Yes, there is some similarity between ape-kind  and man-kind. But similarity doesn't mean that man-kind descended from ape-kind....that would exclude God from creation. From the moment of creation, we are each given a unique soul which elevates us (human-kind) above all animals even those that are similiar to us. According to Genesis, man-kind was the pinnacle of God's Creation and each was created according to its own kind.  That means no way did ape-kind evolve into man-kind.

Lula, man-kind didn't descend from ape-kind. Evolution says that both descended from a common ancestor.

What's your explanation for why the species are so similar? G-d made it so? Why? That's where Creationism breaks down.

You shoudn't judge what you don't understand.

I agree they didn't....so, have you changed your mind from when you posted:

No, I stand by what I said. We are not the same species as ape-kind but both they and we descended from an ape-lile species.

The Biology textbook definition of EVOLUTION is: a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestor.

The Dictionary definition of EVOLUTION is: Biology a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The World Book Dictionary definition of EVOLUTION is: something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile and ultimately all forms are traced back  to a simple, perhaps single celled, organism.

A few  points.

First .....Your statement proves you believe in the hypothetical process of EVOLUTION as per these definitions as fact.

Second..... yes, as per these definitions above, evolutionists have repeated ad nauseum that both apes and humans descended through a common ancestor, however, after 150 years of searching, to date no positive evidence has been found.

All this shows you are deluded by Evolutionists' incessant propaganda of an untenable theory.

 Get a better biology textbook. The word "higher" is completely inappropriate.

No. I merely acknowledge facts and the best explanation for them.

If you have a better explanation for why humans and apes look so similar, I am all eyes.

Note that by "better explanation" I mean one that can be disproven, not a tautology.

Except similarites in body and behaviour and later confirmation of similar genetic makeup.

What hasn't been found was evidence that disproves the theory that humans and apes descended from the same species.

You still don't understand what science is about. It's not about teaching something that is proven (because no scientific theory was ever proven or could ever be proven), it's about teaching something that can be disproven but hasn't been disproven yet. Even scientific theories that have been disproven are still useful and are still taught, like Newton's gravity or General Relativity.

Darwin's theory made the prediction that apes and humans would show to be very similar if a way was found to look at inherited information. And when that information was found, Darwin's predictions held true. No Creationist ever predicted something that turned out to be true and could have been wrong.

No. It shows that I can read and understand science while you still (not even) struggle to understand evolution.

Why the heck don't you learn about stuff before you discuss it?

Are you afraid that if you learn about evolution, you'd change your mind and embrace it?

(And don't tell me that you understand evolution. From everything you say it is very obvious that you don't to anyone who knows just a sixth grade worth about it.)

From the time scale under drawings of the supposed evolutonary molecules-to-man transformation, I would say by "higher", they mean the development of more complex creatures. According to it, 600 million years ago, Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes appeared..570 million years ago, ocean species, primitive fish, mollusks and corals appear...then insects appear...240 million reptiles appear...dinosaurs, mammals and marine reptiles appear....65 million years ago, dinosaurs die out and birds appear...40 million years ago, primates appear in the Tertiary period and humans in the Quaternary period through the present.

I found the entire 3 chapters on evolution completely inappropriate and I tried to get the school to use a different biology book.

Radiocarbon dating, plate tectonics, black holes - you either believe in them or not, so there ya go, all are just religions.  Since everything is a matter of faith and not science, it makes perfect sense to teach Creationism in sciencereligion class.

Where have you been? The empirical sciences of Biological, molecular genetics HAS FOUND EVIDENCES THAT DISPROVES EVOLUTIONARY THEORY THAT HUMANS AND APES DESCENDED FROM THE SAME SPECIES.

More correctly restated.....What hasn't been found is evidence that proves the theory that humans and apes descended from the same species (for if they did evolution would no longer be a theory).

Under close scrutiny, evolution isn't even at the hypothesis stage, let alone called a scientific theory. At least according to the biology textbook.

Here are direct quotes....

Pg. 6....In practice, the scientific method consists of several steps:

* observing and stating a problem

* Forming a hypothesis

* Testing the hypothesis

* Recording and analyzing data

* Forming a conclusion

* Replicating the work

Pg. 10...when a hypothesis is tested and confirmed often enough that it is unlikely to be disproved by future tests, it may become worthy of being called a theory. Scientific theories are not just hunches or pypotheses. They are powerful time-tested concepts.

For over 150 years, Evolution according to these definitions has not ever been observed by natural science.

For over 150 years, Evolution according to these definitions has not ever been tested by natural science.

For over 150 years, Evolution according to these definitons has not ever been replicated by natural science...and therefore evolution according to these definitions is dead and should be abandoned.

For over 150 years, scientific endeavor has been wasted searching for a phantom.  

The problem is Darwin and his followers took his work one step further in developing evolutionary theory....they prioritized "change" as the basis of existence and made the origin of man a term appearing at the end of an evolutionary process. This is the Big Lie. By excluding God from Creation they created a dogma for the new world religion, atheism.

His dogma, Darwinian Evolution, is being preached as true in every public school. Children are taught the big lie that they evolved from apes.  

Evolution is a big lie embedded in a little truth. By this I mean evolution means first...all processes unfolding in time...but second to this (we know as per the textbook, web, and dictionary definitions of evolution), evolutionists include progress or development of species that results in a new, "higher" (more complex) species. This second part is contrary to the truth.

It can't be both...for Almighty God in Genesis is clear that all mankind is a special creation, and so from that alone, you could not have descended from apes or ape-like creatures.

lula posts:

leauki posts:

Leauki,

All Evolutionists claim that similiarities between apes and humans are evidence for Evolution and proof that they evolved from common ancestors. But similiarity is of no consequence to the lack of logic  in their argument.

Similarity goes to unity of God's Creation and testifies to the one true God who made it all.  If we humans were entirely biochemically different from other creatures, then what would we eat? How could we digest them and use the amino acids, sugars, etc.? These similarities are necessary for us to eat.

there are other points to make but it's time for dinner.

That's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. "Other creatures"? We're discussing the similarities between humans and only one other creature. I guess we're as similar to all the other animals as we are to apes. We don't have to eat apes.

You hoped no one would notice your attempt to confuse and fool us. I seriously think you need an exorcism.

No.

It's evidence for evolution but not proof.

The point os that it isn't evidence for anything else that can be disproven but hasn't been disproven yet.

We tend to eat those lifeforms that are more distantly related to us, not those that are more closely related to us. I don't eat apes. I eat chicken.

In fact it is healthier to eat only what is more distantly related to us. I.e. vegetables are better than chicken. Chicken is better than mammals. But I figure this is coincidence.

I can digest salt which isn't even carbon-based.

So you are saying now that G-d had a limit He had to work around?

If that were true, you would just have given Creationism a real boost. It would be scientific.

If you can honestly say that similarities between species are due to a need to make them similar because they have to eat each other, you would have found evidence for Creationism. However, it would be evidence for Creation by a non-all-powerful god, since the god faced limitations of his power and had to work around them.

The great similarity between some species and general similarity between all species is plain evidence (but not proof) for common descent. It might be considered evidence (but not proof) for a common creator too. It is also evidence for the idea that all animals will eventually interbreed and become one big final species.

The difference is that the first can be disproven but hasn't yet, the second cannot be disproven, and the third has been disproven (we know that species become more different over time, not more similar).