If the theory of evolution were true...

Not quite right.

Man and ape are generally believed to have evolved along different branches of the evolutionary tree from a common ancestor.

 

Bingo.

Sort of like the folks that deny global warming. The same ignorance of science and lack of rational thought. Self delusion aided by others who "think" the same way. Very often the same ignorant people.


I think being a product of nature, as we are, is more amazing than the silly idea that some God made us. The world around us is our creator. We are it's consciousness.

 

More like Global Warming Alarmism is a twisted pseudo-science religion where the insane adherents stand around and chant the Al Gore mantra.

 

Why is it again that I cannot believe that man evolved from apes and also believe in God? What you call "God's word" I call "Man's word, explaining what he believed God to be about". Unless, that is, you have definitive proof that the Bible was written by God himself.

 

Exactly.

 

I am open to logical, fact-based arguments supporting creationism, if you've got them.

 

LOL! Good one.

 

It may be helpful to consider that today's apes are also different than their ape ancestors, and that "split off" can be understood (among other ways) geographically.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x/fulltext.html

This tree shows the relationships among six species (labeled A through F), all of which are alive at present. Each species represents one “terminal node” or “tip” on the tree. In this tree, the far right where these terminal nodes are located represents the present day, with evolutionary time extending deeper into the past as one moves from right to left on the phylogeny. These living species are located at the ends of “branches” that join one another in the past at “internal nodes.” Each internal node is taken to represent an ancestor shared by two lineages, and each branch reflects the independent evolution of the lineages that has occurred after their divergence from a given common ancestor. Ultimately, all five species share a single common ancestor at the deepest internal node, also known as the “root” of the tree. Overall, the shape of the tree and therefore the pattern of branching that it hypothesizes are known as its “topology.”




Fig. 2
The anatomy of a phylogeny. An evolutionary tree includes several components. At the right (in this case; see Figs. 4 and 5 for alternatives) are the terminal nodes or “tips” of the tree. These typically represent individual species or larger taxonomic groups, and all are contemporaries of one another (for example, all may be living at present, in which case A through F would all represent modern species). The terminal nodes are connected to one another through branches that join at “internal nodes.” Internal nodes represent inferred lineage splitting (speciation) events that give rise to descendant sister groups—in other words, they represent the common ancestors from which two or more related lineages are descended. In this figure, the node marked with an asterisk represents the most recent common ancestor of species A and B, and the one marked with two asterisks is the most recent common ancestor of species A, B, and C. The pattern of branching—known as the “topology” of the tree—indicates evolutionary relatedness. For example, species A and B share a recent common ancestor that was not shared by the other species and are therefore called “sister taxa.” Similarly, species D and E are sister taxa. Species F is the most distantly related of the sample of species and is known as the “outgroup.” Outgroup species are necessary to “root” an evolutionary tree—that is, to indicate the last common ancestor (i.e., the deepest internal node) shared by the entire group of species. The term “basal lineage” is sometimes used to describe the branch leading to the outgroup, but this is not recommended as it is often incorrectly taken to imply that it has undergone less change and is therefore more “primitive” or “ancestral” than the other lineages (Fig. 15; see also Crisp and Cook 2005)

 

did I not just read in the last few years that scientists have determined men and monkeys are not in the same line but they share a common ancestor? Therefore that chart is not up with current thought?