Classic, pure nonsensical argument, I love it and it never amazes me to hear it. You know the theory of evolution is easier to understand than higher level math like differential equations. So if you can't understand the way it works then you are hopeless, and it's not because you think it's all made up. The theory is not just blindly accepted, nothing in science is every just accepted to be true. It must undergo testing, and further testing and it doesn't try to keep it hidden and use some lame excuse like, "Well it can't be tested so just accept it as fact." No true scientist would ever make that statement.

One thing that is clear here, is that you obviously reject it not because the evidence seems unclear to you, but instead it conflicts with your religious belief. You believe there is a god and work backwards, and what ever gets in the way, you out right reject regardless of how much evidence there is to the contrary.

The only person who is acting like an animal and needs to defend their behavior, is you for trying to roll us back into the bronze age. When are we going to emancipate ourselves from the bigotry and cruelty of these ancient myths and transcend the ignorance?

Please would anyone show me the undeniable proof that mankind was once an ape, I would greatly appreciate it. Or any fossil record that indicates and proves anything every evolve from on species to another, not to included those we do know go through metamorphosis? I have to yet find it. All I find is evolutionary, esoteric rhetoric no one can understand. If the ape did evolve, why is that sucker still around?
Thanks,
William

as a species we are parasites destroying our host bit by bit.The apes are without sin, they still live in the garden of Eden.

Is it that they are without sin? Sin seems to be one of those terms that is always a relation like "place," not absolutely identified (one can only say his location in relation to another location). Or is guilt the focal point? The writer interprets the act in the garden as a sin, but the guilt is the real thing felt by Adam. The remainder of the Bible is centered on removing this guilt.

Does a chimpanzee have the ability to feel guilt?

Awareness of your wrong is sin,we are aware of the magnitude of our sins.

IMHO, I think evolutionists want to believe in evolution. Like putting a round peg into a square hole. The more we invade to discover, the more impossible it becomes. Science wants to make evolution fit. In their thinking it has to, simply because of the autonomous responsibility we place on science. Science "can't" be wrong. It's "ego" won't allow it because of this autonomy. Learning the truth requires a taking of "a little bit here, and a little bit there" to put this puzzle together. Science is so complicated it requires extraordinary minds to adhere to it's complexities creating a language no one can understand allowing it to reach conclusions no one can dispute. Anyone who efforts to dispute their conclusions insults that ego. Big Time. Because it uses invasion to discover it's findings as a result of those invasions will never, never, never be accurate, but "close enough" to be espoused as empirical fact when it is indeed "NOT". Close enough doesn't count when it comes to explaining the universe. It's like single celled organism trying to understand Einstein.

Science is our doctors that keep us alive as it efforts to understand the problems from a purely physiological, empirical point of view no regard whatsoever to those areas that cannot be explained, like the mind. Without regarding the mind, science will be able to turn mankind into perfect mindless "machines" allowing us to exist longer and longer and longer. Such as what we do with the "mentally ill". We administer them with powerful "medicines" turning them into "mindless complacent machines". Without regarding that mind, we become more distant to that mind that is responsible for our creation. That is the connection that will allow us to put the round peg into the round hole. Quantity of life hasn't got a damn thing to do with quality of life. Our greed for that quantity destroys that quality. It is that very ego that fights to survive, that will be responsible for destroying any quality life has to offer and that has everything to do with the mind. That, IMO is the missing link.

All of our efforts should be what it will take to ease the mind of mankind. That can be done empirically. In our knowledge we know enough to do that.

From the mind of one person to another, of course, IMHO.

William

I decide if Ive sinned..so do you..

So each man is his own judge? Against whom/what do we sin?

So each man is his own judge? Against whom/what do we sin?

According to genesis; the first crime was against God, and the second was against man... All the rest have been against common sense...

It cant be clearer, if you have never had regrets of a certain action you have never sinned or you have no conscience.

---------- Post added at 06:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------

So you need a god to sin..oh my, my sins are no more...

It cant be clearer, if you have never had regrets of a certain action you have never sinned or you have no conscience.

---------- Post added at 06:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------

So you need a god to sin..oh my, my sins are no more...

It cant be clearer, if you have never had regrets of a certain action you have never sinned or you have no conscience.

---------- Post added at 06:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------

So you need a god to sin..oh my, my sins are no more...

By the time some one needs an excuse, it is already too late...If they have justification, then they have justification, and short of that they need an excuse; and no one buys them anyway...I never took off my clothes and ran around naked or anything, except for once, and my dog told me to, and Elvis was there, so I thought, what the heck...I'm not at all sure I got that right...It was a Michael Keeton line from a movie about some guys on the lamb from and asylum...

What really separates us humans from our cousins the apes?

If the ape did evolve, why is that sucker still around?

Science is so complicated it requires extraordinary minds to adhere to it's complexities creating a language no one can understand allowing it to reach conclusions no one can dispute. Anyone who efforts to dispute their conclusions insults that ego. Big Time.

Surely you can do better than that o'mighty all knowing one. I ask a simple question and am referred to a page Einstein couldn't understand.

The invasion of "discovery" never reveals the truth. By invading it you alter it's function, which is why we don't rip people open to take out their appendix anymore.

Nothing.

"Ape" is a taxonomic category which includes chimps, humans, gorillas, orangs, bonobos, and so on.

Each of these species is pretty much as distinct and as similar to any of the others, no one of these species is any more deserving of exclusion from the category than any of the others.

Saying that something seperates humans from apes makes no more sense than saying something seperates humans from mammals or from vertebrates.

That said, I like the following vids on the subject.

YouTube - You're a frickin Monkey Proxy of Aronra's video

YouTube - Answering AbdultheImpailler

---------- Post added at 03:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------



It isn't and only someone who misunderstands the theory would suggest it was. Unfortunately both proponents and opponents of evolution often make this mistake.

Evolutionists do not think that the ancestor of spiecies of apes currently alive is still around. Apes alive today are thought to share a common ancestor whose lineage branched off into different species as they took advantage of different ecological niches. The ancestors of Gibbons became ever more rarified (if you like) for tree-dwelling, the ancestors of Humans for being smart tool makers.

Of course we know that tools like cars and skyscrapers occured after humans appeared on the earth. Early tool-working homnids such as Australopithecus aferensis are thought to have walked on two legs because their plains dwelling lifestyle meant that such a move saved energy. This would have freed up their hands - and so favoured those with more dexterity in their thumbs and fingers - and this move led to tool making and conceptual thinking being a clear advantage.

I think of this as beginning a sort of positive feedback loop - further evolutionary changes occured as a result of those with better conceptual minds and tool making faculties - which led this particular linage to becoming human, and our apparently unique degree of sapient conciousness.

You are right to suggest - as I credit you with doing - that if one type of ape evolved whilst others didn't it would be absurd. Evolutionists do not think that ancestral chimps and gibbons were the same as they are today. It is just that evolution does not always produce smart and cultured animals as an end result. The logic of the theory suggests that the ancestors of humans benefitted from being smart, but that the ancestors of gibbons did not benefit from being smart as much as they benefitted from having long strong arms to help them swing from trees. So they adopted those traits and the lifestyle to suit them, whilst we went the route of 'smart tool maker'.

"Ah!" You may say "but isn't being smart better than being able to swing from trees and so on - wouldn't we outcompete all those dumb apes?" Well, that's true, and that's why humans have mastered living in every terrestrial environment and - sadly - the most obvious reason why we are pushing other apes out of their habitats and into extinction.

An evolutionist would probably not think that if you put a gorilla into a human environment that it would become human, but the descendants of such a gorilla with more human characteristics might have an advantage over its peers and, left for thousands of generations, a different species that had more in common with humans than gorillas have might be a plausable result.

I'm not ashamed of being compared to a monkey because I don't think monkeys have anything in particular to be ashamed of. Sure they have no art or culture - but they don't wage war or commit genocide either. I'm not in the least bit perplexed by my animal condition or that my distant ancestor might have been an ape (or a reptile or fish, for that matter).

Nor do I think any belief in evolution negates belief in God or Jesus. I don't happen to myself, but I know of many Christians who say that evolution is simply the method by which God brought about life on the planet, and the faculty by which He continues to change living things.

Anyway, my overall wish was just to show that the fact that different species from similar groups - such as apes - co-exist on the planet does not qualify as a good argument against evolution.


Evolutionary theory is undoubtably complex, though I think you are wrong to claim that it cherry picks to reach its conclusion.

It is actually creation science that cherry picks from what serious scientists have theorised and discovered to fit with an already forgone conclusion. Evolution is a model which has stood up to the best of 150 years of tests and challenges. It has changed in that time, but not in fundamentals so much as in straightening out the details.

Some scientists clearly have big egos, but to say they all do is just bigotry. In order to work properly the scientific method has to be open to falsification and challenge, a particular theorist has to accept the gamut of peer review before his findings will be considered by scientific journals and colleagues.

The reason scientists are depicted as so stubbornly attached to the theory of evolution is that it has not yet been falsified. The best arguments from those who seek to debunk evolution tend to revolve around it not explaining every single thing - but it doesn't set out to and no scientist expects to find an example of every animals neatly fossilised.

However, I must asser that if you think "if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes" is a good argument - you honestly don't have a good grasp of the theory. This is because you fail to acknowledge the following points:

* Taxanomically, humans are apes.
* Different species arise to take advantage of different ecological niches.
* No one thinks that the ancestor of humans is a modern ape, it is just theorised that modern apes (including humans) all share a common ancestor.

And so on...



Well OK, but first you need to acknowledge that it's a big and complex body of facts and theory.

I you won't do this we will just have to drop it - because evolution is NOT EASY. It took nearly 2000 years of theorising to get from Aristotle's hunch that it happened to Darwin's model of how it might happen, and that model is being added to all the time.

If you genuinely are curious - and not just wanting to dismiss it out of hand for religious reasons as you claim - I would start with these three videos:

YouTube - 6. Natural Selection Made Easy (for schools)

YouTube - 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy

YouTube - 8 -- Human Evolution Made Easy

If you are willing to take in thirty minutes of top-quality educational video then we can examine what still remains problematic and address any further objections to the theory you may have.

---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 AM ----------


I'm glad someone ripped me open to take my appendix out, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this.