Did humans descend from Apes?

[Aman777]

It's true that humans contain elements forged in the earliest stars in the universe, but the question is a non-sequitur, since that has nothing to do with our intelligence or magical origin myths involving inexplicable, immaterial entities.

Then please explain the process which is different from sex, which is the only way to change Humans intelligence level. Also, tell us WHY no other creature has magically evolved something which mindless nature does NOT possess. Waiting.....

 

[Kaon]

The flawed ToE teaches that humans descended from the common ancestor of Apes. This theory is provably false since it cannot explain the process by which we obtained our superior intelligence to ANY other living creature on planet Earth, from mindless Nature. The ToE falsely assumes that we magically changed from prehistoric animal like creature, into reasoning humans, and we just now are becoming smart enough to post online.

Truth is that we changed from prehistoric to human in ONE generation when Noah's grandsons married and passed Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's Gen 3:22 to the sons of God (prehistoric people) Gen 6:4 who were already here when the Ark arrived, 11k years ago. Today's humans (descendants of Adam) are the result since we have the DNA of prehistoric beings AND the superior intelligence which ONLY Adam and God have. We did NOT descend from Apes. That's God's Truth Scripturally. Amen?

Humans coming from apes is an idea that came to be when people were trying to figure out how to separate the human race into favored species in superior rank.


It is a destructive theory that comes from sick origins, and has been accepted as legitimate science (when it was use to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize) people.

The fact that it is so accepted is one of the psychological reasons why other humans have to remind others their lives exist, or why other humans are bombed or massacred and the world barely relieves saline mist from their eyes.

It has been ingrained in heads since the Enlightenment to accept this,and there are social consequences if you do not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then please explain the process which is different from sex, which is the only way to change Humans intelligence level.

I have no idea what you mean. Maybe you can ask the question more coherently?

Also, tell us WHY no other creature has magically evolved something which mindless nature does NOT possess. Waiting.....

Because there's no such thing as magic?

What is this 'something' you're referring to?

 

[tas8831]

Humans coming from apes is an idea that came to be when people were trying to figure out how to separate the human race into favored species in superior rank.

According to whom?

It is a destructive theory that comes from sick origins, and has been accepted as legitimate science (when it was use to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize) people.

Is it really your position that slavery, rape, torture, etc. was non-existent prior to 1859?

 

[Kaon]

According to whom?

George Gliddon - Wikipedia

Josiah C. Nott - Wikipedia

These are just two of the most basic (known) examples. You can find the rest.

Is it really your position that slavery, rape, torture, etc. was non-existent prior to 1859?

How did you get that from this:

It is a destructive theory that comes from sick origins, and has been accepted as legitimate science (when it was use to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize) people.
​

even with years/dates? I said it is a destructive theory that comes from sick origins, and has been accepted as legitimate science.

The parenthetical as that it was used to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize people. The context was not that it has never happened before 1859.

 

[tas8831]

George Gliddon - Wikipedia

Josiah C. Nott - Wikipedia

These are just two of the most basic (known) examples. You can find the rest.

These people had exactly zero impact on the development of the ToE.

You know religious people were pretty racist in those days. Many still are.

How did you get that from this:

It is a destructive theory that comes from sick origins, and has been accepted as legitimate science (when it was use to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize) people.
​

even with years/dates? I said it is a destructive theory that comes from sick origins, and has been accepted as legitimate science.

The parenthetical as that it was used to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize people. The context was not that it has never happened before 1859.

And yet you seem to be blaming evolution for all that.

Religion and nationalism were used to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize people, too.

 

[Kaon]

These people had exactly zero impact on the development of the ToE.

You know religious people were pretty racist in those days. Many still are.



And yet you seem to be blaming evolution for all that.

Religion and nationalism were used to enslave, rape, torture, experiment on and imperialize people, too.

I never mentioned the theory of evolution. We cant even get to what I mean because all you see is what I didn't say, and of what I seem ignorant.

I originally stated (among other points, Post #443) that this type of thinking was ingrained in people's minds since THE ENLIGHTENMENT; what year(s) was that paradigm - before or after American Slavery?

Of course religious entities have been historically evil, and my original point was alluding to this. However, we cant get there, can we? The incessant fear of a debate about socially unacceptable conspiracies prevents context - it would seem.

We can try again, or just end it here, but I am not fighting men of straw.

 

[tas8831]

I never mentioned the theory of evolution.

You were replying to a a post stating the ToE was flawed or false.

We cant even get to what I mean because all you see is what I didn't say, and of what I seem ignorant.

I was responding to your apparent 'piling on' the ToE.

If that was not your intent, I apologize.

 

[Kaon]

You were replying to a a post stating the ToE was flawed or false.


I was responding to your apparent 'piling on' the ToE.

If that was not your intent, I apologize.

Wasn't my intent but no hard feelings.

I wanted to intimate that if it weren't for the religious authorities, the science of humans descending from apes may not have taken off.

The friction against the ToE and other similar paradigms caused them to explode among people - precisely because the authoritative ecumenical powers that be were against it. Then, the modern (post-enlightenment) religious authorities tried hijacked this theory in an ironic attempt to use God to justify their atrocities - namely imperialism and slavery.

I don't think the Theory of Evolution was ever meant to be taken seriously as it is today - but I believe it was supposed to be an alternative to the already evil ways humanity treated each other.

 

[Speedwell]

Wasn't my intent but no hard feelings.

I wanted to intimate that if it weren't for the religious authorities, the science of humans descending from apes may not have taken off.

The friction against the ToE and other similar paradigms caused them to explode among people - precisely because the authoritative ecumenical powers that be were against it. Then, the modern (post-enlightenment) religious authorities tried hijacked this theory in an ironic attempt to use God to justify their atrocities - namely imperialism and slavery.

I don't think the Theory of Evolution was ever meant to be taken seriously as it is today - but I believe it was supposed to be an alternative to the already evil ways humanity treated each other.

It was always meant as an explanation for the diversity of living creatures which we observe around us.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Amen. Adam's small world was surrounded by a solid firmament which protected it from the water into which it was placed, showing that Adam's world was totally self-sufficient. Adam's entire Universe was only miles in diameter.



Add the first Heaven made the 2nd Day to the other HeavenS, made on the 3rd Day, and you have a Multiverse. . . .

Well with your ability to read weird stuff into scripture, anything could be believed. It is therefore not convincing.

 

[Kaon]

It was always meant as an explanation for the diversity of living creatures which we observe around us.

The only problem I have is when it becomes truth, and persons are ridiculed for not believing the ToE (even if they scientifically understand it, and practice it.) It has become a social standard for who is a "tard," and who isn't. That is scientifically destructive, because it perpetuates the need of one side to prove themselves, or the other(s) wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

The only problem I have is when it becomes truth, and persons are ridiculed for not believing the ToE (even if they scientifically understand it, and practice it.) It has become a social standard for who is a "tard," and who isn't. That is scientifically destructive, because it perpetuates the need of one side to prove themselves, or the other(s) wrong.

Well, not accepting the ToE is not accepting physical reality and, quite frankly, both stupid and ignorant.

 

[Kaon]

Well, not accepting the ToE is not accepting physical reality and, quite frankly, both stupid and ignorant.

Were you there when the dinosaurs were wiped out?

How do you know dinosaurs are not abdominal creatures created by ancient civilizations for the purposes of terrorizing their enemies?

Were you there to see creation itself, or the building blocks of life ebb up and evolve into what we know of as life?

I am being serious; how can you make such a judgment so much so that you can apply it to the entirety of the human population. You must have pictures/video, no?

 

[Speedwell]

The only problem I have is when it becomes truth, and persons are ridiculed for not believing the ToE (even if they scientifically understand it, and practice it.) It has become a social standard for who is a "tard," and who isn't. That is scientifically destructive, because it perpetuates the need of one side to prove themselves, or the other(s) wrong.

Well, you certainly can't blame scientists for that; they know it is not the truth, but merely a scientific theory, provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. Perhaps the difficulty is one of perception. The theory of evolution is certainly closer to the truth of our origins (whatver that may be) than a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories.

 

[Gene2memE]

Were you there when the dinosaurs were wiped out?

How do you know dinosaurs are not abdominal creatures created by ancient civilizations for the purposes of terrorizing their enemies?

Why do I have a weird image of a T-Rex trying to do stomach crunches.

As to how we know that they weren't any of those things - we don't. However, you're asking us to prove a negative, a hypothetical negative at that. I could similarly ask you how do we know that Pontius Pilot wasn't a time travelling space alien who moved between dimensions in a box shaped like an 18th century ice chest.

Nothing that we know of points to such a conclusion, and its a red herring, completely irrelevant to the point at hand. AND its a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]poor attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Were you there to see creation itself, or the building blocks of life ebb up and evolve into what we know of as life?

Yes, I was. That's how I can 100% categorically state the Theory of Evolution is 99.7% correct. The only part they got wrong is about Frank. C'mon Frank, seriously get it together!

I am being serious; how can you make such a judgment so much so that you can apply it to the entirety of the human population. You must have pictures/video, no?

No, you're not. You might actually think you're being serious, but what you are being is ridiculous.

How he can make a judgement is that he stands at the pinnacle of 160 years of research which has concluded, quite rightly, that evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is the body of well-substantiated evidence that explains those facts. You stand on that pinnacle too, you just appear to be ignoring it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The only problem I have is when it becomes truth, and persons are ridiculed for not believing the ToE (even if they scientifically understand it, and practice it.) It has become a social standard for who is a "tard," and who isn't. That is scientifically destructive, because it perpetuates the need of one side to prove themselves, or the other(s) wrong.

Accepting the findings of science is not scientifically destructive. Merely asserting they must be wrong without credible evidence is what is scientifically destructive. The proving was taken care of a long time ago.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Neither does the Bible mention cars. Do that disprove their existence? Of course not. Ask any child.

Exactly, the Bible doesn't have or even acknowledge today's scientific discoveries and their applications, which is contrary to what you said.

 

[Kaon]

Well, you certainly can't blame scientists for that; they know it is not the truth, but merely a scientific theory, provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. Perhaps the difficulty is one of perception. The theory of evolution is certainly closer to the truth of our origins (whatver that may be) than a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories.

I don't blame scientists for that, ironically (given my critique of academia.) I actually "blame" laypersons that create and nurture the culture.

 

[Kaon]

Why do I have a weird image of a T-Rex trying to do stomach crunches.

As to how we know that they weren't any of those things - we don't. However, you're asking us to prove a negative, a hypothetical negative at that. I could similarly ask you how do we know that Pontius Pilot wasn't a time travelling space alien who moved between dimensions in a box shaped like an 18th century ice chest.

Nothing that we know of points to such a conclusion, and its a red herring, completely irrelevant to the point at hand. AND its a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]poor attempt to shift the burden of proof.



Yes, I was. That's how I can 100% categorically state the Theory of Evolution is 99.7% correct. The only part they got wrong is about Frank. C'mon Frank, seriously get it together!



No, you're not. You might actually think you're being serious, but what you are being is ridiculous.

How he can make a judgement is that he stands at the pinnacle of 160 years of research which has concluded, quite rightly, that evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is the body of well-substantiated evidence that explains those facts. You stand on that pinnacle too, you just appear to be ignoring it.

Oh, ok.