[TheCrusader]

"Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, splitting about 5 million years ago."

Statements like this always make me chuckle. Like they know that an event occurred 5,000,000 years ago. LOL. Until another scientist proves them wrong in the future they cling to this b.s. The agenda driven pseudo scientists are out in force when it comes to this issue. But they forget to tell you that human and cat DNA is about 90% similar. In tracing the origin of a life form, DNA can no more be used as the final word than a Democrat's lips can be used for telling the truth. Notice they don't dare use the word "proof" when they talk about human and chimp DNA, they use the word "evidence", which means nothing in true science. True science deals in proof, not "evidence", and they still cannot prove humans evolved from chimps any better than they could when they placed human teeth in a gorilla skull and called it "Piltdown man". lol. They need to stop presenting this theoretical crap as though it were fact.

[HairOfTheDog]

Notice they don't dare use the word "proof" when they talk about human and chimp DNA, they use the word "evidence", which means nothing in true science. True science deals in proof, not "evidence"....They need to stop presenting this theoretical crap as though it were fact.

They presented it as it is.... a theory.... that will hold up or not with further study. That is what science is, the study of things.... Some things that are proved, some things smart people may disagree on, and some things still baffle us.

The knee-jerk emotional dissmissal of this theory is much less scientific than the original theory. And presented here with much more *certainty* as fact.

[Aric2000]

And it is obvious that you are clueless as to what science really is.

Notice they don't dare use the word "proof" when they talk about human and chimp DNA, they use the word "evidence", which means nothing in true science. True science deals in proof, not "evidence",

Pure unadultered BS, there is NO proof in science, just as there are no FACTS in science, there is verifiable evidence, which in your case, you would understand to be facts, but science does not have facts, and never will.

You need to get a grip.

and they still cannot prove humans evolved from chimps

And we did not evolve from chimps, and science has NEVER claimed that to be the case. At some point in the past, the chimpanzees and we humans had a common ancestor, we evolved separately FROM that COMMON ANCESTOR.

Now quit spewing nonsense and learn about science, instead of listening to your illinformed creationist buddies.

[Junior]

Like they know that an event occurred 5,000,000 years ago.

Such events leave lots of evidence -- in the fossil record and in the genetic record. No one saw O.J. whack his wife, but the evidence most certainly points in that direction.

[Ichneumon]

["Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, splitting about 5 million years ago."]

Statements like this always make me chuckle. Like they know that an event occurred 5,000,000 years ago.

Yes, indeed they do. There is massive evidence for such a conclusion.

Until another scientist proves them wrong in the future they cling to this b.s.

Okay, I'll bite -- what's *your* evidence to the contrary "proving" them wrong? After all, you must have some in order to be able to denounce it as "b.s.". Or are you just mouthing off without support?

The agenda driven pseudo scientists are out in force when it comes to this issue.

Which issue would that be?

But they forget to tell you that human and cat DNA is about 90% similar.

They don't "forget" to say that at all -- you learned that from a scientist who measured it, son. Furthermore, cats and humans and all mammals (yes, humans are mammals) *are* very much more similar than not. We share enormous amounts of physical structure and body chemistry.

In tracing the origin of a life form, DNA can no more be used as the final word than a Democrat's lips can be used for telling the truth.

Ah, right, the old "let's just ignore the most detailed, voluminous evidence" trick.

Notice they don't dare use the word "proof" when they talk about human and chimp DNA, they use the word "evidence", which means nothing in true science. True science deals in proof, not "evidence",

This is a remarkably ignorant statement. Quite the contrary, science deals in evidence, not proofs. The only "proofs" are in mathematics, where the artificial nature of the field allows enough rigor to make "proofs" possible. Any other science has to get by on "what does the evidence seem to support, and how strongly?", because no matter how much you may kid yourself that you have "proven" something in the real world, there are always other conceivable explanations which may turn out to be more consistent with future discoveries. There are no "proofs" in science.

and they still cannot prove humans evolved from chimps

Humans *didn't* "evolve from chimps", although we do share a common ancestor. Were you sleeping through your science classes?

any better than they could when they placed human teeth in a gorilla skull and called it "Piltdown man".

That's even a grossly inaccurate description of the Piltdown hoax. You need to work on getting your facts straight. But if you think the massive amounts of evidence for the nature of human origins isn't "any better" than the *one* dishonest hoax in human paleontology in over a century (and do you really want me to start listing the many creationist hoaxes?), then you're hopelessly ignorant of this field. Not, I notice, that your lack of knowledge prevents you from stating your uninformed opinions anyway.

They need to stop presenting this theoretical crap as though it were fact.

It's hardly "theoretical crap", but your mind is obviously closed, I won't waste my time leading you to knowledge.

Enjoy your presumptions.

[dagoofyfoot]

They need to stop presenting this theoretical crap as though it were fact


Yep!...and as far as I know the "Missing Link" is still just that, MISSING!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Piltdown was questioned as early as December 1912 because Piltdown didn't fit with evolutionary theory. Only the English ever seemed to accept much about Piltdown. Both the German and American anthropologists objected, on the basis of evolutionary theory. The final debunking came from the radiocarbon dating in the 1950s. Creationists never contributed to the debunking of Piltdown.

As Creationists often reject both evolutionary theory and carbon dating, what is the Creationists evidence against Piltdown? So far, none has been presented.