Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[idav]

Thats funny because most atheist and other groups always say things like those people who wrote the bible were all ignorant sheep and goat herders who knew nothing.Then when something logical or something that sounds scientifically correct comes along,the tune changes.

Ok.....there is also the explanation of how the universe came into existence.The formula for this is actually explained.

If we read the very first sentence in the holy scriptures its Genesis 1:1 
It says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." 
Ok...Lets dig DEEP beneath the verse.

In the beginning =TIME 
the heavens=SPACE Earth=MATTER
So,we end up with 
TIME,SPACE & MATTER. 
Scientist have barely come to agree that this is how they believe the
 universe was created. In this order. This was just found out in the latter part of the 20th century.God,our creator, let mankind know this over 3,000 years ago.

TIME,SPACE & MATTER is the formula God used to create the universe.This is just in the first sentence of the holy scriptures. Imagine the knowledge one can learn if we only apply ourselves and begin a relationship with the Grand creator.


Well I am not one to call ancients ignorant.

Silly humans, we didnt even neeed Einstein, general relativity was right there the whole time in the first page of the bible.:sarcastic

 

[Nada]

Well I am not one to call ancients ignorant.

Silly humans, we didnt even neeed Einstein, general relativity was right there the whole time in the first page of the bible.:sarcastic

The General Relativity was explained in Job 26:7.

"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

THINK ABOUT WHAT IS BEING SAID- It is speaking of the earth being suspended over nothing.This is obviously speaking about gravity.

Only one who is in outer space can make such an observation.One on earth cannot make this observation by looking up into space from earth.You have to be in space looking down at the earth to make such a statement.Space and gravity are being spoken of here.

Such knowledge did not come from man but was given to man by our creator.God.



 

[Monk Of Reason]

If I try to explain it to you,I will be here forever ,and will eventually look like your profile pic.

You realize that this is a debate thread right? There is the assumed requirement that you support your assertions. If you wish to just preach at people then by all means you can go to one of the non-debate threads.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The General Relativity was explained in Job 26:7.

"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

THINK ABOUT WHAT IS BEING SAID- It is speaking of the earth being suspended over nothing.This is obviously speaking about gravity.

Only one who is in outer space can make such an observation.One on earth cannot make this observation by looking up into space from earth.You have to be in space looking down at the earth to make such a statement.Space and gravity are being spoken of here.

Such knowledge did not come from man but was given to man by our creator.God.



You realize that none of those passages actually explain anything right? And that only after we gained the scientific knowledge from the great minds throughout time can we even look back and attempt to rationalize bible verses.

 

[Aman777]

Adams decendents are supposed to be prehistoric humans, that is if you believe god created humans through adam and eve.

Dear idav, False, since Scripture shows that Adam was formed of the dust of the ground on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 It was AFTER Adam's Earth was made Gen 1:9-10 but BEFORE the plants, herbs, and trees GREW, on the THIRD Day. Gen 1:12 This was ALSO the Day of the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Gen 2:4

Prehistoric mankind evolved from the common ancestor of All life on Planet Earth. Bacteria first appeared on the FIFTH Day Gen 1:21, which was some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time. The FIRST Human, Noah, arrived in an Ark some 10k years ago and grew himself something to drink and was drunken. Gen 9:21 Here is the area where Noah first grew his grapes. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Where in the world did you get the idea that Adam's descendants (Humans) evolved from Apes? Humans were made Billions of years BEFORE Apes even existed. Indeed, it was BEFORE our Solar System was formed. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Nada]

You realize that this is a debate thread right? There is the assumed requirement that you support your assertions. If you wish to just preach at people then by all means you can go to one of the non-debate threads.

Don't get mad.idav specifically asked for evidence and I gave him scientific evidence proving my point.We are debating.Its all scientific. If you cannot recognize this then I'm sorry.

The forum name does say Evolution vs. Creationism does it not?

Just because I did not prove it you does not render my discussion null and void.

 

[Nada]

Dear idav, False, since Scripture shows that Adam was formed of the dust of the ground on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 It was AFTER Adam's Earth was made Gen 1:9-10 but BEFORE the plants, herbs, and trees GREW, on the THIRD Day. Gen 1:12 This was ALSO the Day of the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Gen 2:4

Prehistoric mankind evolved from the common ancestor of All life on Planet Earth. Bacteria first appeared on the FIFTH Day Gen 1:21, which was some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time. The FIRST Human, Noah, arrived in an Ark some 10k years ago and grew himself something to drink and was drunken. Gen 9:21 Here is the area where Noah first grew his grapes. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Where in the world did you get the idea that Adam's descendants (Humans) evolved from Apes? Humans were made Billions of years BEFORE Apes even existed. Indeed, it was BEFORE our Solar System was formed. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

What you have stated is incorrect.It says both male and female were created on the sixth day.Not the third.


27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

[Nada]

Dear idav, False, since Scripture shows that Adam was formed of the dust of the ground on the THIRD Day. Gen 2:4-7 It was AFTER Adam's Earth was made Gen 1:9-10 but BEFORE the plants, herbs, and trees GREW, on the THIRD Day. Gen 1:12 This was ALSO the Day of the Big Bang of our Cosmos. Gen 2:4

Prehistoric mankind evolved from the common ancestor of All life on Planet Earth. Bacteria first appeared on the FIFTH Day Gen 1:21, which was some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time. The FIRST Human, Noah, arrived in an Ark some 10k years ago and grew himself something to drink and was drunken. Gen 9:21 Here is the area where Noah first grew his grapes. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Where in the world did you get the idea that Adam's descendants (Humans) evolved from Apes? Humans were made Billions of years BEFORE Apes even existed. Indeed, it was BEFORE our Solar System was formed. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

The holy scriptures never say 3.7 billion years anywhere.Noah was not here on earth 10,000 years ago according to scripture.If you go by what scripture says,it points out that man is a little over 6,000 years old.The earth could be possibly billions of years old,but man is only 6,000 years old.According to scripture.

 

[Nada]

You realize that none of those passages actually explain anything right? And that only after we gained the scientific knowledge from the great minds throughout time can we even look back and attempt to rationalize bible verses.

Well you have already proved yourself wrong with your own statement because it's scientific fact that the writings in the OT were written long before Galileo,Sir Isaac Newton or Einstein were even born.The information in the OT predates any of the scientific information we have to date about gravity,underwater springs on the ocean floor or the formula for the creation of the universe.

 

[Nada]

You realize that none of those passages actually explain anything right? And that only after we gained the scientific knowledge from the great minds throughout time can we even look back and attempt to rationalize bible verses.

Oh the passages I provided explain much, but it is you who does not understand them,yet.

 

[McBell]

Don't get mad.idav specifically asked for evidence and I gave him scientific evidence proving my point.We are debating.Its all scientific. If you cannot recognize this then I'm sorry.

The forum name does say Evolution vs. Creationism does it not?

Just because I did not prove it you does not render my discussion null and void.

You did not provide any scientific evidence.

if you think you have, we will need to try to get you to understand what scientific evidence is.

 

[McBell]

Well you have already proved yourself wrong with your own statement because it's scientific fact that the writings in the OT were written long before Galileo,Sir Isaac Newton or Einstein were even born.The information in the OT predates any of the scientific information we have to date about gravity,underwater springs on the ocean floor or the formula for the creation of the universe.

Your skill in using the Forer Effect, though mighty, does not help evidence your argument.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Don't get mad.idav specifically asked for evidence and I gave him scientific evidence proving my point.We are debating.Its all scientific. If you cannot recognize this then I'm sorry.

The forum name does say Evolution vs. Creationism does it not?

Just because I did not prove it you does not render my discussion null and void.

The only things I saw you post were links to creationist websites about evolution. Not evidence FOR creationism. Even if evolution were proven wrong (it hasn't and I doubt it will) creationism isn't the correct answer by default.

Well you have already proved yourself wrong with your own statement because it's scientific fact that the writings in the OT were written long before Galileo,Sir Isaac Newton or Einstein were even born.The information in the OT predates any of the scientific information we have to date about gravity,underwater springs on the ocean floor or the formula for the creation of the universe.

They were written before but were nonsensical. They are not evidence of god given information but rather poetic verses that are more liberally interpreted today. Not to mention the extent in which we can even rationalized these verses barely scratches the surface of what the theory really holds. I don't really know of anyone who has a firm grasp of the theory that thinks the bible had it right thousands of years ago.

 

[Nada]

The only things I saw you post were links to creationist websites about evolution. Not evidence FOR creationism. Even if evolution were proven wrong (it hasn't and I doubt it will) creationism isn't the correct answer by default.



They were written before but were nonsensical. They are not evidence of god given information but rather poetic verses that are more liberally interpreted today. Not to mention the extent in which we can even rationalized these verses barely scratches the surface of what the theory really holds. I don't really know of anyone who has a firm grasp of the theory that thinks the bible had it right thousands of years ago.

Well you are incorrect again.I see none on this page.Just straight answers.Im sorry you cannot see them.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Can you give issue number of Scientific American where is was said?

I remember that it was something fishy about this quote when I researched it last time. It wasn't an article in SA but a piece of opinion, or it was a book that was just quoted. I can't remember the exact problem. So please provide which volume and issue, and page number if you have it.

After all, he's a religious sociologist with an opinion. That doesn't automatically give his views on geneticists or biochemistry any credence.

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 know what's better? Go to a local college and take some classes in biological anthropology and look for yourself. I did. My views and "belief" in evolution isn't based on assumptions but on observations and study. I've seen and studied the different reasons (for instance specific bone features, sutures, muscle attachments, and more) why we know for certainty that we have evolved. The skull of the archaic H. sapiens is different than ours. And so is the skull of the other species in our past. And you can learn to read these skulls and explain why they are different. They evolved and change, and they were human.

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.

Species is a very loose category. We do have evidence for speciation. You're making bold statements here.

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.”

Then how come each individual on the planet has a unique fingerprint DNA? If there's no change at all, how come there are so much genetic variation? What are there so many different alleles?

Explain why there's new genetic material and phenotype changes in the species on the very same Galapagos islands that Darwin visited 180 years ago? There's a new book out with solid evidence and research that's gone on for some 30-40 years showing that genetic change is happening, and why.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well you are incorrect again.I see none on this page.Just straight answers.Im sorry you cannot see them.

How about responding to the first part as well?

Though if I understand this correctly... I must first abandon my reason and logic and accept something that logically incoherent in order to somehow "see" the truth?
This sounds like cool-aid drinking kind of reasoning. I must first be delusional to see the truth. Wouldn't I just be delusional?

 

[McBell]

Well you are incorrect again.I see none on this page.Just straight answers.Im sorry you cannot see them.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to hand out some of the rose coloured glasses you are using?

 

[Nada]

How about responding to the first part as well?

Though if I understand this correctly... I must first abandon my reason and logic and accept something that logically incoherent in order to somehow "see" the truth?
This sounds like cool-aid drinking kind of reasoning. I must first be delusional to see the truth. Wouldn't I just be delusional?

And that is exactly why I try to refrain from answering your questions.Your attitude will not allow your mind to comprehend.

 

[McBell]

Can you give issue number of Scientific American where is was said?

I remember that it was something fishy about this quote when I researched it last time. It wasn't an article in SA but a piece of opinion, or it was a book that was just quoted. I can't remember the exact problem. So please provide which volume and issue, and page number if you have it.

The article he linked as the source shows a footnote numbering of 31, but there is no foot note to explain it.

Not surprised, though.
Watch Tower is well known for its blatant dishonesty.

 

[McBell]

And that is exactly why I try to refrain from answering your questions.Your attitude will not allow your mind to comprehend.

Cop out.
You know you can not so you throw this line of bull **** out thinking it helps you out of the corner you painted yourself into.