Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[gnostic]

I wonder if we on RF shall ever see a challenge to evolution from someone who actually understands it.

Not in our lifetime.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Ya know, for all the gags, I do hope this guy has tried to at least re-read some of this crap and come to a better understanding of his own faith.

 

[Ben West]

Aman said:
"Adam was made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7"
Nope. There are no days stated in the second creation account. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Dear Sojourner, False, since Gen 2:4-7 says that man was formed on the SAME Day the first Earth was made. According to Gen 1:9-10 Adam's Earth was made the THIRD Day.

Aman said:
"Eve was made the 6th Day. Gen 2:22"
Nope. There are no days stated in the second creation account. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Whatever you're getting from Genesis 2 here, you're patently reading into it, because it Simply. Is. Not. There.

Aman said:
"BOTH Adam and Eve were "created" in God's Image or in Christ Spiritually on the 6th Day AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2"
Nope. There is no mention made of Adam and Eve being "created in God's image or in Christ Spiritually" in Genesis 5. Again, you're reading into the text something that simply isn't there.

Aman said:
"What is obvious is that you don't know the difference in being "formed" by Jesus and being Created Spiritually by the TRINITY."
What is obvious is that you don't know the difference between stating what is actually in the text and what you imagine to be in the text. "Jesus" Does. Not. Appear. in Genesis. The Trinity Does. Not. Appear. in Genesis.

Aman said:
"False, since Jesus IS the Light of the first Day. Gen 1:3 Without Him was not anything made which was made. John 1:3 That means that Jesus IS the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end as Rev 22:13 states."
Let me reiterate exactly what John 1 says:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life,[a] and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it."
I've highlighted in red what the role of Jesus was in creation, according to John.

Again, you're reading way too much into the texts here.

Aman said:
"Wrong, since the command is given to "Beloved", which is speaking of Christians. Rev 22:13 Have you ever actually read the Bible?"
Revelation 22:13 says nothing about "beloved" or "testing unbelievers." Have you ever actually read the bible? Because you haven't included anything here that leads me to believe that you actually have.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Dear Readers, It is impossible for Humans to have evolved from the common ancestor of Apes since Humans were made long before ANY other living creature. Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans was made the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 Jesus made Adam of the dust of the ground BEFORE the first Stars of our Universe put forth their light on the FOURTH Day. Gen 1:16

This means that the common ancestor of Apes, on our Earth, lived Billions of years AFTER Adam, the first Human was made, according to Scripture. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

You're not making any sort of argument at all. You're just saying that creationism is true because the scriptures say so.

Well, Genesis also said that God created a firmament (i.e. dome) to separate the waters above from the waters below. How come the rockets that boost satellites into orbit don't crash into this firmament? And shouldn't we teach firmament meteorology as science in the classroom?

 

[Ben West]

You're not making any sort of argument at all. You're just saying that creationism is true because the scriptures say so.

Well, Genesis also said that God created a firmament (i.e. dome) to separate the waters above from the waters below. How come the rockets that boost satellites into orbit don't crash into this firmament? And shouldn't we teach firmament meteorology as science in the classroom?

 

[Ben West]

You're not making any sort of argument at all. You're just saying that creationism is true because the scriptures say so.

Well, Genesis also said that God created a firmament (i.e. dome) to separate the waters above from the waters below. How come the rockets that boost satellites into orbit don't crash into this firmament? And shouldn't we teach firmament meteorology as science in the classroom?

Dear Trantor, Creation is true because Genesis agrees in EVERY way with every other discovered Truth of Science and History IF you have the proper interpretation. Your confusion about the firmament is because you are viewing it as a dome instead of the BOUNDARY of Adam's world, which protected it from the water into which it was placed on the SECOND Day. Gen 1:6-8

The giveaway is that water was ABOVE and BELOW it showing that it was surrounded by Water. It's the way water works. IF it's above and below you, you are surrou

 

[Trantorfuzz]

You're not making any sort of argument at all. You're just saying that creationism is true because the scriptures say so.

Well, Genesis also said that God created a firmament (i.e. dome) to separate the waters above from the waters below. How come the rockets that boost satellites into orbit don't crash into this firmament? And shouldn't we teach firmament meteorology as science in the classroom?

Dear Trantor, Creation is true because Genesis agrees in EVERY way with every other discovered Truth of Science and History IF you have the proper interpretation. Your confusion about the firmament is because you are viewing it as a dome instead of the BOUNDARY of Adam's world, which protected it from the water into which it was placed on the SECOND Day. Gen 1:6-8

The giveaway is that water was ABOVE and BELOW it showing that it was surrounded by Water. It's the way water works. IF it's above and below you, you are surrounded by it.

There is no "boundary" of any kind in the environment that you name. More generally, Genesis does not agree with every discovered Truth of Science. For one thing, evolution did occur--the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Also, Genesis, if interpreted literally, makes many demonstrably false claims. If interpreted metaphorically, it is a spiritual document, not a series of scientific studies.

 

[Ben West]

There is no "boundary" of any kind in the environment that you name. More generally, Genesis does not agree with every discovered Truth of Science. For one thing, evolution did occur--the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Also, Genesis, if interpreted literally, makes many demonstrably false claims. If interpreted metaphorically, it is a spiritual document, not a series of scientific studies.

Dear Trantor, The boundary was the solid firmament which totally surrounded Adam's Cosmos or Heaven and protected it from the water into which it was placed. Gen 1:6-8

Evolution is a False assumption of Godless men who have rejected God's Truth as written in Genesis. They changed the name because they did NOT want to agree with God since He shows the SAME thing in changes within Their and His kinds. Do you know the difference?

I am sorry for your willful ignorance of what Genesis actually teaches. IF you knew what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation is telling us, you would see that His Science is far above today's Science.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Seriously, Aman? You made a 3rd username?

Your wonders never cease to amaze me.

 

[Ben West]

Seriously, Aman? You made a 3rd username?

Your wonders never cease to amaze me.

Dear jonathan, It's because some guy in Russia took my SN I had for 18 years which was Aman777, so I temporary changed it to Aman725 but had to change it for Amazon so I changed it to Ben West, cause I've Been West, haven't you? The wonder is that I can still remember the names which are forced upon me.

 

[`mud]

Amen to that !
~
'mud

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The way that interplanetary evolution is ignored shows that nobody understands evolution. Its like if you had only ever lived in Australia, and never seen any other fossil record, you would only have 'proof' that kangaroos evolved from Australian amoeba.

There is nothing wrong with the theory that apes devolved from pre-human space-travelers. (Read Arthur C. Clarke, and Lyall Watson for eg). There is nothing wrong with the possibility that pre-humans (or super-aliens) artificially manufactured the entire universe.

It would be quite easy for someone who had been born on a holo-deck (star trek) to believe that his entire life experience were 'real'. The laws of nature are so precise, that they could only have been designed.

According to orthodox evolution, the crocodile has remained unchanged for a million years. This same principle suggests that human's went from caveman (crocodile food) to space-traveler in a mere 40 000 years. If the principle of evolution (as it is commonly expressed) shows that the most advance creatures take the longest time to evolve; and that humans are vastly more evolved than any other creature... well then... see if you can connect the dots?

 

[LuisDantas]

It must be noted that the Theory of Evolution does not deal with "advancement" of creatures. There is simply no such idea.

Nor is there a scientific theory of interplanetary evolution, either. Unless someone devises a way of falsifying the idea, I suppose.

Before then it is simply not a theory except perhaps in the popular sense of the word (which is far looser than the scientific meaning of "theory").

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The way that interplanetary evolution is ignored shows that nobody understands evolution. Its like if you had only ever lived in Australia, and never seen any other fossil record, you would only have 'proof' that kangaroos evolved from Australian amoeba.

There is nothing wrong with the theory that apes devolved from pre-human space-travelers. (Read Arthur C. Clarke, and Lyall Watson for eg). There is nothing wrong with the possibility that pre-humans (or super-aliens) artificially manufactured the entire universe.

It would be quite easy for someone who had been born on a holo-deck (star trek) to believe that his entire life experience were 'real'. The laws of nature are so precise, that they could only have been designed.

According to orthodox evolution, the crocodile has remained unchanged for a million years. This same principle suggests that human's went from caveman (crocodile food) to space-traveler in a mere 40 000 years. If the principle of evolution (as it is commonly expressed) shows that the most advance creatures take the longest time to evolve; and that humans are vastly more evolved than any other creature... well then... see if you can connect the dots?

Our DNA is a pretty good marker on how we are related to each other. And now that we have a good sampling of life on earth we can more or less understand the way it evolved. If your talking about trans-spermiation then that is also a theory though not a highly supported one.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well my point is simplified thus:

Our earthly fossil record cannot take into account interactions between life-forms from other planets.
This does not mean that such life-forms do not exist.

Consider a scenario in the year 20 000 AD. Humanity is in the process of terra-forming countless planets.
This is such a highly probable scenario, that it is almost inevitable. The terra-forming would obviously start
with basic life-forms, the more complex life-forms being introduced as the biosphere stabilizes.
(For the sake of sheer economy)

Its also distinctly likely that contact between worlds will break down temporarily, from time to time.
Due to the hardships of survival on the new worlds, knowledge which has no immediate survival value,
can easily decay to the point of a very abbreviated mythology or semi-history. given enough time.

After some time, civilization can build up again to the point of serious Paleontology study. And yet, such a study
can easily conclude that all life evolved on that planet; by drawing a straight line from one life-form to the next...

Given the inevitability of one planet being able to seed countless other planets, it is easy to see how
the odds of any one planet being 'the original lifeworld' are are as low as "1 in a million."

Then see how as our entire universe decays, billions of years into the future, we would have developed the
means to create an entirely new universe, seeding it with life accordingly. Now this process can become
repeated countless times.

So now what are the odds that life originated in this universe?

 

[McBell]

So now what are the odds that life originated in this universe?

I don't know.

Perhaps you can show your math?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The verbal logic describes it better than math.
If i explained it in Spanish would the logic be any different?

 

[McBell]

The verbal logic describes it better than math.
If i explained it in Spanish would the logic be any different?

You specifically stated "odds".
Odds is math.

I understand you have not actually done the math and are now scrambling because your bluff has been called.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The odds of Humanity colonizing the stars are almost inevitable.
The odds after that of humanity fabricating entire universes are just as inevitable.
Therefore the odds of us being part of such a fabrication are just as inevitable.
Do you realize that words are symbols just like numbers?
One plus one equals two is the same as 1+1=2

 

[McBell]

The odds of Humanity colonizing the stars are almost inevitable.
The odds after that of humanity fabricating entire universes are just as inevitable.
Therefore the odds of us being part of such a fabrication are just as inevitable.
Do you realize that words are symbols just like numbers?
One plus one equals two is the same as 1+1=2

You are making claims of math but refuse to present the math you used to make your claims.

Or are you merely making bold empty claims hoping no one asks about the math?