10 edits
Originally posted by stokerAye. Though "eternal" can't quite be right... but it could certainly equal billions of our years.
6 OF GODS DAYS which is eternal.
People keep forgetting, or conveniently over-looking. In Genesis, the 1st and 2nd day had already passed, before the Sun and Moon were put in place. Clearly, this means that the "days" recorded in Genesis couldn't correctly be interpreted as the number of revolutions of Earth around our Sun. The bible tells us that God's time is wholly separate from ours. Whatever a "day" means in God's realm, one thing it most certainly does NOT mean--so says the bible--is the same amount of time as an Earth "day."
The bible completely allows for the possibility of evolution--but for one thing. It says God created human beings separately... meaning the bible--in my opinion--does not allow for human beings simply evolving from apes. And, I think there is solid common sense evidence right in front of us that there is a clear and major line of demarcation separating primates from humans. If mankind evolved from apes, I think it would be evident by way of many transitional beings roaming the Earth who are part ape and part man.
Of course, one could argue that many Atheists could very well be the missing ape-human link, and I'd have a difficult time countering that argument.
If mankind evolved from apes, I think it would be evident by way of many transitional beings roaming the Earth who are part ape and part man.Well god created ADAM/ EVE in the garden not in the world. so the world may have been evolving in gods way, and when the fall took place they were cast out. When Cain was told to go, he worried about being killed, so god marked him, now there must of been some sort of humans around to worry about that, also who did the many children of ADAM / EVE marry and also [as a trick question often used in quizes] Adams first wife would not have been his daughter, Eve he never married but was joined from his body by god. where did she come from? human collony on earth [her name escapes me as it was the same name as another wife].
Of course, one could argue that many Atheists could very well be the missing ape-human link, and I'd have a difficult time countering that argument.[/b]
Originally posted by sumydidI think I need to point out here that man is an ape, and that transitional beings between other mammals and man are roaming the earth.
If mankind evolved from apes, I think it would be evident by way of many transitional beings roaming the Earth who are part ape and part man. And, I think there is solid common sense evidence right in front of us that there is a clear and major line of demarcation separating primates from humans.
I also wonder why you use a 'common sense' argument when your conclusion is quite obviously not common ie the vast majority of biologists (who have actually studied the topic) would disagree with your conclusion. So don't you think its possible that you either missed something, or simply haven't studied enough biology? Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the majority it right, I am saying that calling something 'common sense' when everyone disagrees with you doesn't work very well.
I might also point out that there are many posters here that would gladly enlighten you should you have any questions about evolution or biology regarding the same issue.
Originally posted by sumydid" If mankind evolved from apes, I think it would be evident by way of many transitional beings roaming the Earth who are part ape and part man. "
Aye. Though "eternal" can't quite be right... but it could certainly equal billions of our years.
People keep forgetting, or conveniently over-looking. In Genesis, the 1st and 2nd day had already passed, before the Sun and Moon were put in place. Clearly, this means that the "days" recorded in Genesis couldn't correctly be interpreted as the number of ...[text shortened]... the missing ape-human link, and I'd have a difficult time countering that argument.
Your idea, at least, goes in the direction of basing conclusions on physical evidence, which is refreshing. But:
It is not automatic that the line of evolution on its way to homo sapiens would tolerate the parallel evolution of an evolutionarily close line of competitors, that they could not reproduce with (and thereby assimilate with or into). IOW, it would fit the physical evidence that we happened to be the "winning" species It's like Google. Who competes with them on searching?
The way the Catholic Church handles your issue is to posit that God intervened in the biological evolution of humans (and intervenes in each formation of a human) by means of something called ensoulment, by which the real human encompasses the soul and eternal life becomes a possibility. (This ensoulment is a basis for the anti-abortion stance, as it supposedly happens at conception; i.e., when the genetic materials get together in the fertilized egg to form a human being.
Originally posted by caissad4I can just see it now, little BS klingons sticking in the net, more and more BS collecting all the time. Every now and then you have to wash the BS off with Goo Gone and simple green. Of course there would be music by the bullshyters, a well known group who singers are always on the right side of the band.
Surely he would disappear. Good thought. Maybe you should make a YouTube video, lol.
Originally posted by stokerMaybe one day you will actually read the Holy Bible and find out how wrong you are on all of this.
Well god created ADAM/ EVE in the garden not in the world. so the world may have been evolving in gods way, and when the fall took place they were cast out. When Cain was told to go, he worried about being killed, so god marked him, now there must of been some sort of humans around to worry about that, also who did the many children of ADAM / EVE marry and a ...[text shortened]... come from? human collony on earth [her name escapes me as it was the same name as another wife].
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk. So you are arguing that ape, i.e. the ape at the zoo... and man... are the same thing. That's completely irrational and delusional.
I think I need to point out here that man [b]is an ape, and that transitional beings between other mammals and man are roaming the earth.
I also wonder why you use a 'common sense' argument when your conclusion is quite obviously not common ie the vast majority of biologists (who have actually studied the topic) would disagree with your conclu n you should you have any questions about evolution or biology regarding the same issue.[/b]
If you are saying we are related and there are mammals roaming the Earth right now that bridge the VAST gap that obviously separates man and ape.. then please, enlighten us. Teach us. Show us this creature. I've never seen or heard of one.
Originally posted by sumydidNo, I didn't say that. I said, that by the standard definition of 'ape' in biology, man is an ape.
Ok. So you are arguing that ape, i.e. the ape at the zoo... and man... are the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
I would be interested to know exactly which 'ape' in the zoo you were referring to. Gibbons, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, something else? Are you arguing that they are the same thing?
If you are saying we are related and there are mammals roaming the Earth right now that bridge the VAST gap that obviously separates man and ape.. then please, enlighten us.
No, I said we are apes, and thus there is no gap there to bridge. I said there are mammals roaming the earth that bridge the VAST gap that separates us from some of the other mammals. It would obviously be stupid to claim that there was a bridge between every other mammal and us as that would lead to Zeno's paradox.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think we're done here.
No, I said we [b]are apes, and thus there is no gap there to bridge.[/b]
So suddenly, according to the great twite head, the "missing link" was never missing at all. Well great, then I'll just take a trip to the local zoo and ask the gorilla behind the bars, what the meaning of life is.
Whether you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying, or you're faking it just to be difficult... either way there's no point in wasting my time.
Originally posted by sumydidI'm not surprised. It is standard practice for theists on this forum to make claims that something is obvious, then run away when challenged on it.
I think we're done here.
So suddenly, according to the great twite head, the "missing link" was never missing at all.
Why do you keep attributing to me claims I never made?
Whether you genuinely don't understand what I'm saying, or you're faking it just to be difficult... either way there's no point in wasting my time.
You genuinely don't understand what I am saying, thats blatantly clear. You have misquoted me multiple times.
I am not challenging your religion here. I am not questioning the Bible. So you don't need to be infallible. Its a straight forward question of whether or not the current evidence points to man not being related to other apes and whether or not, if we were related, there would be other species roaming the earth that currently do not roam the earth.
If you think you know better than all the biologists, then please, state your case. Surely if you have a case, it would be a wonderful benefit to the field of biology and might even win you some serious recognition as a leading thinker? I would think that the Nobel prize might even be in order for a discovery of this magnitude.