I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[joelr]

I don't want to make this too long --
Every animal and plant has its unique ability. Certainly animals and (yes, and) humans need water and plants to continue living. And it is reasonable to believe that God used the building blocks (DNA). Not evolution as commonly taught. So do I think lifeforms came about by "natural selection"? No.
The theory itself does not bode well with -- the theory. What I mean is that timelines show different forms of fossils, some of which are of extinct animals, but that does not prove evolution. The idea that there are different branches, so to speak, of that which stems from the first few supposed molecules emitting energy of life growing and leading to even more complex forms is not something that adds up to me anymore. While I certainly don't understand everything about life, I find the complexity and wonderous things around me are manifestations of a superior intelligence. I find the following statement helpful in me sorting it out: (Romans 9:20: "But who are you, O man, to be answering back to God? Does the thing molded say to its molder: “Why did you make me this way?”

The taxonomy and fossil records add up. Can you demonstrate a point at which they do not? I suspect you are just not ready to let go of the idea that a magic being helped life along.
Because the superior intelligence can be nature. Nature has vast creative powers. Weather you study the universe, physics, chemistry. Amazing power. There is no need for a creative power to be conscious.

Anyway, you misunderstand the passage. It doesn't mean you can't learn about the natural world? It's about demanding to be made different.

"But Paul turns the question back on mankind: Who are we, as mortal human beings, to answer back to God? God is the One who molded Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) and who puts all of us together in our mother's womb (Psalm 139:13). Can the one who is molded talk back to the One who molded him and demand he ought to have been made in some other way?"
The assumed answer, of course, is no. Created things don't talk back to their maker. Neither do human beings have the right to moralize to their Creator about His choices. He is God. We are not. As crippling as it might be to our own sense of pride, we must start with the realization that God has no obligation to us. He owes us nothing: not mercy, not love, not grace. That, in fact, is one reason the gospel is so incredible. The love and mercy God shows to us, in providing for our salvation, is something absolutely and completely unearned and undeserved.

 

[joelr]

LOL, don't put down the middle ages. We ain't so far gone in advancement, with all the wars, violence, and man's inhumanity to man. Perhaps you think that comes about by natural selection of, um, that which is called 'homo sapiens'?

Evolution mostly has stopped for homo sapien. You clearly don't understand evolution so your disbelief isn't saying anything.
Compare average lifespan from Middle ages to modern times.

I no longer do.

You don't seem to understand anything about it. People think the Earth is flat also. Evidence please.

True that in the Middle Ages there were no kidney transplants, but I always like the account of poor and dear Dr. Semmelweis, perhaps you have heard of him? The Doctor Who Championed Hand-Washing And Briefly Saved Lives : Shots - Health News : NPR
It might interest you to know that Moses wrote about cleanliness and not touching that which was considered unclean, including bodies, and quarantining oneself, a long time before that. Meantime, I look forward to seeing Dr. Semmelweis in the resurrection. Since life is regardless of proposition, somewhat of a miracle, no matter how you look at it, the resurrection in my opinion is not unreasonable. But of course, death is the thing that separates us from God right now in the 'absolute' sense. Take care.
"According to the Mosaic Law, which dates to the 16th century B.C.E., anyone touching a corpse became unclean for seven days and had to undergo a cleansing procedure that included bathing and washing his garments. During this time, the person was to avoid physical contact with others.—Numbers 19:11-22."
(Dr. Semmelweis was a modern promoter of this, although despised by his fellow scientists until later...)
Ignaz Semmelweis — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (jw.org)

Well your source is wrong because the first mention of the Israelites was 1200 BC.
The Greeks also knew about hand washing and isolating dead bodies 3000 years ago:
Ancient Greeks started washing their hands over 3,000 years ago

Ancient Greeks started washing their hands over 3,000 years ago


The resurrection is a Persian myth. Maybe if you switch to Zoroastrianism it will happen?


Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe. 1600 B.C.

 

[joelr]

Don't you find it interesting that evolution believers talk about the imagined possibilities, and never talk about the real barriers?
Have you ever heard of these 'apes' mating... Ahem. Let me clarify. What human mates with apes?

We have ligers and tiglons, but we don't have humapes and apeman.
We get hybrids that cannot reproduce in many species. How does evolution proceed according to imagined possibilities, beyond such barriers?

Because Apes (hominidae) are not remotely close to human. Some apes became homininae (they walked) and went through millions of years of species. Losing body hair (sweating is a better cooling system), eating meat (bigger brains), using tools, smaller skulls, basic language. There are many many hominids on the path from the first hominid (who looked like a walking ape) to Heidelburgensis who look almost fully human. Early Homo sapien killed off any competition.

So yes, if Heidelburgensis existed there could be interbreeding. In fact we know that humans did mate with Neandratol and see it in DNA sometimes. But the intermediate phases are gone, we have their bones but no mating is possible.


Evolution answers all of these questions. Scientific classification has many groups each more specific that the next. Based an physical characteristics, DNA and other..

Primates came during the Mammal evolution but one specific line of evolution is seen here leading to homininae which were apes that walked.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini - specific primates
Infraorder: Simiiformes- more specific primates
Family: Hominidae- great apes
Subfamily: Homininae - hominid (eventually evolves to homo sapien)
Tribe: Hominini


After class Mammal then you get to Order. This list gets to humans so the next group Order is Primates. Then Haplorhini a specific group of primates. Then Simiiformes which breaks off into higher primates, then Hominidae which is the Great Apes. Then Homininae which is the Great Apes who are hominids (walk)
Just the Homininae evolved for millions of years, at the end are modern humans.
Homininae

• Tribe Gorillini
• • Chororapithecus †
    • Chororapithecus abyssinicus
  • Genus Gorilla
    • Western gorilla, Gorilla gorilla
      • Western lowland gorilla, Gorilla gorilla gorilla
      • Cross River gorilla, Gorilla gorilla diehli
    • Eastern gorilla, Gorilla beringei
      • Mountain gorilla, Gorilla beringei beringei
      • Eastern lowland gorilla, Gorilla beringei graueri
• Tribe Hominini
  • Subtribe Panina
    • Genus Pan
      • Chimpanzee (common chimpanzee), Pan troglodytes
        • Central chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes troglodytes
        • Western chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes verus
        • Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes ellioti
        • Eastern chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii
      • Bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), Pan paniscus
  • Subtribe Hominina
    • Graecopithecus †
      • Graecopithecus freybergi.[7] Note: Graecopithecus has also been subsumed by other authors into Dryopithecus. The placement of Graecopithecus within the Hominina, as shown here, represents a hypothesis, but not scientific consensus.
    • Sahelanthropus†
      • Sahelanthropus tchadensis
    • Orrorin†
      • Orrorin tugenensis
    • Ardipithecus†
      • Ardipithecus ramidus
      • Ardipithecus kadabba
    • Kenyanthropus†
      • Kenyanthropus platyops
    • Praeanthropus†[8]
      • Praeanthropus bahrelghazali (Australopithecus bahrelghazali)
      • Praeanthropus anamensis (Australopithecus anamensis)
      • Praeanthropus afarensis (Australopithecus afarensis)
    • Australopithecus†
      • Australopithecus africanus
      • Australopithecus garhi
      • Australopithecus sediba
    • Paranthropus†
      • Paranthropus aethiopicus
      • Paranthropus robustus
      • Paranthropus boisei
    • Homo – immediate ancestors of modern humans
      • Homo gautengensis†
      • Homo rudolfensis†
      • Homo habilis†
      • Homo floresiensis†
      • Homo erectus†
      • Homo ergaster†
      • Homo antecessor†
      • Homo heidelbergensis†
      • Homo cepranensis†
      • Denisovans (scientific name has not yet been assigned)†
      • Homo neanderthalensis†
      • Homo rhodesiensis†
      • Homo sapiens
        • Anatomically modern human, Homo sapiens sapiens

 

[nPeace]

Creation research does not count as science.

Huh? I'm talking about practicing scientists. What does Creation research have to do with that?

 

[ChristineM]

Huh? I'm talking about practicing scientists. What does Creation research have to do with that?

Typically a so called scientist who does not believe basic, copious, evidence is a creation scientist (although that phrase us an oxymoron)

What field are your scientists in?

 

[nPeace]

Humanzee - Wikipedia
chimpanzees and bonobos
chimpanzees and monkeys
chimpanzees and humans

@YoursTrue seems everyone has an idea, since they obviously don't have any verifiable evidence for their "theory".
Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig

What's the next fairytale going to be?

 

[nPeace]

Typically a so called scientist who does not believe basic, copious, evidence is a creation scientist (although that phrase us an oxymoron)

What field are your scientists in?

Let's clear this first. What is a so called scientist, and who gets to decide that?

 

[ChristineM]

Let's clear this first. What is a so called scientist, and who gets to decide that?

Anyone who thinks giving up the scientific method so they can make false claims to big up creationist mumbo jumbo, but that's just my view

Or perhaps...

The same person who says so called evolution or so called atheists. Thus works both ways.

 

[nPeace]

Anyone who thinks giving up the scientific method so they can make false claims to big up creationist mumbo jumbo, but that's just my view

Or perhaps...

The same person who says so called evolution or so called atheists. Thus works both ways.

I know of no such people, but anyway, that tells me you are way off track of what I am talking about.
I'm talking about real scientists that practice science - some are directors, in departments of biology, chemistry, physics... etc.
Why you find that hard to accept would be understandable, considering how Atheist put such great effort into denial.

 

[ChristineM]

I know of no such people, but anyway, that tells me you are way off track of what I am talking about.
I'm talking about real scientists that practice science - some are directors, in departments of biology, chemistry, physics... etc.
Why you find that hard to accept would be understandable, considering how Atheist put such great effort into denial.

You don't? how interesting.
does this ring a bell?

To make things worst, you just keep pointing out how many problems your ideas have... They are holey . Not to mention the so-called junk DNA which represents 98.8 percent of "Dark matter".​

I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

I find it difficult to understand because of lack of evidence, empty claims are just that, empty claims

 

[nPeace]

You don't? how interesting.
does this ring a bell?

To make things worst, you just keep pointing out how many problems your ideas have... They are holey . Not to mention the so-called junk DNA which represents 98.8 percent of "Dark matter".​

I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

I find it difficult to understand because of lack of evidence, empty claims are just that, empty claims

I'm no scientist... and you are all over the place. What were we talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm no scientist... and you are all over the place. What were we talking about?

How is she all over the place? It appears that you just confirmed your admission of "I'm no scientist"

Like almost all creationists you should be asking questions and trying to learn. When one has nothing one has to rely on foolish easily refutable arguments.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm no scientist... and you are all over the place. What were we talking about?

Yoy made a statement, my reply dissed your statement, sorry if that confuses you

 

[nPeace]

Yoy made a statement, my reply dissed your statement, sorry if that confuses you

That was your aim... to find anything to dis!. Okay. Have fun... As they say "knock yourself out."

 

[ChristineM]

That was your aim... to find anything to dis!. Okay. Have fun... As they say "knock yourself out."

No. Not at all but you made it so easy. Sorry to have embarrassed you

 

[nPeace]

No. Not at all but you made it so easy. Sorry to have embarrassed you

Say whatever makes you feel good.

 

[ChristineM]

Say whatever makes you feel good.

I have thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't? how interesting.
does this ring a bell?

To make things worst, you just keep pointing out how many problems your ideas have... They are holey . Not to mention the so-called junk DNA which represents 98.8 percent of "Dark matter".​

I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

I find it difficult to understand because of lack of evidence, empty claims are just that, empty claims

The idea that there is approximately 98% DNA similarity between gorillas, bonobos and humans does not demonstrate or evidence that the idea of evolution is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't? how interesting.
does this ring a bell?

To make things worst, you just keep pointing out how many problems your ideas have... They are holey . Not to mention the so-called junk DNA which represents 98.8 percent of "Dark matter".​

I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

I find it difficult to understand because of lack of evidence, empty claims are just that, empty claims

And nothing proves evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Typically a so called scientist who does not believe basic, copious, evidence is a creation scientist (although that phrase us an oxymoron)

What field are your scientists in?

Do you believe or think that science, including that of the science of the theory of evolution, proves, demonstrates, or shows (your choice of word) that evolution is true and there is no intelligent superior force designing and enabling the structure of living things?