m or has science ever attempted to fool anyone. It's typical of you to make those baseless accusations from religious ignorance.

Where did I make baseless accusations from religious ignorance? I never did so...but again, quote it, directly. Put up or...?

Why do you just post baseless crap about things that aren't posted? Do you have remedial reading issues? Is your personal dogma on this issue so rigidly indoctrinated in you that you cannot read properly? Or access information with an open mind?

Rubbish. Religion teaches people not to enquire alternatively.

Some does, some doesn't. I've always been encouraged to question and have a degree and educational foundation in the sciences. You really don't seem very good at reading for knowledge yourself...you don't absorb actual meaning at all...just what you believe you're seeing. Sad.

They preach they have ALL the answers and scorn dissent.

Feel free to quote where I've done that except regarding religious fundamentalist comments and assertions.

Hey...do you know what 'quote' means? I've asked you over and over to quote me and prove you are right...and you never do. There's even a forum function that makes it easy.

Instead of lying constantly...please prove your assertions and accusations by quoting me and actually proving you're right. Otherwise...you obviously have zero except blind regurgitation against religion...the same thing you accuse the religious of

The stronger the need to prove God indicates people are not buying the immaculate conception and virgin birth rubbish.

Please post where I've ever claimed any proof of God? What part of 'I believe in God on faith' didnt you understand? Dictionaries: they're your friend.

 

[Colin Norris]

Exactly. It looks like you finally got a dictionary. Where have I claimed anything differently? Please quote it.



Good for you with the definitions! Yeah!



I have faith that God exists. You seem unable to articulate that without misrepresenting it, but that's ok. It's a reflection on your own personal rigid dogma...not my faith.




Where did I do that? Quote it please or do not lie about me. I was very clear in my use of the term 'pseudoscience'. It means fake or false science...so you pretending otherwise is weak and dishonest. Unless you need that dictionary again?



Never said I did. What an odd comment. Please clarify your meaning.


Give me an example. Again, put up or....? You have failed to do so 100% of the time in our discussions. "Na huh" is not discussion.

And please dont call me names, it's a forum violation and I dont even know what that is. Do you have a dictionary definition to post for me?


Where did I make baseless accusations from religious ignorance? I never did so...but again, quote it, directly. Put up or...?

Why do you just post baseless crap about things that arent posted? Do you have remedial reading issues? Is your personal dogma on this issue so rigidly indoctrinated in you that you cannot read properly? Or access information with an open mind?



Some does, some doenst. I've always been encouraged to question and have an educational degree and foundation in the sciences. You really dont seem very good at reading for knowledge yourself...you dont absorb actual meaning at all...just what you believe you're seeing. Sad.



Feel free to quote where I've done that except regarding religious fundimentalist comments and assertions.

Hey...do you know what 'quote' means? I've asked you over and over to quote me and prove you are right...and you never do. THere's even a forum function that makes it easy.

Instead of lying constantly...please prove your assertions and accusations by quoting me and actually proving you're right. Otherwise...you obviously have zero except blind regurgitation against religion...the same thing you accuse the religious of

Please post where I've ever claimed any proof of God? What part of 'I believe in God on faith' didnt you understand? Dictionaries: they're your friend.

You know I'm right but it's a hard pill to swallow.
You're become religiously incoherent with your pathetic excuses and justifications.
You are of no value when it comes to debating religion. A robot in fact.

 

[Lursa]

Not to great of science, was it thinking they could control a virus. You can't even do that let alone recreate the creation.

Of course we can, we've done so many times. See: bubonic plague (entirely curable), small pox, polio, measles, mumps, etc etc etc.

The only time they occasionally crop up is due to man's weakness and stupidity in not getting vaccinated. But the vaccines or treatments for all those work(ed).

 

[Lursa]

It appears your ignorance is encyclopaedic! Rays that stop you dying until you're 600 that come from the Sun? Why isn't the government doing something about it?

I've asked him to source that. Forget it.

 

[Lursa]

You know I'm right but it's a hard pill to swallow.

LOLOLOLOLOL You keep harping on evidence and here you are 'declaring' you're right with ZERO proof?

You're become religiously incoherent with your pathetic excuses and justifications.

Prove it, quote it, show you're right and I'm wrong.

You are of no value when it comes to debating religion. A robot in fact.

You are of no value when debating period, because you make baseless assertions and accusations and then get mad when you fail. All you have to do to feel better about yourself is quote me and prove I'm wrong. What are you waiting for? Put up or...?

 

[Colin Norris]

LOLOLOLOLOL You keep harping on evidence and here you are 'declaring' you're right with ZERO proof?





Prove it, quote it, show you're right and I'm wrong.



You are of no value when debating period, because you make baseless assertions and accusations and then get mad when you fail. All you have to do to feel better about yourself is quote me and prove I'm wrong. What are you waiting for? Put up or...?

I reiterate what I said.
I notice you quickly back away from your faith when challenged.
I have no time for delusional godbotherers.

 

[Lursa]

I reiterate what I said.

Which was nothing to prove that you're right, only to be rude and run away from your failure.

I notice you quickly back away from your faith when challenged.

Please quote where I've done that. Prove it.

I have no time for delusional godbotherers.

And yet you've desperately replied over and over...without ever once quoting me with proof that you're right. Huh.

 

[MamboDervish]

There are no scientists that say science is ever settled. There are politicians and lunatics that claim science is settled. But, there are no scientists that claim any science is settled. Especially when it's depended on observational science and interpretations. Your claim is as looney as Christians who claim their religion is settled religion and theirs is the only truth.

Science in totality - of course not. We continue to learn. But specific science? - there certainly is settled science! We know the speed of light. That is settled. We live on a planet with positive gravity. That is settled. Water is H2O. That is settled. There are literally tens of thousands of scientific discoveries that are settled. In chemistry, in physics, in biology, in thermodynamics, . . . . the list goes on and on. The Periodic Table might one day expand yet again - but the elements that have been identified on it, and their physical properties, are settled. Period. You are clueless. You don't know what you're talking about.

That atheists and religious have in common. Both don't understand truth.

I can't speak for what atheists believe, but I certainly know what at least some of the religious zealots don't understand about scientific truth. They not only broadcast it like you attempt to do, but even worse, they exert political pressure to have those lies taught in schools as an alternative to real science! Shame on them, and on you.

As for your reasoning about recreating things in the lab, that's how we have Covid19 now. Not to great of science, was it thinking they could control a virus. You can't even do that let alone recreate the creation.

What a bullshit, totally off-the-rails segue to an altogether different topic. How desperate can you possibly be?
"Someone created something bad in a lab = scientific labs don't know what they're doing." Seriously? Do you even read what you write?

You have simulations not recreations which allows for small and large errors of interpreting the experiments. It's obvious that you know nothing about experimentation in the lab.

Another fact that you are clueless about. I've worked in a number of different lab settings, environmental, metallurgical and others, including, just recently, a soils lab analyzing Atterberg limits on core samples.

By the way, no one ever said the Bible is science. It's just the Gospel truth of what took place.

We certainly know that isn't true. Biblical cosmology bears little or no resemblance to what science already knows about our universe.

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How it did is slowly being explained by science. But, the Millennium will happen first.

Non sequitur.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

LOL Even the Pope says not to take Genesis literally. He believes in evolution and says the Bible is full of allegories. Those are primitive fairy tales meant to entertain not educate. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and for the 1st billion or so was devoid of life or water. During that early time the Earth collided with another large planet sized object which knocked a piece out of the Earth and that formed our moon. The collision also sent us spinning and tilted our axis to give us days and nights and the seasons we all cherish. See? isn't that entertaining too? And it is based on REAL scientific facts, data and evidence.

 

[Colin Norris]

Which was nothing to prove that you're right, only to be rude and run away from your failure.



Please quote where I've done that. Prove it.


And yet you've desperately replied over and over...without ever once quoting me with proof that you're right. Huh.

Honey, the fact you have faith there is a god, places you in the aforementioned category. Like all the other godbotherers, you flail around like a young duck defending a position and belief for which you have No evidence. It's that simple. You have nothing.

 

[Irredentist]

"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.

Dogs are not wolves. They are a distinct and separate species. Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms which drive the evolution of species. The others are sexual selection and artificial selection. Dogs are a result of artificial breeding engineered by humans. We selected traits that we found beneficial in wolves, and selectively bred them until the end result was an entirely new species of animal.

You may personally take issue with "fuzzy" words, but that's your own problem, not mine. In fact, I find that the more simple, neat, and tidy a scientific conclusion is, the less likely it is to be true. Natural history is a vast and complex topic. In fact, the true timescale of natural history is too large for the human brain to understand. As smart as we are, we simply lack the neural capacity to comprehend a timeline of billions of years. It's easier for humans to imagine the earth to be much younger than it really is, and for the creation of all life on earth to be an act of god. The brain prefers simple, easy explanations like that. But people who claim to have all the answers to life's questions are always lying. Scientific discovery is an ongoing, endless process, and we will hopefully never stop learning new things about the natural world, and the history of life on earth.

 

[iguanaman]

"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.

We have fossils of all the important "missing links" in human ancestry including the common ancestor of all in the ape family. There are no "oops" in the DNA that links us to chimpanzees as our closest livin relatives. Confusing natural selection and breeding with evolution which takes millions of years to occur is a common mistake among Neanderthals that cannot grasp the concept of time frames of millions and even billions of years. I say Neanderthals because humans have parts of the DNA of that extinct species too. Some more than others it appears.

What does it mean to have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA?​

Several direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies report how much DNA a person has inherited from prehistoric humans, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. This information is generally reported as a percentage that suggests how much DNA an individual has inherited from these ancestors. The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background. The percentage of Denisovan DNA is highest in the Melanesian population (4 to 6 percent), lower in other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander populations, and very low or undetectable elsewhere in the world.

Neanderthals were very early (archaic) humans who lived in Europe and Western Asia from about 400,000 years ago until they became extinct about 40,000 years ago. Denisovans are another population of early humans who lived in Asia and were distantly related to Neanderthals. (Much less is known about the Denisovans because scientists have uncovered fewer fossils of these ancient people.) The precise way that modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are related is still under study. However, research has shown that modern humans overlapped with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations for a period, and that they had children together (interbred). As a result, many people living today have a small amount of genetic material from these distant ancestors.

Scientists have sequenced Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes from fossils discovered in Europe and Asia. This genetic information is helping researchers learn more about these early humans. Determining which areas of the genome are shared with archaic humans, and which areas are different, will also help researchers find out what differentiates modern humans from our closest extinct relatives.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/un...ion of,were distantly related to Neanderthals.

 

[iguanaman]

Dogs are not wolves. They are a distinct and separate species. Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms which drive the evolution of species. The others are sexual selection and artificial selection. Dogs are a result of artificial breeding engineered by humans. We selected traits that we found beneficial in wolves, and selectively bred them until the end result was an entirely new species of animal.

You may personally take issue with "fuzzy" words, but that's your own problem, not mine. In fact, I find that the more simple, neat, and tidy a scientific conclusion is, the less likely it is to be true. Natural history is a vast and complex topic. In fact, the true timescale of natural history is too large for the human brain to understand. As smart as we are, we simply lack the neural capacity to comprehend a timeline of billions of years. It's easier for humans to imagine the earth to be much younger than it really is, and for the creation of all life on earth to be an act of god. The brain prefers simple, easy explanations like that. But people who claim to have all the answers to life's questions are always lying. Scientific discovery is an ongoing, endless process, and we will hopefully never stop learning new things about the natural world, and the history of life on earth.

Actually dogs are wolves. Amazingly he got that one thing right. They are descended from the extinct asian wolf have been bred by humans into all the amazing shapes and sizes of the dog world through the miracle of DNA. All dogs can still genetically crossbreed with the wild wolf.

This timing indicates that the dog was the first species to be domesticated[9][8] in the time of hunter–gatherers,[7] which predates agriculture.[1] DNA sequences show that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, extinct wolf population which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage.[6][7] Most dogs form a sister group to the remains of a Late Pleistocene wolf found in the Kessleroch cave near Thayngen in the canton of Schaffhausen, Switzerland, which dates to 14,500 years ago. The most recent common ancestor of both is estimated to be from 32,100 years ago.[24] This indicates that an extinct Late Pleistocene wolf may have been the ancestor of the dog,[8][1][25] with the modern wolf being the dog's nearest living relative.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#:~:text=Canis is the Latin word,grey wolf as Canis lupus.

 

[Lursa]

Honey, the fact you have faith there is a god, places you in the aforementioned category.

Your opinion is meaningless. I told you from the start I dont care about what you think of my faith. OTOH, now that you have zero credibility in proving a single one of your accusations and assertions, it's ludicrous you even bother posting that.

Like all the other godbotherers, you flail around like a young duck defending a position and belief for which you have No evidence. It's that simple. You have nothing.

More lies? You complain about religious people and you havent posted a single "real" thing about me! That's the height of hypocrisy...you post fantasy after fantasy...not a single quote to prove you're right. Not one.

LOL so maybe you need the dictionary again...for the word 'nothing.' Cuz that's all you've produced.

 

[ApersonLIKEallOFyou]

Actually I think the Grand Canyon took closer to one billion years to form.

 

[Irredentist]

Actually dogs are wolves. Amazingly he got that one thing right. They are descended from the extinct asian wolf have been bred by humans into all the amazing shapes and sizes of the dog world through the miracle of DNA. All dogs can still genetically crossbreed with the wild wolf.

This timing indicates that the dog was the first species to be domesticated[9][8] in the time of hunter–gatherers,[7] which predates agriculture.[1] DNA sequences show that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, extinct wolf population which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage.[6][7] Most dogs form a sister group to the remains of a Late Pleistocene wolf found in the Kessleroch cave near Thayngen in the canton of Schaffhausen, Switzerland, which dates to 14,500 years ago. The most recent common ancestor of both is estimated to be from 32,100 years ago.[24] This indicates that an extinct Late Pleistocene wolf may have been the ancestor of the dog,[8][1][25] with the modern wolf being the dog's nearest living relative.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog#:~:text=Canis is the Latin word,grey wolf as Canis lupus.

I'm sorry, but dogs and wolves are not the same thing. Dogs are descended from wolves, but they are very distinct, with many adaptations which differentiate them from both ancient wolves and modern wolves. Being able to crossbreed with modern wolves does not necessarily make them the same species. Dogs are their own species. Although to be fair, the question is ultimately a philosophical one. There is no natural definition of what constitutes a species, other than how we choose to define such a differentiation.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm sorry, but dogs and wolves are not the same thing. Dogs are descended from wolves, but they are very distinct, with many adaptations which differentiate them from both ancient wolves and modern wolves. Being able to crossbreed with modern wolves does not necessarily make them the same species. Dogs are their own species. Although to be fair, the question is ultimately a philosophical one. There is no natural definition of what constitutes a species, other than how we choose to define such a differentiation.

A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. ... Asexual organisms have only one parent, so they do not reproduce with each other. Some organisms commonly reproduce with similar species in the wild, forming genetic hybrids.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/#:~:text=species, homo sapiens.-,A species is often defined as a group of organisms,another and create fertile offspring.&text=Asexual organisms have only one,the wild, forming genetic hybrids.

I really don't see how dogs can be classified as a separate species but I agree that the argument is purely philosophical. I don't think that human created hybrids are normally given new species names. Dogs are certainly not wolves anymore though. There are dog/wolf hybrids though.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

And if you do ask, we all know that your God will confirm it. How did I know that? But we all know no such thing exists. So do you.

There is no such thing as creation science regardless of how you try to connect the two. Not one scientist worth his salt would accept that fallacy.
What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence. The whole religious movement has no evidence to support one word of their doctrine. After evolution, nature and physics, the rest is pure opinion.


Really??? You show me where science of any kind provided evidence. I know you cant so I accept your apology.


Again, Show the evidence of that. You are getting more outrageous with your claims as you go.

Again, you trying to link two thongs that don't exist. Creation science and God.

God was not the author of any bible and nothing indicates that. In fact, you fabricated that.

Science gives evidence which can be tested and verified continuously. The bible has changed many times through each re issue. It can't be fact while that is going on. It won't be long when it claims it was instrumental in establishing the internet.

When we ask God, it has to be with real intent and to the only true God as well. All others are idols without the ability to hear or see. That would include the omnipotent god of most of Christianity because many don't believe he has a body of flesh and bones so he can hear or see. I know my Redeemer lives. What sweet sentence this is.

I agree that there is no "creation science." But, in order to discuss their points, we have to give it a name. So, if scientists who come to a different conclusion than evolutionary scientists do, then we can better refer to them. Now, listen to yourself. You have decided to be all authority and anyone who disagrees with you is crazy, wicked, stupid and so on...The fact is, evolution, nature, physics is opinion as well. In the early days of Einstein, those brilliant physicists of his day thought the same thing about him in many areas he was working. His work was called opinion without evidence. Yet, when he came with evidence, others continued to disagree with him. Finally, the science world accepted Einstein's theory of relativity. But, as time went on, others found that it doesn't always work in the quantum world. If we applied your hard-headedness, that would never have come forward, would it. Is quantum physics settled science? You better not say yes. Science is never settled. Science doesn't give evidence. It gives information and then people interpret the information and formulate their theories. Nothing proved.
There is plenty of evidence gathered by evolutionist scientists that point to Genesis as the creation model of the universe and earth. Just because you refuse to read any of it and educate yourself doesn't mean it's all false. You don't get to decide this. So, I have given you sites to read up on this subject and there is your evidence. But, you refuse to read any of it so I'm waiting for your apology. It's all there.

As far as God being the author of the Bible, show me evidence that he is not the one who gave the prophets and apostles the visions and words to write down. I'm waiting...

 

[Grasshopper121212]

LOL Even the Pope says not to take Genesis literally. He believes in evolution and says the Bible is full of allegories. Those are primitive fairy tales meant to entertain not educate. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old and for the 1st billion or so was devoid of life or water. During that early time the Earth collided with another large planet sized object which knocked a piece out of the Earth and that formed our moon. The collision also sent us spinning and tilted our axis to give us days and nights and the seasons we all cherish. See? isn't that entertaining too? And it is based on REAL scientific facts, data and evidence.

The Pope isn't a Prophet of God. The earth may be 4.5 billion years old. It may be 14,000 years old. It's all about the interpretation of the science because the answer is observational. I've presented scientific interpretation that suggests the earth is young. It doesn't need to be old to look like it does now.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring. ... Asexual organisms have only one parent, so they do not reproduce with each other. Some organisms commonly reproduce with similar species in the wild, forming genetic hybrids.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/species/#:~:text=species, homo sapiens.-,A species is often defined as a group of organisms,another and create fertile offspring.&text=Asexual organisms have only one,the wild, forming genetic hybrids.

I really don't see how dogs can be classified as a separate species but I agree that the argument is purely philosophical. I don't think that human created hybrids are normally given new species names. Dogs are certainly not wolves anymore though. There are dog/wolf hybrids though.

Dogs are a type of wolf. Still the same specie. Man is man, not ape.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

We have fossils of all the important "missing links" in human ancestry including the common ancestor of all in the ape family. There are no "oops" in the DNA that links us to chimpanzees as our closest livin relatives. Confusing natural selection and breeding with evolution which takes millions of years to occur is a common mistake among Neanderthals that cannot grasp the concept of time frames of millions and even billions of years. I say Neanderthals because humans have parts of the DNA of that extinct species too. Some more than others it appears.

What does it mean to have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA?​

Several direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies report how much DNA a person has inherited from prehistoric humans, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. This information is generally reported as a percentage that suggests how much DNA an individual has inherited from these ancestors. The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background. The percentage of Denisovan DNA is highest in the Melanesian population (4 to 6 percent), lower in other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander populations, and very low or undetectable elsewhere in the world.

Neanderthals were very early (archaic) humans who lived in Europe and Western Asia from about 400,000 years ago until they became extinct about 40,000 years ago. Denisovans are another population of early humans who lived in Asia and were distantly related to Neanderthals. (Much less is known about the Denisovans because scientists have uncovered fewer fossils of these ancient people.) The precise way that modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are related is still under study. However, research has shown that modern humans overlapped with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations for a period, and that they had children together (interbred). As a result, many people living today have a small amount of genetic material from these distant ancestors.

Scientists have sequenced Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes from fossils discovered in Europe and Asia. This genetic information is helping researchers learn more about these early humans. Determining which areas of the genome are shared with archaic humans, and which areas are different, will also help researchers find out what differentiates modern humans from our closest extinct relatives.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna/#:~:text=The percentage of Neanderthal DNA,of European or Asian background.&text=Denisovans are another population of,were distantly related to Neanderthals.

So, basically, modern man has no connection with Neanderthals or Denisovan. The amount of DNA would be hugely more if they were. Just another form of life but not human. Another form of Gorilla or some ape.