Help Me Debunk this Article

[sandwiches]

Well, I am sorry to see a bunch of evolutionists are answering your question. Here is one from a creationist:

They are playing tricky scientific language with you. That is what it is.

To a non-scientist, a monkey is a monkey. But to a biologist, there are hundreds of types of monkeys. They would give you one species name and say: "that" is the one which evolved into human.

So, Don't be surprised. They are only showing off their "knowledge". That's all.

Such a strong exhibition of willful ignorance from one who claims to be a geologist. Unsurprising, really.

 

[juvenissun]

Such a strong exhibition of willful ignorance from one who claims to be a geologist. Unsurprising, really.

I don't know much about biology. I said that many times.

But what's wrong with what I said? Dare to tell me a little?

 

[juvenissun]

Welcome aboard, kerryann123. Stick around, there's alot to learn here, if you're interested in learning.

Have you considered asking the question "Is this article right or wrong?", instead of assuming it's wrong and asking people to debunk it? Which of these would be the open-minded option?

Concerning the article, I don't agree with the beginning of it, because if the common ancestor of monkeys and apes (including humans) were alive today, it would possess all the traits to be classified as a monkey.

Creationists are arguing from personal incredulity, and evolutionists are responding with an anal retentive semantic correction. Sure, the evolutionists are technically correct, but that's only because the word "monkey" has a silly definition.

Using better defined words: We evolved from and essentially are eukaryotes, animals, vertebrates, fish, chordates, amniotes, mammals, primates, monkeys, apes and humans.

Peter

Useless talk. What you said does not help her.

Like I said, to her, you are simply showing off your knowledge.

Not blaming you. You are not a teacher. You do not know how to teach.

 

[juvenissun]

What tricks would those be?

What exactly is wrong or "tricky" about that?

I wouldn't. You can rarely infer direct ancestry from the fossil record, and I have a feeling we've told you that before. You've been talking to us for years; I have no idea where you get these weird notions of what we "would" do.

Great. Someone asks some questions, we give honest answers that aren't the answers she's expecting, and we're showing off.

If I answer your questions, I'm showing off and you win. If I don't answer your questions, evolution can't answer them and you win.

Holy spliceosome. You sure are hard to please.

I do teach 101 course. In that class, I use a different language to explain geology (I do correct them when they called a rock as stone), which is dramatically different from what I used in a 501 course.

By the way, what is the species (of monkey) which evolved into human? Those names are impossible to remember. That should be the answer for the OP.

 

[plindboe]

What you said does not help her.

I wasn't trying to teach her, as she left the premises a while ago. My criticism was directed more at my fellow evolutionists, and my point wasn't too dissimilar to a point you tried to make earlier in this thread. But I guess you missed that, because you don't seem to make an effort to understand what people are trying to communicate.

Peter

 

[mzungu]

Here:
Kenneth Miller on Common Ancestry with Apes - YouTube

 

[mzungu]

Here is a simple explanation:

Richard Dawkins: Why are there still Chimpanzees? - Nebraska Vignettes #2 - YouTube

 

[sandwiches]

I don't know much about biology. I said that many times.

But what's wrong with what I said? Dare to tell me a little?

You're doing the "good ol' boy" routine. It's a little show people put on to denigrate those they disagree with but they have no better arguments of explanations by mocking those who actually have a better understanding of a subject. It's played by people to appeal to those of little understanding, training, or education but it's used plenty by those who want to appear as "good ol' boys" who make fun of those with their "fancy schamncy" degree from those "fancy, city colleges." AV does it all the time when he condescendingly and arrogantly acts superior and mocks those who know more on the subject by using little irony-ladden phrases such as "learned men" or "wise men."

So, instead of telling people to learn more on the subject, you immediately put down those who use words differently in an academic context to make them appear arrogant or out of the touch with the "common folk," "common sense," or even reality, as you perceive it.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, I am sorry to see a bunch of evolutionists are answering your question. Here is one from a creationist:

They are playing tricky scientific language with you. That is what it is.

To a non-scientist, a monkey is a monkey. But to a biologist, there are hundreds of types of monkeys. They would give you one species name and say: "that" is the one which evolved into human.

So, Don't be surprised. They are only showing off their "knowledge". That's all.

Actually, you have to look at the term "monkey" in context. Creationists are always asking, "why aren't monkeys evolving into humans today?" In that context, no, we didn't evolve from (modern) monkeys.

 

[sandwiches]

Useless talk. What you said does not help her.

Like I said, to her, you are simply showing off your knowledge.

Not blaming you. You are not a teacher. You do not know how to teach.

Coming from the man who claims he's taught so many of us here but when pressed always cops out with "I won't do your work for you" or better yet "I'm not here to teach you." You can almost cut the irony with a knife.

 

[CabVet]

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

You can stop right there. It is impossible to debunk what you refuse to understand.

 

[CabVet]

I don't know much about biology. I said that many times.

But what's wrong with what I said? Dare to tell me a little?

Everything about what you said is wrong, we did not "evolve from a monkey" or any other type of primate, we share a common ancestor with an ape about 6 million years ago.

Saying that humans evolved from monkeys is the same as saying that you evolved from your cousin, when in reality, what happened was that you and your cousin shared a common ancestor three generations ago.

 

[Doveaman]

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Unfortunately, some scientific ideas are so complicated they cannot be explained unless you get technical. Evolution theory is one of those complicated ideas.

Not to worry though, evolution theory is complicated to most evolutionists. Many of them can’t explain it and simply accept it purely on faith in the scientists who come up with the ideas. They can’t even describe the anatomy of a frog.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys"

You could have simply searched the Bible for the answer to that question.

and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected.

A creationist doesn’t need to know what evolution theory says, he just needs to know what the Bible says. Remember, theories are human-inspired. The Bible is God-inspired. If the theory contradicts the Bible, the theory can take a hike. Just keep it simple.

“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding...” (Prov 3:5-6).

Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He (Connor Davidson) claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

What he probably meant is that we evolved from ape and not from monkey. In his mind there appears to be a difference between the two.

As far as I’m concern, an ape is a tailless monkey. But that’s just my opinion.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up.

Genes “joining up” is an assumption, not a fact.

That we share similar genes is a fact. That we share the same grandparents is an assumption.

They are simply assuming we share the same grandparents because we share similar genes. But they are not telling you the truth. They never do.

I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Look stupid to whom, an evolutionist who believes birds evolve from dinosaurs and humans from apes?

Stupid is as stupid looks.

I wouldn’t worry about that. Jesus wasn’t worried about looking stupid when He inspired men to write that the human population descended from one man (Adam), and not from apes.

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid.

Imagine how much fun he would make of those who believe in a Man who died and rose again after being born to a virgin.

Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them.

He obviously disagrees with Jesus.

He is just a little bit better than Dawkins at this in my opinion.

Maybe he evolved from Dawkins.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this?

My response is simple:

Every scientific theory must be consistent with God’s inspired and infallible word, the Bible. If the humanly inspired theory contradicts the divinely inspired Bible, the theory can take a hike.

Just know your Bible and you’ll be fine.

May god bless you and guide you on your quest for knowedge and truth

Same to you, sister.

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge… ‘Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’” (Prov 1:7, John 8:31-32).

[bible]Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.[/bible]

No kidding:

“Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” (1 Tim 6:20-21).

 

[sandwiches]

The Bible is God-inspired.

That's a nice human-inspired idea... If only there was a way to see if it's true or not or even more valid than any other human-inspired idea.

 

[Trogool]

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected. Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He (Connor Davidson) claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid. Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them. He is just a little bit better than Dawkins at this in my opinion.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this?

May god bless you and guide you on your quest for knowedge and truth

[bible]Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.[/bible]

- Kerry Ann

Evolution is right, you are incorrect.

 

[Trogool]

Why is this thread tagged "don't attack israel" and "don't attack jews"?

 

[Davian]

Why is this thread tagged "don't attack israel" and "don't attack jews"?

Possibly for the same reason as the other 200+ threads were likewise tagged.

 

[quatona]

Help Me Debunk this Article

You feel the article is wrong but you don´t know why?

 

[Doveaman]

That's a nice human-inspired idea... If only there was a way to see if it's true or not or even more valid than any other human-inspired idea.

There is a way, but you must be divinely inspired.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim 3:16).

When it says that all Scripture is divinely inspired it not only means the authors were divinely inspired to write it, but also the readers are divinely inspired to understand it when they read.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Possibly for the same reason as the other 200+ threads were likewise tagged.

Do we know who's tagging them? I remember AV saying something about how scientists are commanded by God to a) improve our lives and b) protect Israel.