Chimps and humans diverged from one another about 5.5 million years ago, based on genetic studies, since then dozens of species lived and died, evolving into todays humans. This video doesn't show that, so people think we are directly descended from chips, but actually we both share a common ancestor, that's what evolution is, the branching of species and adapting to their environments and thus evolving.
IF we descended from ape like creatures, why were we the only ones to descend with 46Chromosomes. I mean in the genus HOMO only HOMO SAPIENS exist now, why is that? In other genus many forms exist such as in genus PAN chimps and bonobos exist,
Also if we had a common ancestor with other great apes why do we differ significantly in intelligence from them? and if we evolved from less intelligent apes why isn't a more intelligent being evolving from us? ANSWERS PLEASE
Why do creationists even bother watching these kinds of videos? Shouldn't you be kneeling at an altar or reading fairytales? That's right there are fairytales in "The Bible".... It was written by men after all.
yeah man, all those scientists who spend decades studying evolution and who have spent billions of dollars investigating it, and produced verifiable evidence based on data that is rigorously collected again and again to ensure its accuracy........if only they'd read your 5 word long youtube comment before they started, then they would have been proved wrong and saved a whole bunch of time and money!
Hey man, I completely agree with your first paragraph, but an uninformed person won't want to do their homework if you end a comment by calling them a name. Resistance breeds resistance.
You're right truvelocity, the last sentence of my comment was uncessarily harsh. It's just hard to control my anger around people who are so willfully ignorant.
"Scientist would have us believe the cell, which has been described as being as complex as a walled city arrived by chance."
No, the cell (like modern cities) developed slowly, in the case of the cell it was over a period of about 2-3 billion years, as opposed to cities which develop over periods of decades or centuries
"Ignorance? Blind denial of facts? Read on...."Why,if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations,do we not EVERYWHERE see innumerable transitional forms?" ...."I do not pretend that i should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life...had not the difficulty of our NOT discovering innumerable transitional links between the species..." CHARLES DARWIN ...darwin himself had concerns about his THEORY....!!!"
Creationists believe what they want to believe. No amount of convincing evidence CAN change the mind that can't be changed. It's a sorry place to be though, isn't it? So sorry.
Example: You have a ball, ok? It is older than another ball you have,which happens to be larger...the first ball is classified BALL ORIGINUS... the second ball is classified BALL WHATEVERUS... where is the "transitional" ball(or balls) between ORIGINUS and WHATEVERUS to show that WHATEVERUS was the result of incremental changes to ORIGINUS ....?? Where are the transitional fossils between SPECIES?
Steven Stanley(professor of paleontology at the University of Hawaii) observed that species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alledged descendants... Richard Dawkins(evolutionary biologist)when speaking of the "Cambrian explosion"...it is as though they were just planted there,without any evolutionary history....
"as though they were just planted there,without any evolutionary history"
The 'cambrian explosion' is not a reference to 'magical appearance' of species. It is a reference to the wide variety of species that evolved in the 'real estate' caused by the prior estinction. Come on chap! I think you are doing well for doing some reading, but a ppear to have someway to go yet.
If you are so learned in these matters,i suggest you publish your findings to any notable journal of science.I am certain that the scientific community will bestow upon your shoulders an honorary doctorate in the field of your choice.And no,i don't think they'll mind that you're a guitar player.... it seems that you are unaware of how scientists MUST make their work "fit" into the darwinist framework to avoid ostracism by the prevailing darwinist "orthodoxy".
"If you are so learned in these matters,i suggest you publish your findings to any notable journal of science". Likewise. You keep cherry picking remarks, taking them out of context and try to present them as if they are evidence that evolution is at best poor science. Fortunately your method is not how science is done, otherwise we would still consider the earth to be orbited by the sun.
furthermore, of course a parent species and overlap with offspring species, for the same rason that americans descended from europeans, yet there are still europeans. I am sorry if you find my tone harsh, but you are making bold assertions on the back of poor personal analysis.
I am in favor of honest science.... "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." -Steven Jay Gould ... I don't see how you can claim you've seen thousands of transitional forms when the experts have not... maybe you should show them where they are wrong... lmao...
The whole concept of transitional form is contentious anyway. You could argue that every fossil ever found is transitional. We are transitional, because we are evolving. Now if by transition you mean a brief period of change then it is quite obvious that the fossil record would be short on evidence. It is difficult to get fossilized. So if you are a time fleeting form then you have a much lower probability of being fossilized or being found fossilized for that matter.
"if Gould's comment was taken out of context,or if it stands alone..."
That quote WAS taken out of context, it is a common quote-mine that creationists use. And of course it is a cowardly one to use because now that Gould is dead he is unable to defend himself. I'll send the FULL quote, in its context to you by private message (because it's quite long).
your claim of instantaeous appearance of species is a falsification of the data and way out of line with the overwhelimg consensus of the scientific community. You are either lying or terribly ill-informed.
Falsification of data? Me? As you could see from my prior comments and the inbox you received,the findings were gleaned from the works of others,real credible distinguished scientists in their fields of study. It is you(and most of the general public) who are "terribly ill-informed" in my opinion.Are you willing to accuse these scientists of fraud?
In the video entitled "Evloution walking tall" the author merely makes assertions...stating that these are the changes that evolution made to change a chimpanzee into a human...he merely picked the closest similar creature to a human and SAYS these things....he doesn't show how...he offers no proofs in the way that it happened. One could just as well ASSERT that humans came from orangutans without having to give scientific proofs of how it happened. And fossils to back it up....
Perhaps you should watch the video again. He is not saying chimpanzees evolved into humans. He even starts the video by saying that the chimpanzee is one of our closet living relatives. He didn't say they were our ancestors.
What the fossil record REVEALS , if one is sufficiently unbiased in any direction, is the disappearance of some species and the SUDDEN appearence of new species with no apparent predecessor to show a transition from one species to another... only similarities...and all animals...say vertebrates...have similarities which some have claimed evolved in increments until one creature is now another. More evidence is needed. REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... that's true science...
Continuing from my prior comment,i'm not speaking of particular or incidental findings,but the theory in its broad or general claims. That of all the complex organisms of today evolving from simpler organisms to the more complex organisms found today.While it is true that simpler organisms were found further back in time among the fossil record than the more complex of today, the problem with this theory is the gaps in the fossil records that could show transitional species to link the them.
You don't think there are 'transitional' fossils? do you live in a cave or something? I can drive to the Ntural History Museum and see THOUSANDS of 'transitional' fossils. Yes thousands. And I have done. Where do you do your research on fossils? the Bible?
Yes,it's a very comfortable cave actually,hot and cold running water(imagine that),a fully funtional kitchen,digital cable television,an extensive library,and 6 mbps broadband dsl service...i'll make you an offer...you dispense with the ridicule,and i'll restrain myself from sarcasm...and by the way,i'm no creationist...are you a paleontologist by any chance? Or a paleoanthropologist? What makes you an expert on fossils?
Again. Look up the video "Evolution: Where's the missing link?". This is just an example that applies to huamn evolution. There are many more for other species. You wanted evidence. I'm suggesting you go see it for yourself instead of being an arm chair critique that has seen none.
You don't seem to be aware of what scientists are aware of... the trouble with the entire theory is the inability of the fossil record to support the claim that one SPECIES evolved into another SPECIES...merely showing fossil records of different species at various points in time does not show the "transitional" creatures that supposedly existed... im suggesting you familiarize yourself with the literature.
Sorry fella but you havent got a clue what you are talking about. Perhaps you should go and see some of the fossils that completely contradict your statement. I have. Series of fossils coverinh millions of years showing the evolution of one species to another. Statements like yours are nothing more than ignorance and blind denial of facts.
Ignorance? Blind denial of facts? Read on...."Why,if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations,do we not EVERYWHERE see innumerable transitional forms?" ...."I do not pretend that i should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life...had not the difficulty of our NOT discovering innumerable transitional links between the species..." CHARLES DARWIN ...darwin himself had concerns about his THEORY....!!!
Ahem.........i would like to point our that any SCIENTIFIC theory MUST stand or fall solely on its scientific merit. That means,how well does it accord with the empirical proof for or against its thesis. Fair enough? That's the scientific way of determining if something has merit or not. Emotional arguements have no merit here. And the TRUTH is...empirical evidence has trouble backing up the theory of evolution when you consider that the chief indicator would be the existing fossil record.
Well Spectre, we're coming to the end of this conversation which I've enjoyed. For me, that the cell, as complex as a walled city arrived by undivine providence is a much greater leap of faith than believing that there is a creator,itself an act of faith.
And not just the cell, but everything that surrounded it to enable life to begin and expaund in limitless are also seen as a series of happy accidents.
You're sitting on the fence ultimately, yet in reality, there is no fence.
Ive enjoyed it as well. Though as a mathematician, I wouldnt use the chance argument. As long as we are still a long way from understanding the entire process of life, there are going to be too many variables missing that would allow us to create an accurate statistical model.
It would be like asking Shakespeare what would be the chance that humans could fly around the world or to the moon. Next to impossible would most likely be his answer.
Humans like dogs race mix extrememly fast when not segregated, humans probably could not wait to breed with Neaderthals, but like the Black Berbers that invaded Cicily, they killed all the white men of cicily and took the white women to breed with, all modern Cicilians come from these ancestors, they look Arabic!! I'm sure humans killed the Neaderthal men and took any of the women that looked half decent to breed with!
Scientist say Neanderthal was not human but human enough to breed with and that modern humans bred with them for possibly thousands of years!
Evolution was race mixing with the various Ape-like people that lived thousand of years ago, Evolution is Race Mixing over 100,000 or more years, it's where modern Arabs come from recently...
I will be "saint" when I will be dying. for now It's my opinion that god doesn't exist, becouse there are many far older religies and why their gods aren't true ? before there were little gods in caves made by smbdy shit and they preyed to that shit. I wouldnt belive if somoene told me ect my friend has a firend who has a firend who... who seend jesuz reviving... it's like cheap block buster
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evolutions a junk theory peddled by people with more brains than common sense. He talks about "tinkering by evolution" as if evolution is some form of intelligence. Utter rubbish
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Whether you accept the universe arrived by chance or whether it is an act of creation, the point is it still came from something that there was there before it. I believe that to be our creator. You obviously believe it was an accident. Fair enough. Then show me anything in life that is of any complexity that is the end result of an explosion. Explosions (big bang call it what you will) was an explosion) So everything that came from it is a result of a series of happy accidents?
who created your creator? and who created him? im gonna go out on a limb and guess your a christian, your bible tells you not to worship false gods, you are saying 'god' created the universe, but surely, the creator of god, is of higher power, therefore, you are worshipping a false god, check, mate.
if god created man, and earth, in his image, and all that stuff, why bother creating an entire universe? why not just create earth? if thats his 'chosen' planet. If he is the ultimate designer, why is his creation so flawed?
It's as Buzz Lightyear said "To infinity and beyond" We can't say why he's created to such a mind boggling degree, but we look on things through human eyes, and are therefore limited in our outlook. He's not. But what we can say is it's awesome what has been discovered, and that universe operates on incredibly complex laws that govern it. All of this from a random explosion. Laws but no law giver?
life as we know it has laws, yes, they make it so our lifeforms are possible, however, the laws that are in place could have been different, they would have had different effects, different life forms etc, basically you dont understand science, at all, you clearly dont, so im not going to try and educate you.
You condescending prat. Mull over this with your education. What's the odds of a protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Only 10 to the power of 113. Any event that has 1 chance in 10 to power of 50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. 1 chance in 10 to the power of 113 is larger than the estimated number of atoms in the known universe! I rest my case.
Probability is only a mathematical representation of what could happen given strict bounderies. This has no implications in a deterministic world. Something will either happen or it wont.(i.e. adhering to the laws of physics)
Given that all events are unique and unrepeatable, according to you, nothing ever happened.
Spectre, work it out for yourself. Go and examine the incredible complexity of a single cell, something scientists used to call the "simple" cell in their arrogance and/or ignorance. They don't call it "simple" anymore. Why? Because it is like a walled city and at least as complex. Every component had to come together at the same time to form it or it could not function-period. It smacks of design in a way scientists can't explain due to its complexity. Chance occurance? Yeah right!
Chance is only an abstract term, it means absolutely nothing in reality. It arises when there are unknown quantities, and by using mathematics we try to extrapolate an outcome.
For example, if I were to lay playing cards number side up, the probability of me choosing a 4 of clubs would either be 100% or 0%.Chance does not exist in the laws of physics. The event is either possible or impossible. Given enough time and space, anything is possible. People have a really hard time understanding this.
So if I said to you, I want you to blow up a print shop full of paper, ink, cardboard and binding thread Spectre, every second of the day, until as a result of one of the explosions it produces the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, you know in your heart of hearts that I could give you eternity and it simply won't happen. Yet the single cell being infinitely more complex did? You can believe that if you wish.
Explosions and paper, I already see an issue there. (The laws of physics still apply). How about a group of monkeys hitting their fists on a type writer to produce an Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary?
Are you saying this is impossible or extremely unlikely? Why?
It's the same principle in some ways. You know they say; You pay monkeys you get peanuts. What you won't get is the Oxford English Dictionary and you know it. And you're starting from the premise that you're dealing with creatures with a some intelligence. With the cell, you don't even have that.
It's like the human DNA. If the code for that were written on A4 sheets of paper, laid end to end it would stretch from London to Glasgow approx, yet there is no intelligence behind the code?
This is interesting, because now you seem to be applying the thought that probability determines that a bunch of monkeys could write a book given enough time. Is that what you're saying? In other words you're talking about odds again but in a different form, something you denied earlier.
Not exactly. Probabilities are more like mathematical guesses based on what we know against what we do not know. If you knew everything, nothing would be described as a probability. The more we know, the more accurate the statistical model.
This is why I said probability is an abstract term that only exist because we dont know everything. Without humans, chance has no function in the real world. It either can happen or it can't. It is all governed by the laws of entropy.
As I understand it, according to your philosophy, there might be another you and me on another planet living the same life, and another million you and me living the same life but only slightly differently on another million planet earths because, in infinite time and space anything is possible. Is that what you're saying?
I guess you could take it to that extreme. You could also use it to allow for the possibility of your theory of Creationism.
The fact is there is only one truth, and we are most likely far from it. I like to take the position that I have no idea, but aslong as I cant definitively refute a claim, I will allow for its possibility.
"What you won't get is the Oxford English Dictionary and you know it."
well people have figured out the odds, if you put 1000 monkeys at typewritters the chances of one of them writting a shakespeare sonnet is like 1/1,000,000 or something..so it is possible.. OMGNOWAI
The point you've missed is where do the monkeys and the typewriter and the paper and the ink etc etc come from in the first place to enable it to happen "theoretically". Now what are the odds?
You make no sence for your information, you ask what are the odds of them typign that stuff withotu humans..? i think thats what you are asking..well the odds would be zero of course because humans had to have wrote it in the first place..atleast i think that is what you are asking, your argument is so random and all over the place it is hard to understand you
My arguement isn't random. Scientist would have us believe the cell, which has been described as being as complex as a walled city arrived by chance. You either believe a city, in effect just turned up or you don't? Do you? I don't.
Lets say the monkeys had to write "to be or not to be". ok. Lets say the monkeys are the agents of 'chance' the paper is a cell and what the monkeys type are DNA. Also there is an editor watching the monkeys the editor is the works of the natural world. The way genetics and natural selection work is this: All the 1000 monkeys click a key any key on the keyboard
, the editor (natural world) takes all the papers with a "t" on them and destroys the rest makes copies of it and then redistributes it back to the monkeys, so now all the monkeys have a paper with a "t" on it then they all type another key, now the editor (natural world) takes all the papers with "to" on it, destroys the rest, makes copies and redistributes it. Now all the monkeys have paper with "to" they type another key.... and so on in till you have the sentence "to be or not to be"
Yes, probability is only a mathematical concept used to determine unknowns. Without humans, chance does not exist.
Things will either happen or they wont. For example, the chance of rain tomorrow is dependent on our ability to compute all factors that will make it rain.
If we knew everything, we wouldn't say chance, we would know exactly whether it will or won't rain tomorrow. The same applies to evolution. We say random mutation because we do not completely understand the process.
@fenderman21guitar He created the world not just for us to live in but also to show his glory. What better way thasn a universe? It is flawed because he is not so involved in it as he used to be, that tree in the middle of a garden was an open sugestion, an open door and a way out of God and his glory. We chose to and now we are dying.
I'm probably ignorant of the details but, to me, the chimpanzee neck seems to already connect with the "base" of the skull, even though it's a touch more towards the back. Details, details. Whichever the case, I can't get over how adorable that chimp is.
who gives a shit? what kind of people argue about this kind of shit on youtube? watch the fking videos and move on... go to yahoo chat or some gay shit if you kids want to piss each other off... FFS
Please don't use the word gay like that. It's not healthy that gay youth should grow up in a society where the word gay is used to denote things that are generally disproved of or characterized as undesirable. Use the brain your early chimp ancestors passed on to you and choose a less hurtful adjective.
I find it funny how evolution is proof anough just people cant exsept it because there too deluded to think for themself's so they beleive in storys like a pathetic child haha there just silly people who will die beleiving in something as false as a god if there was a question who made god if you say oh his just happend then you cant condem that the big bang just happend.
If u really wan't u can find alike lines in every pair of living organisms... Perchance we all once were identical creatures which simply evolved under influences of different irritants?
evolution is a lie that fossil Lucy was just a monkey and there is lots of proof against evolution in the first place..... and u think creationists r wrong
haha, I laugh at the fools who do not fully understand evolutionary theory and then try to argue against it. Know what you are up against before you tackle it... If you know basic evolutionary theory you would know why "monkey's" are still around and how we might have possibly evolved from them.
I understand evolutionary theory...it goes like this...over millions of years,simple plants and animals evolved by minor changes until you have the complex plants and animals you have today...that's the gist of it...too bad the empirical fossil record doesn't support the theory...the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new animal and plant species at certain points in time...now which is true science?? The flawed theory of evolution or the true empirical evidence...
i think your shitty sources are the problem, and yes, you don't know how the evolution works and experiments that prove it. for example the minor changes u mention was eye and fingers in human being. really "minor" things at our bodies. and the argument that monkeys have eyes and fingers is worth shit, and i won't lose any more time explaining it to creationist ppl because it's all in the books, just that they aren't holy -.-
Another classic example of reading a sentence and ignoring the paragraph around it. Fossil records have "sudden gaps" because, though this sounds surprising, not many things are in the proper conditions to be fossilized after they die.
Oh...it would appear that the items that would not be in the proper conditions to be fossilized are the "intermediary", or "missing links" that would give creedence to the theory of minor changes over eons of time...and any scientist worth his salt recognizes the difficulty in that...it is the most damaging evidence...real "empirical" evidence,to the theory...
dont bother wasting your breath with these bible hugging freaks. let them pray to their souls content. when they die they will be fertilzer like everyone else. except the jews and muslims...now their going to hell (lol).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Neither evolution nor god. Monkeys were created before humans as an inferior prototype in an attempt to improve on the creator's own genome. Evolution has to be removed from curricula, young people being told a monkey is their grandfather? How disheartning is that! And no, I am not a christian creationist, the bible says 'one day the mystery of god will be revealed' there is divinity, but they are not god(s) except in the minds of primitive people of the past and sadly even now.
As far as I know, no students are being taught a monkey is their grandfather in a science class. What they are being taught is humans and apes share a common ancestor which is significantly different.
Funny how you say your not a creationist but you use there arguments. The grandfather argument is an old out dated one. Just like the rest of there theories. That one was used by Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind.
I fail to see how being told you descended from the ape is any different from being told your grandfather is an ape. I am an athiest creationist. As I said, neither god nor evolution.
An atheist doesn't believe in a god a creationist believes it happened in 6 days as written in the bible. How the hell can you be both? You have your facts straight on how we teach evolution in schools just about as good as you know what an atheist and creationist is. Read up on both and learn something. Personally I think you're a creationist trying to act like and atheist
Monkeys are still around, so I don't know what you're talking about. We didn't come from monkeys, monkeys, and humans and other apes share a common ancestor, there's a difference. Please learn what evolution actually is and how it works before spouting out nonsense.
We aren't decedents from apes, we are related. The Australopithecus is our "grand-daddy" It evolved but split into to groups. Prime apes and human-like creatures until us. So monkeys, gorillas, chimps, etc, are our brothers if you will.
and u raul are the holy moly men who know the truth and nobody else know. I hate that kind of ppl. learn that your theory is as silly for me that catholicysm is and your's argument can kiss your ass because that is where they was born (u say "young people being told a monkey is their grandfather?", "young people being told that they are superior to everything on the planet" way is not an answer too)
Chimps and humans diverged from one another about 5.5 million years ago, based on genetic studies, since then dozens of species lived and died, evolving into todays humans. This video doesn't show that, so people think we are directly descended from chips, but actually we both share a common ancestor, that's what evolution is, the branching of species and adapting to their environments and thus evolving.
bombarderoazul 7 months ago
@bombarderoazul I vehemently defend my belief that we DID evolve from 'chips'!
ihatelumberjacks 6 months ago
why so many dislikes?
stuflikethis 9 months ago
"evolution" The most expensive thorie that scientist have come up with and it still has flaws. I guess it's just monkey business.
hulkthefuror 1 year ago
IF we descended from ape like creatures, why were we the only ones to descend with 46Chromosomes. I mean in the genus HOMO only HOMO SAPIENS exist now, why is that? In other genus many forms exist such as in genus PAN chimps and bonobos exist,
Also if we had a common ancestor with other great apes why do we differ significantly in intelligence from them? and if we evolved from less intelligent apes why isn't a more intelligent being evolving from us? ANSWERS PLEASE
alifaraz2193 1 year ago
@alifaraz2193 maybe there's a limit like health reasons we are already born to young cause are headsize would be to huge
marlon1be 1 year ago
@alifaraz2193 One of our chromosomes, #2, fused together so we have one less than the other Apes.
If Neanderthals had suvived there would be to kinds of homo living today.
We aren't much more intelligent than Chimps, they have a better short term memmory.
And creatards prove how stupid people are.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Wow, I can't even remember when I posted this ;) That's because it's one year old I guess!!
alifaraz2193 2 months ago
Why do creationists even bother watching these kinds of videos? Shouldn't you be kneeling at an altar or reading fairytales? That's right there are fairytales in "The Bible".... It was written by men after all.
catsnpancakes 1 year ago
"evolution changed us"??? how ridiculous
fellowservant34 2 years ago
Yes, we evolved from ancestral primates.
gpietsch 2 years ago 2
yeah man, all those scientists who spend decades studying evolution and who have spent billions of dollars investigating it, and produced verifiable evidence based on data that is rigorously collected again and again to ensure its accuracy........if only they'd read your 5 word long youtube comment before they started, then they would have been proved wrong and saved a whole bunch of time and money!
You utter fucking moron, get some education
onerichie 2 years ago 7
Hey man, I completely agree with your first paragraph, but an uninformed person won't want to do their homework if you end a comment by calling them a name. Resistance breeds resistance.
My source? Wisdom with age.
truvelocity 2 years ago
You're right truvelocity, the last sentence of my comment was uncessarily harsh. It's just hard to control my anger around people who are so willfully ignorant.
onerichie 2 years ago
Yes, we evolved from a common ancestor and we are a part of the genus called "the great apes." We are apes, according to science.
truvelocity 2 years ago
"Scientist would have us believe the cell, which has been described as being as complex as a walled city arrived by chance."
No, the cell (like modern cities) developed slowly, in the case of the cell it was over a period of about 2-3 billion years, as opposed to cities which develop over periods of decades or centuries
BrokenBassBin 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
BrokenBassBin 2 years ago
"Ignorance? Blind denial of facts? Read on...."Why,if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations,do we not EVERYWHERE see innumerable transitional forms?" ...."I do not pretend that i should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life...had not the difficulty of our NOT discovering innumerable transitional links between the species..." CHARLES DARWIN ...darwin himself had concerns about his THEORY....!!!"
Stop reading creationist literature
BrokenBassBin 2 years ago
Comment removed
form0011 3 years ago
wtf, u wanna say that human ancestors were monkeys!!!
may be yours but not mine, i can accept them as "some how" cousins but not grandpa
fary9110 3 years ago
Creationists believe what they want to believe. No amount of convincing evidence CAN change the mind that can't be changed. It's a sorry place to be though, isn't it? So sorry.
modelleg 3 years ago
mmm...
Blacksnakeproject 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats is not true god created us how we are.
Karnage003 3 years ago
it's about time you reach the age of reason, you are just making a fool out of yourself.
MihaZ 3 years ago 2
Example: You have a ball, ok? It is older than another ball you have,which happens to be larger...the first ball is classified BALL ORIGINUS... the second ball is classified BALL WHATEVERUS... where is the "transitional" ball(or balls) between ORIGINUS and WHATEVERUS to show that WHATEVERUS was the result of incremental changes to ORIGINUS ....?? Where are the transitional fossils between SPECIES?
amazd429 3 years ago
There are many thousands of transitional fossils! Stop posting lies and ignorance and go see them for yourself! Sheesh.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Steven Stanley(professor of paleontology at the University of Hawaii) observed that species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alledged descendants... Richard Dawkins(evolutionary biologist)when speaking of the "Cambrian explosion"...it is as though they were just planted there,without any evolutionary history....
amazd429 3 years ago
"as though they were just planted there,without any evolutionary history"
The 'cambrian explosion' is not a reference to 'magical appearance' of species. It is a reference to the wide variety of species that evolved in the 'real estate' caused by the prior estinction. Come on chap! I think you are doing well for doing some reading, but a ppear to have someway to go yet.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
If you are so learned in these matters,i suggest you publish your findings to any notable journal of science.I am certain that the scientific community will bestow upon your shoulders an honorary doctorate in the field of your choice.And no,i don't think they'll mind that you're a guitar player.... it seems that you are unaware of how scientists MUST make their work "fit" into the darwinist framework to avoid ostracism by the prevailing darwinist "orthodoxy".
amazd429 3 years ago
"If you are so learned in these matters,i suggest you publish your findings to any notable journal of science". Likewise. You keep cherry picking remarks, taking them out of context and try to present them as if they are evidence that evolution is at best poor science. Fortunately your method is not how science is done, otherwise we would still consider the earth to be orbited by the sun.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
furthermore, of course a parent species and overlap with offspring species, for the same rason that americans descended from europeans, yet there are still europeans. I am sorry if you find my tone harsh, but you are making bold assertions on the back of poor personal analysis.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
I am in favor of honest science.... "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." -Steven Jay Gould ... I don't see how you can claim you've seen thousands of transitional forms when the experts have not... maybe you should show them where they are wrong... lmao...
amazd429 3 years ago
The whole concept of transitional form is contentious anyway. You could argue that every fossil ever found is transitional. We are transitional, because we are evolving. Now if by transition you mean a brief period of change then it is quite obvious that the fossil record would be short on evidence. It is difficult to get fossilized. So if you are a time fleeting form then you have a much lower probability of being fossilized or being found fossilized for that matter.
artyfarty2 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Lady paleontologist explains transitionals .Many paleo lectures / classes online . More added monthly.
"Transitional Fossils in Evolution pt. 1 of4"
flyingscience 3 years ago
Let each one judge for himself if Gould's comment was taken out of context,or if it stands alone...
amazd429 3 years ago
"if Gould's comment was taken out of context,or if it stands alone..."
That quote WAS taken out of context, it is a common quote-mine that creationists use. And of course it is a cowardly one to use because now that Gould is dead he is unable to defend himself. I'll send the FULL quote, in its context to you by private message (because it's quite long).
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 3 years ago
I'll leave you the last word....
amazd429 3 years ago
And you have by now,no doubt read my inbox...please refrain from accusing me of telling lies.
amazd429 3 years ago
your claim of instantaeous appearance of species is a falsification of the data and way out of line with the overwhelimg consensus of the scientific community. You are either lying or terribly ill-informed.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Falsification of data? Me? As you could see from my prior comments and the inbox you received,the findings were gleaned from the works of others,real credible distinguished scientists in their fields of study. It is you(and most of the general public) who are "terribly ill-informed" in my opinion.Are you willing to accuse these scientists of fraud?
amazd429 3 years ago
In the video entitled "Evloution walking tall" the author merely makes assertions...stating that these are the changes that evolution made to change a chimpanzee into a human...he merely picked the closest similar creature to a human and SAYS these things....he doesn't show how...he offers no proofs in the way that it happened. One could just as well ASSERT that humans came from orangutans without having to give scientific proofs of how it happened. And fossils to back it up....
amazd429 3 years ago
Perhaps you should watch the video again. He is not saying chimpanzees evolved into humans. He even starts the video by saying that the chimpanzee is one of our closet living relatives. He didn't say they were our ancestors.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
What the fossil record REVEALS , if one is sufficiently unbiased in any direction, is the disappearance of some species and the SUDDEN appearence of new species with no apparent predecessor to show a transition from one species to another... only similarities...and all animals...say vertebrates...have similarities which some have claimed evolved in increments until one creature is now another. More evidence is needed. REAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... that's true science...
amazd429 3 years ago
sudden?
Look up the video "Evolution: Where's the missing link?"
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Continuing from my prior comment,i'm not speaking of particular or incidental findings,but the theory in its broad or general claims. That of all the complex organisms of today evolving from simpler organisms to the more complex organisms found today.While it is true that simpler organisms were found further back in time among the fossil record than the more complex of today, the problem with this theory is the gaps in the fossil records that could show transitional species to link the them.
amazd429 3 years ago
You don't think there are 'transitional' fossils? do you live in a cave or something? I can drive to the Ntural History Museum and see THOUSANDS of 'transitional' fossils. Yes thousands. And I have done. Where do you do your research on fossils? the Bible?
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Yes,it's a very comfortable cave actually,hot and cold running water(imagine that),a fully funtional kitchen,digital cable television,an extensive library,and 6 mbps broadband dsl service...i'll make you an offer...you dispense with the ridicule,and i'll restrain myself from sarcasm...and by the way,i'm no creationist...are you a paleontologist by any chance? Or a paleoanthropologist? What makes you an expert on fossils?
amazd429 3 years ago
Again. Look up the video "Evolution: Where's the missing link?". This is just an example that applies to huamn evolution. There are many more for other species. You wanted evidence. I'm suggesting you go see it for yourself instead of being an arm chair critique that has seen none.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
You don't seem to be aware of what scientists are aware of... the trouble with the entire theory is the inability of the fossil record to support the claim that one SPECIES evolved into another SPECIES...merely showing fossil records of different species at various points in time does not show the "transitional" creatures that supposedly existed... im suggesting you familiarize yourself with the literature.
amazd429 3 years ago
Sorry fella but you havent got a clue what you are talking about. Perhaps you should go and see some of the fossils that completely contradict your statement. I have. Series of fossils coverinh millions of years showing the evolution of one species to another. Statements like yours are nothing more than ignorance and blind denial of facts.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Ignorance? Blind denial of facts? Read on...."Why,if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations,do we not EVERYWHERE see innumerable transitional forms?" ...."I do not pretend that i should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life...had not the difficulty of our NOT discovering innumerable transitional links between the species..." CHARLES DARWIN ...darwin himself had concerns about his THEORY....!!!
amazd429 3 years ago
Ahem.........i would like to point our that any SCIENTIFIC theory MUST stand or fall solely on its scientific merit. That means,how well does it accord with the empirical proof for or against its thesis. Fair enough? That's the scientific way of determining if something has merit or not. Emotional arguements have no merit here. And the TRUTH is...empirical evidence has trouble backing up the theory of evolution when you consider that the chief indicator would be the existing fossil record.
amazd429 3 years ago
Well Spectre, we're coming to the end of this conversation which I've enjoyed. For me, that the cell, as complex as a walled city arrived by undivine providence is a much greater leap of faith than believing that there is a creator,itself an act of faith.
And not just the cell, but everything that surrounded it to enable life to begin and expaund in limitless are also seen as a series of happy accidents.
You're sitting on the fence ultimately, yet in reality, there is no fence.
ds23efi2cv6 3 years ago
Ive enjoyed it as well. Though as a mathematician, I wouldnt use the chance argument. As long as we are still a long way from understanding the entire process of life, there are going to be too many variables missing that would allow us to create an accurate statistical model.
It would be like asking Shakespeare what would be the chance that humans could fly around the world or to the moon. Next to impossible would most likely be his answer.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
Look after yourself.
ds23efi2cv6 3 years ago
Interesting post. Thank you.
geezart123 3 years ago
Chujnia maxymalna.
LegiaLukaszWarszawa 4 years ago
Chyba dlatego, że jesteś z Warszawy...
Makaveli88PL 4 years ago
Zamknij ryj pedale..
LegiaLukaszWarszawa 4 years ago
boski masz filmiki
czarnula1989 4 years ago
Humans like dogs race mix extrememly fast when not segregated, humans probably could not wait to breed with Neaderthals, but like the Black Berbers that invaded Cicily, they killed all the white men of cicily and took the white women to breed with, all modern Cicilians come from these ancestors, they look Arabic!! I'm sure humans killed the Neaderthal men and took any of the women that looked half decent to breed with!
MikeHawkins 4 years ago
Scientist say Neanderthal was not human but human enough to breed with and that modern humans bred with them for possibly thousands of years!
Evolution was race mixing with the various Ape-like people that lived thousand of years ago, Evolution is Race Mixing over 100,000 or more years, it's where modern Arabs come from recently...
MikeHawkins 4 years ago
ya guitars rule,fuck this evolution mumbo jumbo who give a shizz any way?
gerthewanker 4 years ago
I will be "saint" when I will be dying. for now It's my opinion that god doesn't exist, becouse there are many far older religies and why their gods aren't true ? before there were little gods in caves made by smbdy shit and they preyed to that shit. I wouldnt belive if somoene told me ect my friend has a firend who has a firend who... who seend jesuz reviving... it's like cheap block buster
piczasso 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolutions a junk theory peddled by people with more brains than common sense. He talks about "tinkering by evolution" as if evolution is some form of intelligence. Utter rubbish
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
as opposed to the theory where god pulled the universe out of his ass?
fenderman21guitar 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Whether you accept the universe arrived by chance or whether it is an act of creation, the point is it still came from something that there was there before it. I believe that to be our creator. You obviously believe it was an accident. Fair enough. Then show me anything in life that is of any complexity that is the end result of an explosion. Explosions (big bang call it what you will) was an explosion) So everything that came from it is a result of a series of happy accidents?
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
who created your creator? and who created him? im gonna go out on a limb and guess your a christian, your bible tells you not to worship false gods, you are saying 'god' created the universe, but surely, the creator of god, is of higher power, therefore, you are worshipping a false god, check, mate.
fenderman21guitar 4 years ago 4
Turn it round then. Where did matter from to create the universe if it wasn't an act of creation?
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
if god created man, and earth, in his image, and all that stuff, why bother creating an entire universe? why not just create earth? if thats his 'chosen' planet. If he is the ultimate designer, why is his creation so flawed?
fenderman21guitar 4 years ago 10
It's as Buzz Lightyear said "To infinity and beyond" We can't say why he's created to such a mind boggling degree, but we look on things through human eyes, and are therefore limited in our outlook. He's not. But what we can say is it's awesome what has been discovered, and that universe operates on incredibly complex laws that govern it. All of this from a random explosion. Laws but no law giver?
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
life as we know it has laws, yes, they make it so our lifeforms are possible, however, the laws that are in place could have been different, they would have had different effects, different life forms etc, basically you dont understand science, at all, you clearly dont, so im not going to try and educate you.
fenderman21guitar 4 years ago
You condescending prat. Mull over this with your education. What's the odds of a protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Only 10 to the power of 113. Any event that has 1 chance in 10 to power of 50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. 1 chance in 10 to the power of 113 is larger than the estimated number of atoms in the known universe! I rest my case.
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
Probability is only a mathematical representation of what could happen given strict bounderies. This has no implications in a deterministic world. Something will either happen or it wont.(i.e. adhering to the laws of physics)
Given that all events are unique and unrepeatable, according to you, nothing ever happened.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Spectre, work it out for yourself. Go and examine the incredible complexity of a single cell, something scientists used to call the "simple" cell in their arrogance and/or ignorance. They don't call it "simple" anymore. Why? Because it is like a walled city and at least as complex. Every component had to come together at the same time to form it or it could not function-period. It smacks of design in a way scientists can't explain due to its complexity. Chance occurance? Yeah right!
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
Chance is only an abstract term, it means absolutely nothing in reality. It arises when there are unknown quantities, and by using mathematics we try to extrapolate an outcome.
For example, if I were to lay playing cards number side up, the probability of me choosing a 4 of clubs would either be 100% or 0%.Chance does not exist in the laws of physics. The event is either possible or impossible. Given enough time and space, anything is possible. People have a really hard time understanding this.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
So if I said to you, I want you to blow up a print shop full of paper, ink, cardboard and binding thread Spectre, every second of the day, until as a result of one of the explosions it produces the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, you know in your heart of hearts that I could give you eternity and it simply won't happen. Yet the single cell being infinitely more complex did? You can believe that if you wish.
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
Explosions and paper, I already see an issue there. (The laws of physics still apply). How about a group of monkeys hitting their fists on a type writer to produce an Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary?
Are you saying this is impossible or extremely unlikely? Why?
Spectre11B 4 years ago
It's the same principle in some ways. You know they say; You pay monkeys you get peanuts. What you won't get is the Oxford English Dictionary and you know it. And you're starting from the premise that you're dealing with creatures with a some intelligence. With the cell, you don't even have that.
It's like the human DNA. If the code for that were written on A4 sheets of paper, laid end to end it would stretch from London to Glasgow approx, yet there is no intelligence behind the code?
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
So are you saying that it is impossible?
Why? What exactly is preventing monkeys from beating out a dictionary on a type writer other than time?
Spectre11B 4 years ago
This is interesting, because now you seem to be applying the thought that probability determines that a bunch of monkeys could write a book given enough time. Is that what you're saying? In other words you're talking about odds again but in a different form, something you denied earlier.
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
Not exactly. Probabilities are more like mathematical guesses based on what we know against what we do not know. If you knew everything, nothing would be described as a probability. The more we know, the more accurate the statistical model.
This is why I said probability is an abstract term that only exist because we dont know everything. Without humans, chance has no function in the real world. It either can happen or it can't. It is all governed by the laws of entropy.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
As I understand it, according to your philosophy, there might be another you and me on another planet living the same life, and another million you and me living the same life but only slightly differently on another million planet earths because, in infinite time and space anything is possible. Is that what you're saying?
ds23efi2cv6 4 years ago
I guess you could take it to that extreme. You could also use it to allow for the possibility of your theory of Creationism.
The fact is there is only one truth, and we are most likely far from it. I like to take the position that I have no idea, but aslong as I cant definitively refute a claim, I will allow for its possibility.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
"What you won't get is the Oxford English Dictionary and you know it."
well people have figured out the odds, if you put 1000 monkeys at typewritters the chances of one of them writting a shakespeare sonnet is like 1/1,000,000 or something..so it is possible.. OMGNOWAI
GhostDrow 3 years ago
The point you've missed is where do the monkeys and the typewriter and the paper and the ink etc etc come from in the first place to enable it to happen "theoretically". Now what are the odds?
ds23efi2cv6 3 years ago
You make no sence for your information, you ask what are the odds of them typign that stuff withotu humans..? i think thats what you are asking..well the odds would be zero of course because humans had to have wrote it in the first place..atleast i think that is what you are asking, your argument is so random and all over the place it is hard to understand you
GhostDrow 3 years ago
My arguement isn't random. Scientist would have us believe the cell, which has been described as being as complex as a walled city arrived by chance. You either believe a city, in effect just turned up or you don't? Do you? I don't.
ds23efi2cv6 3 years ago
What the hell does that have to do with monkeys at a typewritter?
GhostDrow 3 years ago
I'm sorry but you obviously lack the intelligence to grasp even the fundamentals of a basic argument.
ds23efi2cv6 3 years ago
Rofl stupid people who dont know they are stupid are soo easy to fuck with, dont take things so seriously guy
GhostDrow 3 years ago
Lets say the monkeys had to write "to be or not to be". ok. Lets say the monkeys are the agents of 'chance' the paper is a cell and what the monkeys type are DNA. Also there is an editor watching the monkeys the editor is the works of the natural world. The way genetics and natural selection work is this: All the 1000 monkeys click a key any key on the keyboard
form0011 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
, the editor (natural world) takes all the papers with a "t" on them and destroys the rest makes copies of it and then redistributes it back to the monkeys, so now all the monkeys have a paper with a "t" on it then they all type another key, now the editor (natural world) takes all the papers with "to" on it, destroys the rest, makes copies and redistributes it. Now all the monkeys have paper with "to" they type another key.... and so on in till you have the sentence "to be or not to be"
form0011 3 years ago
I wish it was that simple.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
trying to roll a 6 on a six sided dice is simpler than try to roll a 9 on the same dice
form0011 3 years ago
It would impossible to roll a 9 on a six-sided die. Are you implying that evolution is impossible?
I dont understand what you are trying to say.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
no what im saying is: what i said about monkeys on type writers is closer to how evoulution works than, what you said about monkeys on typewriters
form0011 3 years ago
You can believe that is how evolution works, if that's what makes sense to you. However, I don't agree it.
My argument about monkeys typing had nothing to do with evolution but rather I was talking about probability.
Evolution has nothing to do with probability.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
so your saying natural dna mutations have nothing to do with probability?
form0011 3 years ago
Yes, probability is only a mathematical concept used to determine unknowns. Without humans, chance does not exist.
Things will either happen or they wont. For example, the chance of rain tomorrow is dependent on our ability to compute all factors that will make it rain.
If we knew everything, we wouldn't say chance, we would know exactly whether it will or won't rain tomorrow. The same applies to evolution. We say random mutation because we do not completely understand the process.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
that is actually an very interesting train of thought, as if time and space are laid out for us already and we are just riding the wave.
form0011 3 years ago
@fenderman21guitar He created the world not just for us to live in but also to show his glory. What better way thasn a universe? It is flawed because he is not so involved in it as he used to be, that tree in the middle of a garden was an open sugestion, an open door and a way out of God and his glory. We chose to and now we are dying.
desasterz 10 months ago
GOD was never created and was always there and will never die
randyrhoadsbgp 4 years ago
In no way was the Big Bang an explosion. The Big bang was an expiation of space. I really wish people would learn the difference.
jebus6kryst 4 years ago
fenderman rules ds23just got pwned I play fender too
thehunjo 4 years ago
ha, tnx mate. Fenders rock
fenderman21guitar 4 years ago
I'm probably ignorant of the details but, to me, the chimpanzee neck seems to already connect with the "base" of the skull, even though it's a touch more towards the back. Details, details. Whichever the case, I can't get over how adorable that chimp is.
GalacticChimp 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ho my fucking lord!!!
what kind of asshole upload this???
this ain't funny, its borring...
rocknrosh 4 years ago
Well if you paid more attention to science; you wouldn't sound like a retard.
ChristineYupik 4 years ago 7
oh and Also.. Bowl Monkey... learn to spell
DustinRorex 4 years ago
who gives a shit? what kind of people argue about this kind of shit on youtube? watch the fking videos and move on... go to yahoo chat or some gay shit if you kids want to piss each other off... FFS
DustinRorex 4 years ago 2
Please don't use the word gay like that. It's not healthy that gay youth should grow up in a society where the word gay is used to denote things that are generally disproved of or characterized as undesirable. Use the brain your early chimp ancestors passed on to you and choose a less hurtful adjective.
GalacticChimp 4 years ago
lol fag!
unbekannteraffe 4 years ago
I find it funny how evolution is proof anough just people cant exsept it because there too deluded to think for themself's so they beleive in storys like a pathetic child haha there just silly people who will die beleiving in something as false as a god if there was a question who made god if you say oh his just happend then you cant condem that the big bang just happend.
balmungkai 4 years ago
lol so i guess you are americans who belive in god. hahah
Sikorkaaaa 4 years ago
Yeah, and for playing with this, u're probably going strait to hell. Nice trip for you.
damn1t 4 years ago
"you're classes in biology have been obsolved for today. Besided, Evolution is a farse."
-Principal Blackman
jnutrocks 4 years ago
If u really wan't u can find alike lines in every pair of living organisms... Perchance we all once were identical creatures which simply evolved under influences of different irritants?
TrashGODdess 4 years ago
evolution is a lie that fossil Lucy was just a monkey and there is lots of proof against evolution in the first place..... and u think creationists r wrong
octobomb101 4 years ago
Or... we're different.
Swallowedbythesea 4 years ago
Leave creationists alone. They can't hear you anyway, they are too busy sitting wth their fingers in their ears going LALALALALA to hear you, anyway
paulissogay 4 years ago 3
Creationism is undeserving of being considered at the same level as the theory of evolution. Creationism = mythology
ConfucianScholar 4 years ago
haha, I laugh at the fools who do not fully understand evolutionary theory and then try to argue against it. Know what you are up against before you tackle it... If you know basic evolutionary theory you would know why "monkey's" are still around and how we might have possibly evolved from them.
stanger828 4 years ago
dont try to tackle the bible until u fully understand it
hi552211 4 years ago
I understand evolutionary theory...it goes like this...over millions of years,simple plants and animals evolved by minor changes until you have the complex plants and animals you have today...that's the gist of it...too bad the empirical fossil record doesn't support the theory...the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of new animal and plant species at certain points in time...now which is true science?? The flawed theory of evolution or the true empirical evidence...
amazd429 4 years ago
i think your shitty sources are the problem, and yes, you don't know how the evolution works and experiments that prove it. for example the minor changes u mention was eye and fingers in human being. really "minor" things at our bodies. and the argument that monkeys have eyes and fingers is worth shit, and i won't lose any more time explaining it to creationist ppl because it's all in the books, just that they aren't holy -.-
Drakoms 4 years ago
Another classic example of reading a sentence and ignoring the paragraph around it. Fossil records have "sudden gaps" because, though this sounds surprising, not many things are in the proper conditions to be fossilized after they die.
jmbt138 4 years ago
Oh...it would appear that the items that would not be in the proper conditions to be fossilized are the "intermediary", or "missing links" that would give creedence to the theory of minor changes over eons of time...and any scientist worth his salt recognizes the difficulty in that...it is the most damaging evidence...real "empirical" evidence,to the theory...
amazd429 4 years ago
"atheist creationist"
Kill yourself....
JRayT2007 4 years ago
dont bother wasting your breath with these bible hugging freaks. let them pray to their souls content. when they die they will be fertilzer like everyone else. except the jews and muslims...now their going to hell (lol).
oneslyder 4 years ago 2
Brief, but nice. Was that Donald Johanson?
KennyTew2 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Neither evolution nor god. Monkeys were created before humans as an inferior prototype in an attempt to improve on the creator's own genome. Evolution has to be removed from curricula, young people being told a monkey is their grandfather? How disheartning is that! And no, I am not a christian creationist, the bible says 'one day the mystery of god will be revealed' there is divinity, but they are not god(s) except in the minds of primitive people of the past and sadly even now.
raulitech 4 years ago
As far as I know, no students are being taught a monkey is their grandfather in a science class. What they are being taught is humans and apes share a common ancestor which is significantly different.
Kieran27 4 years ago 4
Funny how you say your not a creationist but you use there arguments. The grandfather argument is an old out dated one. Just like the rest of there theories. That one was used by Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind.
Acorvettes 4 years ago
I fail to see how being told you descended from the ape is any different from being told your grandfather is an ape. I am an athiest creationist. As I said, neither god nor evolution.
raulitech 4 years ago
An atheist doesn't believe in a god a creationist believes it happened in 6 days as written in the bible. How the hell can you be both? You have your facts straight on how we teach evolution in schools just about as good as you know what an atheist and creationist is. Read up on both and learn something. Personally I think you're a creationist trying to act like and atheist
Acorvettes 4 years ago
He may believe in creation by space aliens, but where did the space aliens come from?
sphenrobles 4 years ago
I laughed for like twenty minutes when I saw that you said you were an athiest creationist. Do you not realize the absurdity in that?
Berglekutt 4 years ago 2
Monkeys are still around, so I don't know what you're talking about. We didn't come from monkeys, monkeys, and humans and other apes share a common ancestor, there's a difference. Please learn what evolution actually is and how it works before spouting out nonsense.
HughJardon69 4 years ago
hughjardon you are completely and utterly....
Correct
berniebay 4 years ago
hmmm funny thing but you'r right the monkey from today are as related to our monkey ancestors as we. Funny think nobody else noticed that here
Drakoms 4 years ago
We aren't decedents from apes, we are related. The Australopithecus is our "grand-daddy" It evolved but split into to groups. Prime apes and human-like creatures until us. So monkeys, gorillas, chimps, etc, are our brothers if you will.
berniebay 4 years ago
and u raul are the holy moly men who know the truth and nobody else know. I hate that kind of ppl. learn that your theory is as silly for me that catholicysm is and your's argument can kiss your ass because that is where they was born (u say "young people being told a monkey is their grandfather?", "young people being told that they are superior to everything on the planet" way is not an answer too)
Drakoms 4 years ago 3