Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

There you go. Ha ha.

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...

Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.

Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...

Of course, I understand. There are no ape humans or common relative just like there are none now.

Of course, humans are apes, and all apes have a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago. This is a fact, and no, your psychobabble and crybabying has no more effect on this fact than it would have on the fact that the earth revolves about the sun.

The fact is there are no ape humans now nor ever were. Otherwise, there would be evidence.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is all hypothesis. It's based on changes over long time, a common ancestor, and history of life and looking at patterns. Thus, we have mistaken evolutionary thinking and historical science. Is it any wonder, Fort Fun Indiana thinks it is fact? Or RWS wants to go to hell over it?

The evidence is to the creation theory as we find life begats new life, the egg came before the chicken, sexual reproduction just appeared, mountains appear and are eroded in a short time (not millions of years), no aliens in existence outside of earth, the presence of C14 when there shouldn't be any, no explanation for dinosaurs flying unless gravity was less in the past and more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fact is there are no ape humans now nor ever were.

If you mean there have never existed or been found fossils of creatures showing the transition between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans to humans...false, and you just failed a 7th grade science test.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is all hypothesis.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

 

[james bond]

The fact is there are no ape humans now nor ever were.

If you mean there have never existed or been found fossils of creatures showing the transition between the last common ancestor of chimps and humans to humans...false, and you just failed a 7th grade science test.

It's just monkey fossils. Their brain capacity was too small to compare to humans and they were not bipedal. There is no scientific evidence that we could observe of them being anything else. The intelligent 7th graders who grew up question it in high school and college.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's just monkey fossils.

Wrong. First of all, apes are not monkeys, so you just another 7th grade quiz. And the fossils found are of the homo genus, which sets them apart not only from monkeys, but from the other great apes

 

[james bond]

Evolution is all hypothesis.

Evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

So ignorant. Evolution is not science.

Even Jack Chick said so many years ago and his tracts are more in line with science..

Big Daddy?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution is not science.

Of course, evolution is a scinentific theory amd a fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence, gained via scientific method.

Compare that to your creation nonsense, backed by not a shred of evidence.

And you know it, and this embarrasses you. That is why we are treated to this embarrassing dog and pony show, instead of you just admitting "because the Bible says so!", and slithering away ...

 

[james bond]

Evolution is not science.

Of course, evolution is a scinentific theory amd a fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence, gained via scientific method.

Compare that to your creation nonsense, backed by not a shred of evidence.

And you know it, and this embarrasses you. That is why we are treated to this embarrassing dog and pony show, instead of you just admitting "because the Bible says so!", and slithering away ...

Just explain any of the following then.

Evolution doesnn't have creation or origins. It's also based on uniformitarianism which it doesn't like to admit is incorrect. It's been scientifically observed that catastrophism is what shaped the earth. Not one evolution of species can be observed because it takes millions of years. However, we can observe that a hen and rooster produces a fertile egg. Evolution cannot explain sexual reproduction nor can it adequately explain asexual reproduction. They explain all species evolved from a single cell, but no single cell has been created in 200,000+ years. Evo could not explain the Cambrian explosion. Evo can't explain sedimentary layers.

As I stated, evolution is not science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution doesnn't have creation or origins

So what? It's not an explanation of origins .The theory of electromagnetism doesn't have "origins", either.

It's also based on uniformitarianism

False. The basis of evolution is genetics.

It's been scientifically observed that catastrophism is what shaped the earth.

And it also has been observed that very long term, gradual changes have shaped the earth.

Not one evolution of species can be observed because it takes millions of years.

False. We have observed speciation, which happens at all imaginable speeds.

However, we can observe that a hen and rooster produces a fertile egg.

And we can observe when eggs, then birds appeared in the fossil record. We can also obseve their ancestors and descendants, which also appear in the fossil record.

Evolution cannot explain sexual reproduction nor can it adequately explain asexual reproduction.

False. It neatly explains both. Just as it explains land animals and marine animals.

They explain all species evolved from a single cell, but no single cell has been created in 200,000+ years.

You literally just made that up.

Evo could not explain the Cambrian explosion.

Of course it can, where do you get this nonsense?

You are a source of a constant stream of false statements regurgitated directly from creationist liars. I am embarrassed for you.

 

[james bond]

Evolution is not science.

Of course, evolution is a scinentific theory amd a fact, supported by mountains of mutually supportive empirical evidence, gained via scientific method.

Compare that to your creation nonsense, backed by not a shred of evidence.

And you know it, and this embarrasses you. That is why we are treated to this embarrassing dog and pony show, instead of you just admitting "because the Bible says so!", and slithering away ...

The Bible as scientific hypotheses is valid because it has been demonstrated that scientific method backs up the Bible. However, science does not back up evolution. It's theory which can be rendered pseudoscience.

Evolution contradicts the Bible and is explained as follows. Those who do not believe in God, but believe in evolution are foolish.

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Romans 1:25

“The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God’” Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1

"“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” Romans 1:20

Even Fort Fun Indiana and others are in the Bible.

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." Proverbs 29:9

Creation is explained as:
7 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you;
the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you;
8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you;
and the fish of the sea will declare to you.
9 Who among all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?" Job 12:7-9

For example, butterflies and moths developed their prosboscises, i.e. tongues, long before the emergence of flowering plants. Or we are finding that it's not a tree of life (evolution's theory of all life from a common ancestor), but bushes of life like that in an orchard. Only plants and creatures in the same bush of life are related, i.e. form new species from a common ancestor..

Or how Noah sent the raven out first before the dove in order to find land. Noah sent out the dove three times. The first time, the dove came back empty handed. Second time with an olive branch. The third time was the charm. It did not return meaning it found land. Noah sent a raven out the before the dove, i.e. after 40 days and 40 nights, but it did not return. The raven would not return if it found land, but it also would not return as it could feed on carrion in the water. Once the raven did not return, it was okay for Noah to send out the dove. Because of the raven's qualities, the Vikings used the raven to navigate.

Or how animals became our food. God also states what animals we are not to eat. "And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." Genesis 1:30

Birds and butterflies teach us the coming of winter. They migrate.

All of this teaches us that creation is true and God is good. Evolution doesn't teach us the above. What does knowing you came from a monkey teach us? That you're dumb AF.

Monkeys from Confucius' code of conduct teaches us to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Doesn't that back up what the Bible stated?

 

[Mac1958]

No, we didn't "come from monkeys". There are still competing theories on the branches of our tree, but monkeys were and are a separate branch.

Unfortunately, our ancestors refused to track their evolutionary progress on either spreadsheets or flow charts - they were very stubborn - so there may always be competing theories. Or maybe not, maybe we'll figure this thing out for sure, branch by branch.

Either way, it really is okay to not know some stuff yet. We're getting there.
.

 

[RWS]

So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a heartfelt conviction of yours without any evidence.

Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.

What if you're not?

Would you go to heaven?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Bible as scientific hypotheses is valid because it has been demonstrated that scientific method backs up the Bible.

Of course, that is utter nonsense, as scientific enlightenment has served to force Christianity to relegate much of the magical nonsense in the Bible to myth and allegory. And thank goodness for that.

I've noticed that you intransigent literalists are always happy to tell us how the Bible perfectly describes hard earned scientific knowledge...but only after we gain this knowledge through science, and not one second before.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, we didn't "come from monkeys". There are still competing theories on the branches of our tree, but monkeys were and are a separate branch.

Unfortunately, our ancestors refused to track their evolutionary progress on either spreadsheets or flow charts - they were very stubborn - so there may always be competing theories. Or maybe not, maybe we'll figure this thing out for sure, branch by branch.

Either way, it really is okay to not know some stuff yet. We're getting there.
.

While we will be fleshing out the details for a very long time, there are no competing theories, when it comes to evolution as the explanation for diversity of species. I know you don't disagree, but, with charlatans like JBond lurking, just waiting to wedge their magical nonsense into any gap in rhetoric, its best to be very clear.

 

[james bond]

So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a heartfelt conviction of yours without any evidence.

Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.

What if you're not?

Would you go to heaven?

This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book. And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod. Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies? All it would take is evolution to be rendered pseudoscience. Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.

We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins. Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too. We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..

In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day. Nimrod brought the modern version.

"Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18

 

[james bond]

Bust of Epicurus

"Ancient Greece" is a very loose term that refers to the Greek speaking cultures from the period of about 800 BCE to 200 CE, a period of about 1000 years. The exact times and cultures considered to be a part of "ancient Greece" vary from historian to historian. The cultures, philosophies, and beliefs of "ancient Greece" are, of course, extremely varied. There is no possible way to generalize "ancient Greek" culture, and the individuals within each of the different cultures were themselves highly varied.

The first logically proposed evolutionary concept is agreed to have come from Anaximandros (Anaximander) of Miletos, who lived from 610 BCE to 547 BCE, about 100 years before the writing of Genesis. Very few texts from Anaximander remain today, but some information about the teachings of Anaximander have been preserved by later writers who disagreed with him.

Anaximander believed that life must have started in the water, and that from this early form of life, other forms of life, including man, developed. Below are some quotes that refer to the evolutionary concepts of Anaximander:

Wherefore they (the Syrians) reference the fish as of the same origin and the same family as man, holding a more reasonable philosophy than that of Anaximandros; for he declares, not that fishes and men were generated at the same time, but that at first men were generated in the form of fishes, and that growing up as sharks do till they were able to help themselves, they then came forth on the dry ground.
- Plutarch (1st century CE)

Anaximandros, the companion of Thales, says that the infinite is the sole cause of all generation and destruction, and from it the heavens were separated, and similarly all the worlds, which are infinite in number. And he declared that destruction and, far earlier, generation have taken place since an indefinite time, since all things are involved in a cycle. He says that the earth is a cylinder in form, and that its depth is one-third of its breadth. And he says that at the beginning of this world something [Diels] productive of heat and cold from the eternal being was separated therefrom, and a sort of sphere of this flame surrounded the air about the earth, as bark surrounds a tree ; then this sphere was broken into parts and defined into distinct circles, and thus arose the sun and the moon and the stars. Farther he says that at the beginning man was generated from all sorts of animals, since all the rest can quickly get food for themselves, but man alone requires careful feeding for a long time; such a being at the beginning could not have preserved his existence. Such is the teaching of Anaximandros.
- Hippolytus (3rd century CE)

Animals come into being through vapors raised by the sun. Man, however, came into being from another animal, namely the fish, for at first he was like a fish. Winds are due to a separation of the lightest vapors and the motion of the masses of these vapors ; and moisture comes from the vapor raised by the sun from them; and lightning occurs when a wind falls upon clouds and separates them. Anaximandros was born in the third year of the forty-second Olympiad.
- Hippolytus (3rd century CE)

What distinguishes the teachings of Anaximander from other origin mythology is that his views were arrived at from a naturalistic perspective and they were not tied to any religious belief. Anaximander is credited with having invented the sun dial and other observational instruments. He produced teachings in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, geography, and biology. While his teachings were crude compared to what we know today, they represent the earliest known example of naturalistic evolutionary thought.

Xenophanes of Kolopbon, who was born around 570 BCE, was both the first recorded person to have understood the implications of fossils, and also one of the first monotheists. Xenophanes was considered an "atheist" of his time because he rejected the traditional Greek pantheon of anthropomorphic gods, instead claiming that there was only one god and that god was infinite.

Despite the fact that this view seems "religious" today, Xenophanes was seen as a rationalist and materialist of his time. Like other monotheistic Greeks, Xenophanes did not develop any kind of religion or base his beliefs on claims of divine revelation. Instead, his view of god was philosophically derived.

In relation to fossils, Xenophanes understood that the fossils were formed by animals that had been preserved in mud. He developed an explanation for fossils which stated that earth must have gone through many life cycles, during which different forms of animals existed and were then wiped out, but their bodies were preserved in the rocks. He believed that new forms of animals developed during the new cycles. Xenophanes did not believe that his god created people, instead he stated that all living things, including people, developed from earth and water.

"Shells are found inland and in the mountains, and in the quarries of Syracuse an impression of a fish and seaweed has been found, and impressions of fish were found in Paros in the depth of the rock and in Malta impressions of many marine creatures. These, he [Xenophanes] says, were produced when everything was long ago covered with mud and the impressions were dried in the mud."
- Hippolytus (discussing the teachings of Xenophanes)

The Greeks, along with other ancient cultures, came into frequent contact with fossils. The word fossil actually comes from Greek and means "dug-up item". The Greeks did not use the term fossil the way that we do today, instead they often talked of petrified bones when discussing larger fossils. Ample evidence now suggests that the fantastic mythology of the ancient Greeks was heavily influenced by their observation of fossils. Not only were fossils commonly found out in the open throughout the lands of ancient Greece, but the Greeks quarried massive amounts of rock. In the process of quarrying rock they often came across fossils. Fossils were actually excavated and put on display in temples in some cases.

The Greeks interpreted many of the large bones that they found as being humanoid. When the Greeks found large thigh bones, for example, they were commonly interpreted as the bones of giants, and it is from these giant bones that the Greeks developed the mythology that Titians once lived on earth, whom Zeus and the other gods fought and killed. Because of the tendency of the Greeks to interpret the "bodily" fossils that they found as humanoid, when they found near complete skeletons that included horned or tusked skulls they interpreted these as having a human type body with an animal head. A small sampling of ancient accounts of fossils are listed below:

"I have seen shells on the hills," evidence that "Egypt was originally an arm of the sea."

In Scythia, "the natives show a footprint left by Heracles on a rock by the river Tyras. It is like a man's footprint, but 3 feet long." (units of measure translated)
- The Histories; Herodotus, 430 BCE

"When King Masinissa landed on the headland of Malta, his admiral stole the special tusks of astonishing size from the ancient Temple of Juno."
- Against Verres; Cicero (born 106 BCE)

A "figure resembling Pan" was found inside a slab of rock split open in a Chios quarry.
- De Divinatione; Cicero

"earth brought forth the giants, ... who were matchless in the bulk of their bodies and invincible in their might, with terrible aspect.... Some say they were born at Phlegra [Italy], but according to others in Phallene [Greece]." Zeuse "killed them with thunderbolts and Heracles shot them with arrows." Athena "threw Sicily on top of the giant Enceladus," while Poseidon "broke off part of Kos and heaped it on the giant Polybotes." Typhon "surpassed all the offspring of earth. As far as the thighs he was of human shape and of prodigious bulk." Zeus fought him from Syria to Thrace and finally buried Typhon under Mount Etna, Sicily.
- Apollodorus (1st century CE)

"The giants [were] men of immense bodies, whose bones of enormous size are still shown in certain places for confirmation of their existence."
- Clement of Rome, 96 CE

"Historians of Chios assert that near Mount Pelinaeus in a wooded glen there was a dragon of gigantic size who made the Chians shudder. No farmer or shepherd dared approach the monster's lair. But a miraculous event allowed the discovery of how large it really was. During a violent lightning storm a forest fire destroyed the entire region of the wooded slopes.... After the fire, all the Chians came to see and discovered the bones of gigantic size and a terrifying skull. From these the villagers were able to imagine how large and terrible the brute was when alive.

...

Euphorion says... that in primeval times Samos was uninhabited [except for] animals of gigantic size, which were savage and dangerous, called Neades. Now these animals with there mere roaring split the ground. So there is a proverbial saying in Samos: 'So and so roars louder than the Neades.' And Euphorion asserts that their huge remains are displayed even to this day."
- On Animals; Aelian (lived 170-230 CE)"

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implictions

 

[RWS]

So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a heartfelt conviction of yours without any evidence.

Really? The only heartfelt conviction is yours. I'm open to different stuff, but you are absolutely sure you are right about the Christian religion.

What if you're not?

Would you go to heaven?

This isn't the religion forum, but yes I am ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, 100% SURE about Christianity. Science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book. And no, you're not open to different worldviews because you have accepted the lie of evolution as it was handed down to Nimrod. Are you ready to suffer for eternity in the lake of fire for believing in lies? All it would take is evolution to be rendered pseudoscience. Already, most of Darwin's theories have been debunked.

We have a history of pseudoscience with the universe or any theory that has to do with origins. Or I would state any theory that has to do with the ending of life, too. We are not going to become multiplanetary, but all of life will end here..

In ancient times, the Epicureans and Stoics were the evolutionists of the day. Nimrod brought the modern version.

"Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection." Acts 17:18

Sorry, I asked, "What if you're wrong?" in your Christianity belief?

There is a slight chance that you may be wrong in that....

Would you still go to heaven?

 

[RWS]

Maybe the Jews are right, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists, or the Hindus, or the atheists, or the other thousands of religions that are active in this world?

The way I look at it, if there's a heaven, i should belong. **** 'em if they don't like me for not believing.

Would you go to any heaven/nirvana/whatever that is not Christian?

 

[RWS]

Let's say one day, you meet the unfortunate end. And find out that Heaven is run by Jews....

Would you jump in? Or refuse?