Did humans descend from monkeys? Where is your evidence?

Catherineanne · Jul 16, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
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.

Sadly for your thesis the inferences that you are making from that list are NOT written.

Catherineanne · Jul 16, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
You could not be more wrong. I have already demonstrated that skeptics, scoffers & infidels do not even have a third grade level of understanding of the Bible. They simply do not know anything about the Word of God.

People interpretation or understanding may not "match up" but that is no reflection on the Bible. This is only a reflection on their lack of understanding.

You said it.

Catherineanne · Jul 16, 2016

stephen583 said:
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.

Sensible.

Larniavc · Jul 16, 2016

stephen583 said:
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.

Plesiosaur's ancestors were land based.

It's a distinction that is important.

Your summary is woefully simplistic.

Dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago, rather than arose at that time, as you imply.

joshua 1 9 · Jul 16, 2016

46AND2 said:
Well we were, until I demonstrated the context of the passage, then you kinda went silent.

I did not go silent, we talked about living water and stagnate water. There is a profound spiritual implication for this also. Christians partake of fresh living water where infidels drink dead stagnate water. This is why there is life and health and healing in Christ and outside of Christ is death and destruction. If infidels want to drink the bitter water that is their choice. In Christ we can drink the sweet and living water.

Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. John 7:3

Cearbhall · Jul 16, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Do they even give you religious training?

Of course they did. It wouldn't have been much of a parochial school otherwise. Mass two schooldays a week, and religion class on the other three days. Not to mention the additional discussions and programming.

joshua 1 9 said:
Your doing good if you learn the catechism.

I don't think anyone has learned that verbatim for decades. We had a full comprehensive curriculum with supplemental materials, not just a list of things to memorize.

AdamSK · Jul 17, 2016

stephen583 said:
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.

No, the aquatic reptiles were not the predecessors of the land dwelling dinosaurs. That's the problem with the picture you're painting; it tries to place the large aquatic reptiles as ancestral to avian and pre-avian dinosaurs. That's not accurate.

AdamSK · Jul 17, 2016

stephen583 said:
No ancient sea creatures were originally derived from "land" animals. That statement is scientifically absurd. Life on this planet began in the sea hundreds of millions of years ago, and eventually crawled out of the sea onto land as the first amphibians. Those creatures evolved on land, and some of them, like the plesiosaurs, dolphin and whales then returned to the sea. Sheesh ! Read any modern science book, it's right there in black and white.

The Bible says exactly the same thing. Life began in the seas, not on land. "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" (Genesis 1:20). Are you pretending to be obtuse by claiming life began on land with your ridiculous unscientific statements, or what ?! It's not scientific and it's not biblical either !

What does the original size of anything, have do with anything ? Genesis 1:20 doesn't say, "Let the waters bring forth the LARGE moving creature" does it ?!... Duuuh !

"Religion without science is lame, and science without religion is blind"

(Quote Albert Einstein) and Romans 1:20 as well. "The invisible things of God... from the creation of the world have been clearly SEEN and are revealed according to WHAT HAS BEEN MADE". Of course if you can't see that, it guess it means you're blind !

First, you got the quote backwards. It's religion without science that Einstein says is blind.

Second, in the same essay, Einstein explicitly says this is only true if you abandon Biblical literalism. You might want to learn a little more about what he was saying before misusing his quote.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einsteins-famous-quote-science-religion-didnt-mean-taught

stephen583 · Jul 17, 2016

AdamSK said:
Second, in the same essay, Einstein explicitly says this is only true if you abandon Biblical literalism.

Which is why I quoted Einstein. The "literal" interpretation of the Bible in every instance, is total and absolute nonsense. Einstein figured that out, being a pretty smart fella by most accounts.

That's why 70% of Christian youth are leaving the Church when they become young adults and they move out the nest. They're not STUPID. They read science books in school, they watch the Discovery Channel on television, they discuss science with their friends. So they've learned a lot about the natural world.

They recognize, a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is totally inconsistent with the world that surrounds them.

hedrick · Jul 17, 2016

MOD HAT ON

There have been several complaints generated by this thread of flaming, i.e. attacks on people and groups. I have done a cleanup. Please be careful about further postings, so you don't add to the problem. Postings should address the issues, and should not characterize individuals or groups, or comment on their levels of skill, understanding, or commitment to Christ.

MOD HAT OFF

mark kennedy · Jul 17, 2016

I always loved this quote, Einstein made this speech very early in his life.

In the temple of science are many mansions -- and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them there.

Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, it would be noticeably emptier but there would still be some men of both present and past times left inside -- . If the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have existed any more than one can have a wood consisting of nothing but creepers -- those who have found favor with the angel -- are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other than the hosts of the rejected.

What has brought them to the temple -- no single answer will cover -- escape from everyday life, with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the still pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.

The passage is from a 1918 speech by a young German scientist named Albert Einstein. Quoted by Robert Pirsig

I think the imagery is dramatic and he sees the motive for science as being something akin to the worshiper who approaches the sacred.

I think in this quote he comes very close to understanding the problem at the heart of the creation/evolution controversy:

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.” (Quoted and linked above)

I agree that the conflict is essentially due to fatal errors in the reasoning not just of the religious but the antireligious camp. Galileo never contradicted anything remotely doctrinal in the Biblical sense. He argued elegantly that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven not how the heavens work. Darwin on the other hand made, what has been called one long argument against creation. That's exactly what it is:

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin On the Origin of Species)

That includes everything organic and inorganic and all time. Of course it sets itself against religion, actually against more then doctrine but essential Christian theism itself. There is a fatal flaw to this but it isn't religion that made this mistake.

Have a nice day
Mark

AdamSK · Jul 17, 2016

By the way, every dash in your quotation from the Einstein speech is actually an ellipsis. If anyone is interested in reading the stuff that Pirsig decided to cut from the speech, you can read the whole thing here:

http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~yymao/misc/Einstein_PlanckBirthday.html

stephen583 · Jul 17, 2016

The point is, Einstein was not the hardcore anti-religious atheist people often make him out to be. When straight out asked in an interview, whether he believed in God and the afterlife.. He answered, "Anyone who's mind can not embraced the unfathomable, is already DEAD".. Not exactly a rousing endorsement, but not a refutation of the existence of God either. Now I'm quoting from memory, so If I left anything out, feel free to correct it.

I believe Einstein was also quoted as saying, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details"...

bhsmte · Jul 17, 2016

stephen583 said:
The point is, Einstein was not the hardcore anti-religious atheist people often make him out to be. When straight out asked in an interview, whether he believed in God and the afterlife.. He answered, "Anyone who's mind can not embraced the unfathomable, is already DEAD".. Not exactly a rousing endorsement, but not a refutation of the existence of God either. Now I'm quoting from memory, so If I left anything out, feel free to correct it.

I believe Einstein was also quoted as saying, "I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details"...

The one thing Einstein was crystal clear one, where his thoughts on personal Gods. He thought, belief in personal Gods, was childlike.

David_M · Jul 20, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I've said this before but I'll say it again: yes, but they would not be considered to be modern monkeys as creationists say and seem to think evolutionary theory means. They would be called early monkeys.

Which still makes them Monkeys in common terms.

Just to be pedantic everyone is wrong because "Monkey" is not a valid taxonomic classification because its paraphyletic but as far as it goes in layman's terms the common ancestor we share with Monkeys was a monkey.

The New World Monkeys were the first to evolve, the Old World Monkeys branched off from them and Apes branched off from the old world monkeys. That means that the common ancestors we share with the extant Old World Monkeys was an Old World Monkey and the common ancestor we share with the extant new world Monkeys was a new world monkey.

When you get to the scientific definitions it gets a bit more complex as we have the Old World Monkeys (Species of the Family Cercopithecidae) and New World Monkeys (Species of 5 Families the Clade Platyrrhini). The Old World Monkeys are of the Clade Catarrhini, The Great Apes are another family in that clade (Hominidae).

Order Primates

Suborder Strepsirrhini: non-tarsier prosimians
Suborder Haplorhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
- Infraorder Tarsiiformes
- Infraorder Simiiformes
  - Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
    - Family Callitrichidae: marmosets and tamarins
    - Family Cebidae: capuchins and squirrel monkeys
    - Family Aotidae: night or owl monkeys (douroucoulis)
    - Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris
    - Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys
  - Parvorder Catarrhini
    - Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
      - Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys
    - Superfamily Hominoidea
      - Family Hylobatidae: gibbons
      - Family Hominidae: great apes, including humans

Is the structure of the primate families (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian#Classification_and_evolution)

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 21, 2016

David_M said:
Which still makes them Monkeys in common terms.

Just to be pedantic everyone is wrong because "Monkey" is not a valid taxonomic classification because its paraphyletic but as far as it goes in layman's terms the common ancestor we share with Monkeys was a monkey.

The New World Monkeys were the first to evolve, the Old World Monkeys branched off from them and Apes branched off from the old world monkeys. That means that the common ancestors we share with the extant Old World Monkeys was an Old World Monkey and the common ancestor we share with the extant new world Monkeys was a new world monkey.

When you get to the scientific definitions it gets a bit more complex as we have the Old World Monkeys (Species of the Family Cercopithecidae) and New World Monkeys (Species of 5 Families the Clade Platyrrhini). The Old World Monkeys are of the Clade Catarrhini, The Great Apes are another family in that clade (Hominidae).

Order Primates

Suborder Strepsirrhini: non-tarsier prosimians

Suborder Haplorhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes

Infraorder Tarsiiformes

Infraorder Simiiformes

Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys

Family Callitrichidae: marmosets and tamarins

Family Cebidae: capuchins and squirrel monkeys

Family Aotidae: night or owl monkeys (douroucoulis)

Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris

Family Atelidae: howler, spider and woolly monkeys

Parvorder Catarrhini

Superfamily Cercopithecoidea

Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys

Superfamily Hominoidea

Family Hylobatidae: gibbons

Family Hominidae: great apes, including humans

Is the structure of the primate families (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian#Classification_and_evolution)

Why are people unable to accept what I clearly said in black and white?? Here I'll say it again, and to further hammer the point home, I'll highlight the relevant part:
"I've said this before but I'll say it again: yes, but they would not be considered to be modern monkeys as creationists say and seem to think evolutionary theory means. They would be called early monkeys."

David_M · Jul 21, 2016

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why are people unable to accept what I clearly said in black and white?? Here I'll say it again, and to further hammer the point home, I'll highlight the relevant part:
"I've said this before but I'll say it again: yes, but they would not be considered to be modern monkeys as creationists say and seem to think evolutionary theory means. They would be called early monkeys."

And yet, however much you try to deny it, they were monkeys. Early or late, extinct or extant they are ALL MONKEYS.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 21, 2016

David_M said:
And yet, however much you try to deny it, they were monkeys. Early or late, extinct or extant they are ALL MONKEYS.

Nowhere have I denied that they were monkeys. What I have continually said, is that they are not the modern monkeys that creationists believe that evolution claims to talk about.
Do you understand this?

Did humans descend from monkeys? Where is your evidence?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency