• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

Again you are arguing for a literal translation where youmhave acknowledged earlier that parts of scripture are metaphor. Wouldn't it make more sense to question your assumptions on translation rather than to deny evolution which is scientifically proven? That way your faith and the evidence coincide?
Well first your assumptions of what parts in the holy scriptures are metaphor and what parts are not are pure speculation.Second,Evolution is not scientifically proven.

Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?


Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.


The facts. As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”23


Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28


The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.



There is so much more but I cannot post it all on here.You can go to this link to see the full article.

Evolution
 
Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”31

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”


[url=http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233]Evolution[/URL]
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Bible Student

Macro evolution was observed more than a century ago my friend. This is 2014. Evolution is a fact. Nobody has seiously questioned evolution in my country since my great grand fathers time.
 
Last edited:
Bible Student

Macro evolution was observed more than a century ago my friend. This is 2014. Evolution is a fact,

I can see you didn't read.


Myth 3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes. The previously mentioned NAS brochure leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.”28


The facts. The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”*29
To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
There is much but it comes in many other forms of proof.I would love to explain it all to you in further detail but I am already familiar with you.We have had discussions before.Just like the belief in God is based on Faith,so is Evolution.There is no concrete evidence of Evolution.Just speculations by scientist who do not believe in a higher power.

Except there are libraries (literally actually) of information and evidence that we draw the conclusion of evolution. The two claims are not equal and this fallacious notion that you can simply bring them down to the same level is absurd.
 
Bible Student

Macro evolution was observed more than a century ago my friend. This is 2014. Evolution is a fact. Nobody has seiously questioned evolution in my country since my great grand fathers time.
Where you live theres also a story of a giant Kangaroo.
 
Except there are libraries (literally actually) of information and evidence that we draw the conclusion of evolution. The two claims are not equal and this fallacious notion that you can simply bring them down to the same level is absurd.
Keep reading.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”31

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”


[url=http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233]Evolution[/URL]
As hard as it may be for you to believe, evolution is one of the least magical answers for origins. In fact evolution is the natural answer. Anything beyond nature takes faith, believing natural means certainly doesn't require any leap of faith.
 
As hard as it may be for you to believe, evolution is one of the least magical answers for origins. In fact evolution is the natural answer. Anything beyond nature takes faith, believing natural means certainly doesn't require any leap of faith.
Keep reading.
 
As hard as it may be for you to believe, evolution is one of the least magical answers for origins. In fact evolution is the natural answer. Anything beyond nature takes faith, believing natural means certainly doesn't require any leap of faith.
So its both a magical answer and a natural one?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
If we evolved from ape why are there still apes?
We didn't evolve from apes.

We are an ape. Ape is the family of species where humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and others belong to.

And we evolved from a common ancestor from which all apes came from.

We share ancestor with the chimpanzees too, in a closer path.

So by the fact that humans exist, apes exist. We are apes.

Just by looking at the human body we can gather that we were created and did not evolve.How does a conscience evolve?
By looking scientifically at the human body it is very obvious that we evolved. Bone structure and features can be traced. DNA, genetic, transposons, ERVs, markers, and much more show a very strong heritage.

Consciousness is a different beast all together. It didn't evolve, but emerged. The potential for consciousness is a fundamental "thing" of the Universe. It was never created. It's just as eternal as time, space, force, etc.

Your insides are obviously designed.
Uhm... no. I've taken some classes, and we're not pretty inside or organized. It's a big lump of stuff. Several organs can be easily removed without causing any greater harm to the individual. Why are there redundancy like this?

Explain when and how God created the blood clothing? It's a favorite example by apologists, but no one can explain why God created it to begin with. Did God expect Adam and Eve to get hurt and cut themselves? That was the "perfect" world he created? Same goes for antibodies, lymphatic system, etc. Why did God have to create that, unless he knew there would be disease. Why did God create us to have a need for microbial cultures to break down our food? Why did God create us with a flawed and broken C-vitamin gene? Those questions can be answered with evolution, but Genesis is completely silent.

Everything about the human body is a work of art.Our eyes have been replicated by man and used as a model for the lenses on cameras.
Not quite.

There are at 20 different "models" of eyes in the world.

Humans have at least 3 different genetic types of color sight. (One that can see 4 colors.)

The cameras today are more effective than human eyes. Hasselblad cameras come up to close to 100 MPix now. That's some 2-4 times better than humans.

We have chemicals in our body that do amazing things.Our senses.The way our plumbing works.We are flesh machines designed to take in food for fuel and dispose of it when we are done.Just like a car that takes in gas and lets out fumes.Something as complex as the human body could not have evolved into what we are today.

Its like a computer.It was obviously designed.It has a program in order for it to work.It did not create itself.It has a designer.It runs on this program because the designer did this.Same with the human body.It needed someone to install these programs and boundaries.We breathe without thinking.Chemicals do what they do on their own.Our skin regenerates.It all points to creation.

I have so many things I could explain to you, but I ran out of time. I'll come back to this later.
 
Top