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!
The article he linked was written by a confused author who did not forgetfulness the case. We are not evolved from other modern apes. We are of course evolved from apes since the common ancestor that we share with other apes was an ape and we are still apes ourselves. Just as we are still mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, chordates, multicellular animals and eukaryotes.
No,it's not. That's what evolution is. It's primarily one form of life becoming another distinctly different organism. An ape that morphs into a human would necessarily still have been able to have sexual activity with another recently morphed humanoid ape OR one that remained as an ape.
It only took one or two apes, I suppose, to make a humanoid ancient apelike organism. LOL!
Nope. You are listening to lying idiots that have no clue. Technically evolution is the change of allele frequency of a population of organisms. Change of mind is the moronic creationist strawman. It is moronic because first of all it is wrong and second creationists cannot even define the word "kind".
Like it or not you are an ape.It only took one or two apes, I suppose, to make a humanoid ancient apelike organism. LOL!
Of course other apes look like humans. Do other apes look like starfish or do They look like humans?
I'm smiling as you call me an ape. But if you read the Smithsonian description of evolution, and the Encyclopedia Britannica's description of evolution, it's ALL CONJECTURE.
So the Ninth Commandment is meaningless to you. That is nice to know.All conjecture -- human evolution | Stages & Timeline
Again, why do you think that it is okay to repeat lies?
Looking at the conjectured time line of apes turning into humans (lol) over the course of millions of years, it's laughable to think or see that apes look like humans, stooped, slumping with dragging arms and apelike hairy bodies and faces. And as one site promoting evolution pointed out, apes are much better suited to live in the hot sunlight of Africa with all their hair, swinging from trees. I see what you're saying -- there is a similarity more than, let's say, a bat or a mouse. LOL. Although most of us are not attracted to apes as beautiful organisms. I say organism instead of creature, because you don't believe any of them were created in their distinct form at the beginning of their living journey as a distinct type. Something you might want to think about.
I am saying it is impossible for a completely distinct organism such as a bat or an ape, in its complexity, to come from some primordial soup. And now some scientists are saying it may not have been primordial soup.
(LOL, you are funny.) Anyway, go back to the newer theory bypassing the primordial soup.
You do not seem to realize that the word "conjecture" means that you made a claim about other people. That puts a burden of proof on you. If you can't support your claims you just bore false witness against your neighbor.Looking at the conjectured time line of apes turning into humans (lol) over the course of millions of years, it's laughable to think or see that apes look like humans, stooped, slumping with dragging arms and apelike hairy bodies and faces. And as one site promoting evolution pointed out, apes are much better suited to live in the hot sunlight of Africa with all their hair, swinging from trees. I see what you're saying -- there is a similarity more than, let's say, a bat or a mouse. LOL. Although most of us are not attracted to apes as beautiful organisms. I say organism instead of creature, because you don't believe any of them were created in their distinct form at the beginning of their living journey as a distinct type. Something you might want to think about.
But as many scientists say, humans did NOT evolve from --apes -- but say rather they have a so-called common ancestor. Everything therefore must accordingly have a "common ancestor," and that could be the primordial soup. (lol) Besides, when we die, the body goes back to mush, then dust. So do most organisms, thus there is a common link there.
"For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the "soup" theory has been overturned in a pioneering article which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life." New research rejects 80-year theory of 'primordial soup' as the origin of life
(Thanks for the conversation, it's been pleasant - really.)
You were openly lying. That is very bad behavior for a supposed Christian.
@SZ - gotta go, have things to do today, hopefully be back later. Let me know how you figure the primordial soup mess and see if it figures into your constantly changing facts.
So if we're not evolved from modern apes, how do you know what ancestral apes looked like? Have pictures?
Exactly how and where was I "opening lying"? You just make those statements without proof. Please tell me where you think I was lying, thank you.
So for decades they taught primordial soup origin. What happened? It disappeared?
So why did scientists begin to figure maybe it wasn't primordial soup after all? Do you believe it was? Or do you go along with the ever-changing stream of so-called facts?