Noah's Flood part II

Nope! The first amounts to another translation of the text that is seemingly a newer translation than the KJV. The second one you site is a question rather than a statement in its translated form.

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_17

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(biology)

Still waiting for you to admit that modern biologists use the word ape, as I have provided you with six or seven recent peer-reviewed biology studies where they call humans Great Apes and/or apes.

 

That is no big deal. I am still waiting for you to show "PROOF" of some of your claims.

 

I'm waiting for you to rebut my evidence, but you seem to be unable thus far.

 

Your evidence is rebutted on the grounds that it is insufficient to compel my mind to accept that evidence as 'true'.

 

And who are you?

 

Plenty of people have shown you evidence. You just come back with the same old nonsense over and over and over and.......

 

I am the one who is analyzing the data, evidence, arguments that are given to me as a part of this public forum in the hopes of my acceptance of those information as 'true'. Unfortunately, no one has presented any information that has compelled my mind to accept that information as 'true'.

 

Plenty of information has been given to you that should compelled your mind to accept the information as true. The problem with you, is that you have a wall up and refuse to allow any information not in the bible to register in your brain.

 

Your message above is mere opinion and is rejected because it does not compel my mind to accept it as "true".

 

Am I cherry picking or you are just cherry choosing to ignore the very link that you try to refute by ignoring the fact the chart clearly show bracket and blue brackets which did not include humans or are you just color blind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
The diagram below shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the group traditionally called "apes" marked by a bracket.
The "apes" are traditionally divided further into the "lesser apes" and the "great apes"

You have already wasted lots of time since you accepted that humans are apes and evolved from apes since I guess when you are in high school that is why now you are having a hard time accepting the real truth that you are not an ape and your ancestors did not evolved from apes.

For the sake of argument please explain to me before you go since it is establish that apes (gorillas, chimps, baboons, etc.) all evolved before humans by hundred of years ahead of humans from this chart will you be able to identify which humans race evolved from which ape group?
View attachment 24267

I can understand and probably accept that humans evolved from an ape if both humans and the apes (chimps, gorillas etc.) evolved at the same time but they did not this would mean that if humans evolved from ape they should have evolved from one of the ape species or groups which one?

 

If Human are not Apes, then how do you explain Human Chromosome 2?

 

Possibly a science fiction tool.

 

You are free to look and compare a humans Chromosome 2 with a chimps, orangutans and/or gorillas Chromosome 2A and 2B yourself. You can see how we are all genetically related and see how we are all past of the Great Ape Family.

I would like thank you for the response and allowing me to explain this to you. See all religious experiences (like 'miracles', or talking to some 'holy spirit') can not be replicated, while viewing chromosomes can. Since you, I or anyone can valid Human Chromosome 2 at any time, your response of 'Possibly a science fiction tool' is simply a response of pure conjecture on your part, built upon shear ignorance.

 

Well yeah.. I have already admitted that I know virtually nothing on this subject and we even talked about that, so the point of you bringing that up again seemingly is either redundancy or intentional personal ridicule.

Anyway. Even after viewing that material relating to the Human Chromosome 2, I have to advise you that the material does not compel my mind to accept it as 'true'. Nice try though Rstones199. I was truly hoping that you would be able to convince me.

 

First. I cited - not sited.

Second. The translation I gave was in the Greek form where words are not always in the place we, in English, would put them. This is not a question. It is a statement in Greek form.
Third. The word 'substance' is from Latin. Probably used when the Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible into English. The Vulgate itself was translated from the Greek in the 4th century CE. The Greek has a word which means the same. 'to stand under'.
Fourth. The meaning of the word has changed over the centuries. We think of it as the 'essential nature of something', or an actual thing. The original was more to do with the word 'foundation' (to stand under)

Essentially the verse says 'that hope is built upon the foundation of faith'.

 

I have no intention of going through things that people have explained to you time and again, and yet you still can't see it. It's simply a waste of time.

As to the remarks in blue. When I was in 'high school' whatever you call it there, I was a an ardent Christian like you. In the 60 years that have followed I have woken up to the fact that science tells a different, proveable, story. Though the Bible has much wisdom it lags behind in scientific terms.

 

I am unable to convince my son that the correct phrase is "Happy New Year" and not "Happy New Ear". Whether you are convinced or not, isn't necessarily related to the quality of evidence, or objective reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. Yes, you are. I've posted some quotes from the exact same link you posted that say the exact opposite of what you claim. It's a textbook perfect example of cherry-picking.

 

The only thing you can get from debating with wanren is good comic relief. Otherwise it's a failure.

 

As single that was created by God.

 

And I have provided you proofs that modern biologist do not use the word ape because that word is an old English term plus the early colonial European scientist coined that word attaching political and colonial discrimination the term that was never accepted by other none European civilization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
"Ape", from Old English apa, is possibly an onomatopoetic imitation of animal chatter. The term has a history of rather imprecise usage. Its earliest meaning was a tailless (and therefore exceptionally human-like) non-human primate.[7] The original usage of "ape" in English might have referred to the baboon, an Old World monkey.[citation needed] Two tailless species of macaque have common names including "ape": the Barbary ape of North Africa (introduced into Gibraltar), Macaca sylvanus, and the Sulawesi black ape or Celebes crested macaque, M. nigra.

As zoological knowledge developed, it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise unrelated species. The term "ape" was then used in two different senses, as shown in the 1910 Encyclopædia Britannica entry. Either "ape" was still used for a tailless humanlike primate or it became a synonym for "monkey".[7]

The diagram below shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea,[2] with the group traditionally called "apes" marked by a bracket.
The "apes" are traditionally divided further into the "lesser apes" and the "great apes":[10]
The chart clearly show that humans are not bracket with apes this chart never existed during the colonial years of early European scientist and as science further learn new discoveries it is becoming apparent that humans are not apes and did not evolved from apes. Especially after learning that apes evolved first hundred of years before humans this would mean if humans evolved from these apes then from which ape species or groups did the different human race evolved from?

I will give you my review on this Great Ape THEORY, there exist no links or evidence that humans evolved from apes especially base on the fact that the different ape species evolved hundred of years ahead of any known humans from which ape species did the different human race evolved from? Findings are indicating that no doubt that humans evolved from it's own line separate from apes. Many modern scientist and biologist are starting to separate human evolutionary history from apes only the traditionalist are sticking to the Great Ape theory to continue to this can only result in stagnant progress in science you must understand that the 'ape" or "great ape" was introduced by early colonial European scientist unfortunately it stuck in science books at the same time fortunately we are starting to move away from that. So, you do not need to wait for me to admit that humans are ape or evolved from ape because for me to do that will be lying or going against facts on the other hand there is still time for you to accept that humans did not evolved from apes, there is no such thing as a great ape.
View attachment 24278

View attachment 24278

If you can provide solid facts to explain logically the chart how human different races evolved from apes maybe I will change my mind and accept your presentation.

 

Most creatures such as monkeys, gorillas, tigers, eagles, dogs, bears, horse and humans share many common physical similarities they all have eyes, ears, mouth, tongue, intestine, etc. this does not mean that one is the same as the other.

http://www.genome.gov/26524120
Chromosomes are found in every animals; humans have 46 others have 48, 39, 20ish etc.
Chromosomes are part of every living things what makes human separate from apes is the fact that it evolved from its own kind while apes evolved from theirs.

 

If you would actually read the article I posted: Chromosome 2 (human), you could read for yourself that this isn't a similarity, but an statistical improbability that chromosome 2 A and 2B in gorillas, orangutans, chimps have near-identical DNA sequences as Human Chromosome.

To dismiss it because we all have 'common physical similarities they all have eyes, ears, mouth, tongue, intestine' is foolish and complete nonsense, and shows a complete ignorance of genetics.

 

OK... Does that change any of the UNDER STANDing that is held by roughly 99.99 % of Theists today? After all, I am constantly being reminded by the non-theists on this forum that there are great number of people who disagree with me... so what... nothing said has compelled my mind to accept what others say about the Bible as 'true'.

 

Your lack of understanding with regard to your sons hearing or speech problem also has nothing to do with what this discussion is about.