Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sorry, someone that is an avid believer in evolution here said it. I did not. I'm only questioning it as to whether you believe or evolutionists say that humans evolved from -- apes. Lots of apes? are humans apes? (what's the story?) If I have time I'll look for the post...
Do you consider yourself a human-ape-animal?
@Dan From Smithville Hi ya Dan! So let's see -- "modern apes" as claimed above did not become humans. I suppose you might think ancient apes did? Also -- that humans ARE apes -- but not from the modern kind...
No, that's not my argument against evolution. I'm saying that the thesis just simply cannot be proved in detail. Experiments are done, chemicals put together by humans that are said to "prove" the theory, but going over all that -- are humans apes? Science says so, doesn't it?
Please give the details behind your belief concerning the diversity of the animal kingdom.
Yes, modern apes did not become humans. In other words chimpanzees did not evolve into human beings. The ancestor that we share with chimps was neither a human being nor was it a chimp. But that ancestor was still an ape.
What the frack!!? Are you a fuzzy snake now?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Um...there ARE NO details. Here is what I will say: science simply cannot in any way beyond conjecture show/prove/demonstrate that fish eventually became humans. Land roving fish or fish with 4 legs do not prove/show/demonstrate that they eventually evolved to become apes. You may think so; others may think so; I no longer do. Because there really IS no demonstrable proof, and yes, proof is the only word possible here. Fish remain fish. Chimpanzees remain chimpanzees. (Humans remain humans.) I used to believe what "science" taught me in school. I believe that vaccines can help mitigate the ill effects of some diseases. I am not against science. Imagining the evolution of fish to humans (first apes, then humans from some unknown common ancestor ape) is something I no longer believe because -- it (1) is not provable, (2) is not demonstrable, (3) fossils that appear to look like apes or fish or birds do not prove/demonstrate/show the various forms evolved. (Have a good one...)
I'm not a scientist but I can ask questions.
That is ok.
You don't know the science, you don't "believe" that evolution is real, you've said no evidence will convince you, so why do you persist in this? Are you hoping to have your mind changed?
The point is that you are not asking questions in the post I originally responded to. You were making claims. Clearly, claims you cannot back up or even explain. And still you persist here, despite the fact that you proclaim your rejection of science. I wonder why.
Perhaps some people are classified by evolutionists as a Christian ape.
I wasn't there. Meantime it would be proper to call someone a Christian ape?
Putting testtubes and chemicals together in a laboratory does not in any way prove/show/evidence/demonstrate the theory that humans are apes or that they evolved from fish.
Alpine constrictor. Snake with the most northern range of any snake. That isn't really fur. It is a modification of the scales. Mutations in the basal squamous epithelium have resulted in this hair-like growth that allows these snakes to survive in northern latitudes and higher elevations.
I keep saying that I appreciate x-ray machines (invented by scientists), I drive a car (invented by scientists), I take vaccines (invented by scientists), yet you keep saying I reject science. (LOL...)
I have no idea if you are making that critter up or not.
So. You say a lot of things. The first car was invented by an engineer.
