Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[sealybobo]

.You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.

Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
​

[......]

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.

What's your theory? And why are you arguing with us? Sure sound like a religious zealot to me. Anti science. Let me guess, you're a Republican. That would explain it. Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism. You worship corporations and CEO's not priests. The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god. You're a Ayn Rand type. I get it.

 

[sealybobo]

Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.....]
Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​

Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're a religious zealot. LOL.

Abu don't mind Ice he's a conservative zealot.

 

[Iceweasel]

.You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.

Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
​

[......]

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.

What's your theory? And why are you arguing with us? Sure sound like a religious zealot to me. Anti science. Let me guess, you're a Republican. That would explain it. Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism. You worship corporations and CEO's not priests. The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god. You're a Ayn Rand type. I get it.

I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.

 

[sealybobo]

Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.....]
Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​

Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're a religious zealot. LOL.

Will you let us know when the theory of evolution is proven incorrect? Just because some theories have been proven incorrect that doesn't mean all theories will eventually be proven incorrect. Evolution is one of those theories.

And please tell us your theory. I want to laugh at you.

 

[sealybobo]

.You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.

Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
​

[......]

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.

What's your theory? And why are you arguing with us? Sure sound like a religious zealot to me. Anti science. Let me guess, you're a Republican. That would explain it. Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism. You worship corporations and CEO's not priests. The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god. You're a Ayn Rand type. I get it.

I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.

You did? Where? What is your theory that is better than evolution. I'm dying to hear it. Judas.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.....]
Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​

Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're a religious zealot. LOL.

Will you let us know when the theory of evolution is proven incorrect? Just because some theories have been proven incorrect that doesn't mean all theories will eventually be proven incorrect. Evolution is one of those theories.

And please tell us your theory. I want to laugh at you.

I said your brain is gone, continuing to prove it is pointless. But of course you couldn't know. You cannot follow simple conversations, maybe never could.

 

[sealybobo]

Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.....]
Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​

Yep, that's what I said, junior. I said theories are the best explanation at the time. And sometimes proven incorrect. So they are not facts. You're a religious zealot. LOL.

Will you let us know when the theory of evolution is proven incorrect? Just because some theories have been proven incorrect that doesn't mean all theories will eventually be proven incorrect. Evolution is one of those theories.

And please tell us your theory. I want to laugh at you.

I said your brain is gone, continuing to prove it is pointless. But of course you couldn't know. You cannot follow simple conversations, maybe never could.

How come it's always ONLY right wing retards who say this to me? It's never moderates Republicans, independents or liberals. So any insult from you is a compliment. It tells me you aren't hearing a word I say which would be typical of a rwnj pussy.

 

[Ima Cat]

If we didn't come from monkeys how come people like bananas so much, especially our women folk?

 

[sealybobo]

.You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.

Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
​

[......]

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.

What's your theory? And why are you arguing with us? Sure sound like a religious zealot to me. Anti science. Let me guess, you're a Republican. That would explain it. Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism. You worship corporations and CEO's not priests. The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god. You're a Ayn Rand type. I get it.

I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.

I get it now. Conservatives hate science for 2 reasons.

1. It debunks any religious stories you tell of a god visiting your ancient ancestors.
2. Science challenges the corporations when they pollute.

Republicans/Conservatives hate educated people. And instead of answering my question you attack me for being stoned. Thanks for admitting you have no theory.

 

[Aries]

We're primates that developed from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago that yes was an ape.

That is a fact....The evidence is very strong.

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

 

[Iceweasel]

.You contradicted yourself. You claimed theories explain facts then admitted they can't. They are a best case at current understanding. There's a reason we use the word theory and many of them have been proven wrong. Germ theory, atom theory? Never heard of those. I believe they are pretty well understood. Plate tectonics is still a theory? So your argument makes no sense.

Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
​

[......]

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.

What's your theory? And why are you arguing with us? Sure sound like a religious zealot to me. Anti science. Let me guess, you're a Republican. That would explain it. Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism. You worship corporations and CEO's not priests. The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god. You're a Ayn Rand type. I get it.

I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.

I get it now. Conservatives hate science for 2 reasons.

Find a bong buddy to rattle on with.

 

[sealybobo]

Atomic and Germ Theories are stil perfectly intact.
As are Gravity and Evolution.
For the 100th Time on the Abuse of the word by ignorant creationist clowns.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
​

[......]

You call other people ignorant when you respond to arguments that weren't made? You are what you hate, a religious zealot. I'm not religious and said I believe in evolution. I depart from the atheist since I can't muster their level of faith that the universe farted itself into existence.

What's your theory? And why are you arguing with us? Sure sound like a religious zealot to me. Anti science. Let me guess, you're a Republican. That would explain it. Science doesn't just disprove your religion of Christianity it also exposes the lies from your first religion which is capitalism. You worship corporations and CEO's not priests. The stock market is heaven and Trump is your god. You're a Ayn Rand type. I get it.

I explained myself pretty well. Your damaged brain isn't my problem, Bongboy.

I get it now. Conservatives hate science for 2 reasons.

Find a bong buddy to rattle on with.

I know you better than you know yourself

 

[dblack]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Did you read the thread???

 

[Michelle420]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Did you read the thread???

I answered the question in the title of the thread, with my opinion.

 

[sealybobo]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet? Or how about giraffe. Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents? But then how are they the first if they had parents?

 

[Michelle420]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet? Or how about giraffe. Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents? But then how are they the first if they had parents?

No.

But the thread title didn't ask that.

 

[sealybobo]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet? Or how about giraffe. Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents? But then how are they the first if they had parents?

No.

But the thread title didn't ask that.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.

And why don't you believe are ancestors were once apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?

 

[Michelle420]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet? Or how about giraffe. Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents? But then how are they the first if they had parents?

No.

But the thread title didn't ask that.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.

And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?

You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.

I don't need to.

 

[sealybobo]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet? Or how about giraffe. Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents? But then how are they the first if they had parents?

No.

But the thread title didn't ask that.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.

And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?

You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.

I don't need to.

Well then you're stupid.

And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?

 

[Michelle420]

No, don't believe we are monkeys.

Can you tell us how the first humans got on this planet? Or how about giraffe. Were the first giraffe born and raised by parents? But then how are they the first if they had parents?

No.

But the thread title didn't ask that.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a logical alternative to evolution. And that you don't understand evolution.

And why don't you believe are ancestors were ones apes? All we are is the smartest ape. We are just animals. Why do you think you are more than just one animal on one planet?

You are welcome all I answered is No I don't think we came from monkeys. I didn't give any more information than that.

I don't need to.

Well then you're stupid.

And that's all I got to say about that since you ain't saying shit I can just infer you're a brainwashed dummy. OK?