Did humans descend from monkeys? Where is your evidence?

[AdamSK]

The Bible clearly states Eve did not conceive another son to replace Able until after Caine went to the land of Nod and got a wife. The chronology of events described in Genesis do not support the conjecture and speculation of scholars who claim otherwise.

No, the Genesis account does not specify a chronology in the way you are implying. Events are generally given thematically, not in any strict order of occurrence. The text is silent on when and how many children they had other than specifying when Seth was born.

I also find the idea that Adam's descendants procreated with angels totally absurd. The Bible says, the "sons of God found the daughters of man fair and took of themselves wives of all that they chose" (Genesis 6:2).

Nowhere in the Bible that I'm aware of, are angels described as the "sons of God", and who were these daughters of man ? Were they the descendants of Caine and the people of Nod ? I think that's a far more likely translation than baseless conjecture about angels and humans having sex, don't you ?

Look a little harder. The malakim are referred to as "sons of God" in other places as well.

 

[AdamSK]

Did you know scientists now divide dinosaurs into two major categories, Avian (dinosaurs sharing anatomy with birds), and non-Avian dinosaurs. So yes, some of the first dinosaurs would have been the ancestors of modern day winged fowl. I don't know about you, but that sort of indicates to me the creatures that were brought forth abundantly from the sea, were in fact dinosaurs, not modern day birds !

Dinosaurs were not aquatic. The ancestors of winged birds were land animals, not sea animals.

 

[AdamSK]

The main problem with this thread is that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and "monkey" is not a scientific term. The colloquial taxon of monkey is paraphyletic, and scientists use monophyletic taxons.

Yes, but the term is not particularly problematic in this case. A monkey is a non-ape simian.

Paraphyletic groups which are simply all the members of a first clade excluding a particular distinctive descendant clade may not meet the ideal monophyletic classification, but they can still be precisely defined and easily discussed.

 

[stephen583]

"And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our own likeness... And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth" (Genesis 1:26-27).

I'm noticing two things here. First, God is talking about creating man in his own image and likeness, which almost sounds to me like an "alternative" creation has previously existed. Perhaps one that didn't prove quite so fruitful, like Neanderthals and Cro-magnons which were bound for extinction. Second God says this creation of man will "replenish" the earth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition of the word "replenish" according to the Oxford Dictionary is (1). "to fill something up again", "to refill". (2). "to restore to a former level. Why would the Bible use the word "replenish" with regard to the creation of man, if it wasn't referring to an earlier creation that was diminished ?

You asked in the OP "What my source was for man evolving from apes" and it is the Bible. Just something to think about, for those of you who don't think the Bible says anything about prehistoric man.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but the term is not particularly problematic in this case. A monkey is a non-ape simian.

The problem arises when we get to the root of the monkey and ape tree. What are those primate species called?

Paraphyletic groups which are simply all the members of a first clade excluding a particular distinctive descendant clade may not meet the ideal monophyletic classification, but they can still be precisely defined and easily discussed.

The problem is that they are arbitrary. Which branches do you leave out of the paraphyletic group? Sure, you could define which groups you leave out, but in the end it is just arbitrary. Monophyletic taxons lack that same arbitrary nature.

 

[florida2]

There's no evidence. Its just a theory that was widely accepted.
Why are their still monkeys if we supposedly came from them?

A really old question which is totally inaccurate. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_there_are_still_monkeys?

It's telling that leading creationist organisations tell their followers NOT to use it as a question against evolution.

Or they say some type of primordial soup formed something as complex as
human beings just because. Yea, ok.

It's not 'just because'. If you are interested in what science actually says, as opposed to what you may have been told by creationists, let us know.

 

[stephen583]

Dinosaurs were not aquatic. The ancestors of winged birds were land animals, not sea animals.

You need to go back and reread what I posted more carefully before posting arguments. I never said dinosaurs were aquatic creatures. You'll notice in paragraph two of post #118, aquatic predators like plesiosaurs and kronosaurus are correctly and scientifically identified as "aquatic reptiles".

However, in informal language these creatures are often referred to (although it may be a scientific error) as dinosaurs. Ask any nine year old, and he'll tell you they are dinosaurs. In fact, if you persist in calling them anything else, I'd wager you'd end up with a bruised shin bone. Most adults who are not scientists would take exception with your characterization as well.​

I also make the distinction, that some true land dwelling dinosaurs had the avian anatomy of winged fowl, such as avian bone structure and pre-flight downy feathers. Google it, if you think I'm wrong.

Also, these prehistoric aquatic reptiles were the predecessors of those land dwelling dinosaurs. So I'm at a loss to understand the distinction you are trying to make here. Really, your disclaimer is somewhat obtuse.

 

[Shemjaza]

You need to go back and reread what I posted more carefully before posting arguments. I never said dinosaurs were aquatic creatures. You'll notice in paragraph two of post #118, aquatic predators like plesiosaurs and kronosaurus are correctly and scientifically identified as "aquatic reptiles". However, in informal language these creatures are often referred to (although it may be a scientific error) as dinosaurs. Ask any nine year old, he'll tell you they are dinosaurs.h t

I also make the connection, that some true land dwelling dinosaurs had avian anatomy (winged fowl) such as avian bone structure and pre-flight downy feathers.

Also, these prehistoric aquatic reptiles were the predecessors of those land dwelling dinosaurs. So I'm at a loss to understand the distinction you are trying to make here. Really, your disclaiming argument is somewhat obtuse.

Kids will call a dimetrodon a dinosaur, and that's closer related to humanity then it is to the t-rex.

 

[Larniavc]

lso, these prehistoric aquatic reptiles were the predecessors of those land dwelling dinosaurs. So I'm at a loss to understand the distinction you are trying to make here. Really, your disclaiming argument is somewhat obtuse

Actually marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs returned to the sea (much like what happened with marine mammals).

 

[stephen583]

Kids will call a dimetrodon a dinosaur, and that's closer related to humanity then it is to the t-rex.

your

Frankly, I don't see how any of your posts refutes the statement there were Avian Dinosaur that shared anatomical traits with "winged fowl", or that prehistoric aquatic reptiles (terrible sea creatures) were not the predecessors of land dinosaurs, which is exactly what I posted in reference to Genesis 1:21.

 

[stephen583]

Actually marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs returned to the sea (much like what happened with marine mammals).

Land reptiles originally came from the sea, about 320 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. They were amphibians, and originally they came from the sea. So the fact plesiosaurs were at one time a land creature that returned to the sea is irrelevant, and is a distinction without a difference. Land dinosaurs only date back to 250 million years ago tops, some scientists estimate it as late as 65 million years ago. So the idea aquatic reptiles didn't pre-date land dinosaurs is incorrect. They may have existed contemporaneously toward the end, but aquatic reptiles are much older than dinosaurs. So they were in fact predecessors to the dinosaur, which is exactly what I posted.

 

[Catherineanne]

Biology makes absurd claims, I want to see their evidence.

Imagine you are at a family party and you meet a third cousin, with whom you share great grandparents.

Are you descended from that cousin? If not, does that mean you are not related at all?

 

[Catherineanne]

Not one person accepts the theory of common ancestor on this board. Adam, Noah, Abraham were all common ancestor. If you reject that then that means you reject the theory of common ancestor.

Where does the Bible say any of that?

 

[stephen583]

Imagine you are at a family party and you meet a third cousin, with whom you share great grandparents.

Are you descended from that cousin? If not, does that mean you are not related at all?

I don't know how they handle that where you're from, but in "Redneck" land, you can date her. If she's a first cousin, technically you're only supposed to dance with her.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don't know they handle that where you're from, but in "Redneck" land, you can date her. If she's a first cousin, technically you're only supposed to dance with her.

And if 'she' is a boy? Can they still date?

 

[stephen583]

And if 'she' is a boy? Can they still date?

There are lots of mitigating circumstances to consider. How much have you had to drink ? How far are you from town and how much gas do you have in your pickup truck ? How late is it ? For me personally, I'd just call it a night.

 

[stephen583]

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20, KJV).


This is the very definition of the scientific method. It is "a method of inquiry, based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning". "The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations of the natural world" Definition provided by Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia.

There can be no contradictions between science and the Bible. None !.. The only way to understand the Bible, is through scientific fact. Not myths and unfounded stories. If you don't know it, that's exactly what Romans 1:20 is saying.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (Albert Einstein)

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where does the Bible say any of that?

1 Chronicles 1

1:1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh,
1:2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,
1:3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,
1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
1:5 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
1:6 And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
1:7 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
1:8 The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
1:9 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.
1:11 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
1:12 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphthorim.
1:13 And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth,
1:14 The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite,
1:15 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
1:16 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
1:17 The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.
1:18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.
1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.
1:20 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
1:21 Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah,
1:22 And Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
1:23 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.
1:24 Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,
1:25 Eber, Peleg, Reu,
1:26 Serug, Nahor, Terah,
1:27 Abram; the same is Abraham.
1:28 The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
1:29 These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
1:30 Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema,
1:31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
1:33 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah.
1:34 And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel.
1:35 The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah.
1:36 The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek.
1:37 The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.
1:38 And the sons of Seir; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan.
1:39 And the sons of Lotan; Hori, and Homam: and Timna was Lotan's sister.
1:40 The sons of Shobal; Alian, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah.
1:41 The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Amram, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran.
1:42 The sons of Ezer; Bilhan, and Zavan, and Jakan. The sons of Dishan; Uz, and Aran.
1:43 Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
1:44 And when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead.
1:45 And when Jobab was dead, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.
1:46 And when Husham was dead, Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith.
1:47 And when Hadad was dead, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.
1:48 And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead.
1:49 And when Shaul was dead, Baalhanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.
1:50 And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
1:51 Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,
1:52 Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon,
1:53 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar,
1:54 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1 Chronicles 1

1:1 Adam, Sheth, Enosh,
1:2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,
1:3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,
1:4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
1:5 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
1:6 And the sons of Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
1:7 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
1:8 The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
1:9 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabta, and Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.
1:11 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
1:12 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphthorim.
1:13 And Canaan begat Zidon his firstborn, and Heth,
1:14 The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite,
1:15 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
1:16 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
1:17 The sons of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.
1:18 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber.
1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.
1:20 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,
1:21 Hadoram also, and Uzal, and Diklah,
1:22 And Ebal, and Abimael, and Sheba,
1:23 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.
1:24 Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,
1:25 Eber, Peleg, Reu,
1:26 Serug, Nahor, Terah,
1:27 Abram; the same is Abraham.
1:28 The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.
1:29 These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
1:30 Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema,
1:31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael.
1:32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan.
1:33 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah.
1:34 And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel.
1:35 The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah.
1:36 The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek.
1:37 The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.
1:38 And the sons of Seir; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan.
1:39 And the sons of Lotan; Hori, and Homam: and Timna was Lotan's sister.
1:40 The sons of Shobal; Alian, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah.
1:41 The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Amram, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran.
1:42 The sons of Ezer; Bilhan, and Zavan, and Jakan. The sons of Dishan; Uz, and Aran.
1:43 Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
1:44 And when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead.
1:45 And when Jobab was dead, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead.
1:46 And when Husham was dead, Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith.
1:47 And when Hadad was dead, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead.
1:48 And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead.
1:49 And when Shaul was dead, Baalhanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead.
1:50 And when Baalhanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.
1:51 Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,
1:52 Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon,
1:53 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar,
1:54 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.

And yet no where in that passage does it say "this is the DNA evidence of Adam." It's a claim. Stop presenting it as evidence, since it is not evidence.

 

[joshua 1 9]

A tiger and a house cat can't reproduce, yet they are both claimed as the cat kind. Just one of many examples.

"Species" is the latin word used when they translated the Bible from Hebrew into Latin. At times the word genus is used. Science tends to use the Latin word, not the Hebrew word.