Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lacking any argument AT ALL to refute what you're told,

hey dummy... I don't need to spend any energy refuting what you are saying because you are wrong as shown by all of science.

What kind of moron thinks he can just make up stupid shit and it's everyone else's job to prove him wrong?

A religious idiot, that's what kind of moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look at the embarrassing religious fools in this thread. Every one of these dumbasses would fail 6th grade science class. They are embarrassing themselves, and we embarrass ourselves to legitimize their embarrassing magical bullshit

 

[GreenBean]

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.

There is an alternative theory from Pseudo Science that states apes are devolved from humans. Evolution doesn't allways move in a progressive fashion in this dimension of thought. ... not saying I agree with it, but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids

 

[GreenBean]

Look at the embarrassing religious fools in this thread. Every one of these dumbasses would fail 6th grade science class. They are embarrassing themselves, and we embarrass ourselves to legitimize their embarrassing magical bullshit

Your avatar - Robert Johnson, Delta Blues King - I like that. Legend has it he sold his soul to the devil ... or

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Christians burned folks at the stake for suggesting the earth goes around the sun. That was just a few hundred years ago.

Yeah? Can you name any?

You would be one of the people burning infidels at the stake, too, if not for secular enlightenment.

That's right...the only thing separating your dumb ass from the genocidal religious maniacs of a few hundred years ago is scinentific enlightenment, classical liberalism, and secular government.

Did your instruction book of magival nonsense change?nope...it's the same, embarrassing nugget of shit it was 300 years ago.

What changed is that the secular ideas dragged you fools out of the muck of your immoral garbage.

You're welcome.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids

Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...

 

[GreenBean]

but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids

Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...

Self serving primitive instinctual would be more apropos ... in human terms we would define it as immature or childish

 

[Syriusly]

but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids

Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...

Self serving primitive instinctual would be more apropos ... in human terms we would define it as immature or childish

Please don't compare us to Donald Trump and his childish, immature, self serving primitive instinctual motives.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There is an alternative theory from Pseudo Science that states apes are devolved from humans. Evolution doesn't allways move in a progressive fashion in this dimension of thought. ... not saying I agree with it, but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids

Not surprised that a contard would bring up pseudo science in a thread about evolution.

We all have some characteristics of other hominids- since we are all hominids.

 

[Syriusly]

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol

And still nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists' who proudly proclaim that the Bible is science.

 

[james bond]

Where is the evidence for as you state? What I have is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you even know who came up with the Earth being 4.5 billions years old? Evolution has been getting longer and longer and the Earth getting older and older as the years roll by. In Darwin's time, he estimated Earth was around 300 millions years old.

Next, single cells do not just form from primordial soup. We've had hypotheses of spotaneous generation, chemical evolution and abiogenesis and still not one singe cell. All of it is pseudoscience. You mention a single cell, but how does it evolve into a multicell and a cell that has reproduces via sexual union? All you did was added billions of years. Darwin didn't have that kind of luxury.

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

And let's look at archaeology, shall we? A hundred years ago, Bible critics were telling us that the Hittites were a Biblical fiction, a made-up group of people who existed only in stories. And then archaeologists in Turkey discovered the ruins of Hattusas, and historical records showing an empire in the second millennium BC . . . about where the Bible said they were.

The Code of Hammurabi and the Nuzi tablets both show remarkable resemblances to the Semitic laws given in the first five books of the Bible.

The various peoples mentioned in the Bible have turned up in other archaeological references. The Philistines are on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC. Their five cities mentioned in the Bible - Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron - have all been excavated or even exist as cities today.

Ah yes...the "Alamo" of magical thinkers like you:

Lacking any good argument of evidence for any of your magical bullshit, and lacking any good evidence or argument to counter scientific knowledge whochjndermines your magical bullshit, you are left with only one option:

You attempt to drag scientific knowledge down into the muck of your magical bullshit by labelling it "faith".

What an embarrassing display....

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven. The Resurrection would've been disproven. It has withstood the test of time. The Bible is inerrant, accurate, authoritative, true and complete. Perhaps you should read what it has on ignorance.

Ephesians 4:18
"being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;"

1 Peter 1:14
"As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,"

Romans 1:28
"And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,"

And more
12 Bible verses about Ignorance Towards God, Leads To

To the contrary, here, I argue what creation science and sometimes use secular science against evolution.

 

[james bond]

The web is full of answers to your questions. Do some research on your own. Educate yourself, dingbat.

In other words, you can't answer his question. You just ASSume that it has been answered, by someone, somewhere, because you want to believe.

That's an awful lot of blind faith for someone deriding others for their faith.

My blind faith is backed up by lots of DNA and fossil evidence. What evidence is there for the Book of Genesis?

No, your blind faith is backed up by ASSUMPTIONS about the DNA and fossil evidence. The fossil record CANNOT prove evolution, unless you simply nip out the parts that don't suit you. Likewise with DNA. Both are "proof" only if you really, REALLY want to think they are.

There are a number of assertions about the way things work which the Bible makes, and which scientists rejected and derided for centuries, but which now appear to be validated, at least in part.

The Bible claims that the universe had a specific beginning.

What Is the Big Bang Theory?

You yourself have admitted that there is sufficient evidence, scientific and otherwise, to indicate that Noah's flood is based in reality. And the oldest writings archaeologists have found reference it.

Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— Jeremiah 31:35

I assume I don't have to prove to you that the moon and the stars have fixed, predictable paths.

Really want to go with the Bible and the sun and the moon and the stars?

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Okay on the fourth day God created the Sun and the Moon. - and the stars.
So the order is:
a) Earth
b) Day/Night
c) Vegetation
d) Sun/moon

So- how did we have a day and night without a sun? How did the vegetation survives the absolute zero temperatures on earth without any sun being in existence?

Nothing but crickets from our 'Creationists'.

lol

So according to the Bible- God created earth- and light- the first day- where did that light come from?

First day light came from EMS.

And I guess God created the atmosphere on the second day

Correct.

And apparently when the earth was first created there was no sea or ground- but on the third day he created 'land and 'seas'

The Earth was covered with water vapor and water. This was the first day. He pulled the water back to have dry land and plants and seas on the third day.

And here is where it gets really interesting- on the third day he created all of the plants of the world- and evening and morning

Day and night was created on the first day. Plants was on the third day.

 

[james bond]

Doesn't it fit the Bible timeline of Noah's ancestors?

No, it doesn't. Like, not at all. You clearly do not understand any of this. The world would still have been populated , worlwide, with humans. In fact, the research depends on it.

As it clearly states in the study -- which you clearly regurgitated from some goofy YEC site, and of which you clearly did not read a single word, -- that the results are dependent upon the data of all the people that lived in the last 20,000 years. It also says that the same methods can be used to work backwards, that is, into the future. What this means is that all of the people 2000 or 3000 years from now will be descended from most of us. But but but look around! No flood, no Noah, no population bottleneck.

So, no, the study does not imply anything like what you are saying at all. In fact, it implies exactly the opposite. Just stop.

You're one of the most f*cking dumb*ss posters I've ever witnessed. You are one who does not understand the Bible nor science. There is a lesson to be taught here..

First, it fits the timeline because science backs up the Bible.

The lesson is that you have no idea what the study says- or what science is- all you have are insults to those who point out your idiocy.

There is nothing- absolutely nothing- about that study which supports anything in the Bible.

Nor is there any 'science' which supports the Biblical myth of the creation of earth, or the either of the Biblical myths about the creation of mankind.

Why don't you criticize Fort Fun Indiana? I've known him longer than you so he gets my usual wrath and substance. He usually just has wrath and no substance.

As for the study, Fort Fun Indiana does not explain in his own words. He just dances around it. Who knows what he is talking about? Can you do better and explain it in your own words?

 

[james bond]

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

I think people have a misconception of science. What is fact is the evidence (unless it's been doctored or is misinterpreted as evidence). We derive science based on our observations, beliefs and worldviews. In other words, science and religion are both sides of the same coin. It's about what is the truth..

We derive science from our observations, from experimentation and from the facts.

The difference between science and 'religion'- by which you really mean Christianity- and not just Christianity but that bizarre branch of Christianity which insists that the Bible must be literally true- is that science starts from a position that we do not know everything- and will never know everything, but we can continually learn from everything.

Creationists like yourself believe that everything in the Bible must be correct- and look to 'science' just as a tool to justify your beliefs.

The difference between yourself and myself- is if 'science' tomorrow came up with strong evidence that the world was indeed formed in less than a week- and that earth actually was created before the sun- I would go with the evidence.

You will always go with the Bible- not the evidence.

No we do not look to science to justify our beliefs. To the contrary, we find science honors the work of God. If you could have an open mind and see how great God's works is, then you'd have faith. Faith is the first step to understanding. Not the other way around. We see that science backs up the Bible, and thus we build faith upon the inerrancy of the Bible.

As for going by the evidence, evolution is based on fitting the evidence to the theory. Not the other way around. Today, it has evolved into not accepting anything to do with God, creation and having intelligence behind the design of nature and science. It just leads to fallacious theories such as multiverses and dark energy. Why not multiple dimensions and the power of the God. I've already stated that discovering there is an edge to the universe, i.e. a bounded universe and find that it curves like a scroll would mean that science backs up the Bible once more.

 

[james bond]

There is a great deal more scientific evidence than there is evidence to support the story of Genesis. I think the Bible is a wonderful book and has a great deal of good in it about caring and charity and living a good life. But I don't take Genesis literally. I'm a science geek and I believe the science. And I don't believe I've ever claimed anything as fact.

. For example, if you state your hypothesis that humans evolved from apes, then someone else may state that apes evolved from humans. The latter is what Professor Owen Lovejoy, the person who put Lucy together believes.

Does he really? I remember you making that claim before and chasing it down- let us do that again.
Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University
"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

Does Lovejoy say that apes evolved from humans? Absolutely not.

Do you know what Lovejoy 'believes'?

That article was from 2009- 9 years ago- what does Lovejoy 'believe' now?

Let's look at what he said. He thinks Ardi is better than australopithecines and that we can't model human evolution from chimps and gorillas. That's pretty clear.

And its still there
Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University

 

[LittleNipper]

Man devolved from Adam and Eve.

 

[Political Junky]

Man devolved from Adam and Eve.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but if you look at some of the 'progressives' around nowadays they certainly do have the characteristics of other hominids

Like empathy, morality, sympathy, etc...

Self serving primitive instinctual would be more apropos ... in human terms we would define it as immature or childish

Not we, just you. I don't share your irrational, crybaby fetish,sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If there was any BS, then the Bible would be disproven.

It has been. Literally every single detail of its moronic creation myth has been disproven, as much as anything can possibly be disproven.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Man devolved from Adam and Eve.

Sorry ...there was no Adam and Eve.