Did humans descend from monkeys? Where is your evidence?

[Cute Tink]

God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations. DNA show that God did exactly what He said He was going to do. Of course only those willing to enter into a Covenant relationship with God comprehend. Covenant breakers are not able to understand the things of God.

Genesis 17:5 "My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations."

Where is your evidence that it had anything to do with a fellow named Abraham? Seems you have repeatedly glossed over that point.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where is your evidence that it had anything to do with a fellow named Abraham?

The evidence is in the Bible, just as plain and as clear as can be. Have you read the Bible? The Bible is a history of the Hebrew people. There are many ways that the Bible is confirmed beyond any doubt. Science for example in many ways confirms that what we read in the Bible is accurate and true. Archeology for example has been used extensively for the last 100 years to confirm that the Bible is accurate and true. I just wrote a post about how the photos we have from the Space satellites can be used to show how the Bible is accurate and true. We now have extensive DNA evidence that confirms the Bible is accurate and true. There are many many ways that we can verify how accurate, dependable and reliable our Bible is.

Where is your evidence that it had anything to do with a fellow named Abraham? Seems you have repeatedly glossed over that point.

Nothing to gloss over we have a lot of stories in the Bible about Abraham. Almost a whole novel has been written about him. WE read stories about Abraham and his wife Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar the Egyptian. We read stories about Abraham and his uncle Lot and how they both had large herds and the people working for them were fighting among themselves so Abraham and Lot had to find a solution for that. There are many many stories in the Bible. The infidels try to argue that the stories are not true. When we go to verify the story we find out they are true and accurate.

 

[Cute Tink]

The evidence is in the Bible, just as plain and as clear as can be. Have you read the Bible? The Bible is a history of the Hebrew people. There are many ways that the Bible is confirmed beyond any doubt. Science for example in many ways confirms that what we read in the Bible is accurate and true. Archeology for example has been used extensively for the last 100 years to confirm that the Bible is accurate and true. I just wrote a post about how the photos we have from the Space satellites can be used to show how the Bible is accurate and true. We now have extensive DNA evidence that confirms the Bible is accurate and true. There are many many ways that we can verify how accurate, dependable and reliable our Bible is.

The Bible, last I checked (maybe I had the abridged version), does not contain a record of Abraham's DNA for comparison.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How does it show that?

How does what show what? It is not a good word to use because I do not know what you are referring to.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Bible, last I checked (maybe I had the abridged version), does not contain a record of Abraham's DNA for comparison.

The Bible has the genealogies or what they call the generations. The DNA confirms that the generations in the Bible are accurate and true. This is what we call the begats. Most people skip over them. I read every word in the Bible and I am glad I do. Many of the people listed in the begats have stores we read about them in the Bible. For example:

Question: "What is the story of Sarah and Hagar?"

Answer: Sarah was the wife of Abraham. Hagar was the servant of Sarah. God had promised Abraham many descendants, but, ten years after the promise, Sarah was still unable to have children, and they were both on the verge of becoming too old to have children at all. Sarah chose to give her servant Hagar to Abraham, in accordance with the custom of day, so that Sarah could have a child through her (Genesis 16:2).

It is quite an interesting story to read about what was going on between Abraham, Sarah and Hagar.

Hagar conceived, and Sarah despised her. Sarah began to deal harshly with her, and Hagar fled to the desert to escape the resentment of her mistress. The angel of the Lord met Hagar in the wilderness, commanding her to return to Abraham and Sarah. The angel relayed a promise from God: “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude” (Genesis 16:10). The angel also predicted Ishmael’s name and character (Genesis 16:11-12).

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sarah-Hagar.html

1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon untoChrist are fourteen generations.

 

[Cute Tink]

The Bible has the genealogies or what they call the generations. The DNA confirms that the generations in the Bible are accurate and true. This is what we call the begats. Most people skip over them. I read every word in the Bible and I am glad I do. Many of the people listed in the begats have stores we read about them in the Bible. For example:

Then you should be able to establish that the DNA evidence points to the DNA of a person named Abraham. Your previous post said nothing about any particular person being linked by anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is in the Bible, just as plain and as clear as can be.

Do you still not understand that the Bible is the claim, not the evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

How does what show what? It is not a good word to use because I do not know what you are referring to.

How does the science show that the DNA shared by a group of people came from a specific person?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Bible has the genealogies or what they call the generations. The DNA confirms that the generations in the Bible are accurate and true.

How?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They're unable to naturally see different kinds.

What's a "kind"?

A child easily recognizes different kinds of species, fishes are fishes, birds are birds, etc.

Errr.... "bird" is not a species. Neither is "fish".

See the problem with evolution, is there technically is no species or kinds at all.

You aren't aware of this little field called "taxonomy"?

Everything is one, everything is constantly changing, there is no "bird species" or anything, as technically each bird is on their own evolutionary path. Crows are on one path, seagulls another. Yet even a child can point out a bird's a bird.

A child would also call a whale a "fish".

But it's not a fish. It's a mammal.

It seems you are actually advocating that we take a childlike approach to taxonomy... is that what you are saying?

It's not something we classify for convenience, there's something recognizable about each species. A bird kind. A fish kind. A dog kind. etc. - all biblical teachings.

"bird" and "fish" is a kind?

How about these, are those "kinds":
- mammal
- tetrapod
- primate

 

[Strathos]

Well, you certainly won't get any evidence for the claim you've made since nowhere in biology is it said that humans evolved from monkeys.

Technically untrue. Modern monkeys are our cousins, but if you go back far enough, the ancestor of current humans would be classified as a monkey by biologists.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Technically untrue. Modern monkeys are our cousins, but if you go back far enough, the ancestor of current humans would be classified as a monkey by biologists.

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.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do creationists always say that even children can recognize what a kind is, and then always present dog and cat and fish and bird, etc.?

Would a child know to classify a dolphin as a mammal, or would they call it a fish?

We can take a look at what the Bible says. This passage is the first use of the word: "kind". We have herbs, grass and fruit. The key word here is seed. So a kind is something that is able to reproduce itself. According to Collins DNA is the Language of Life and the Language of God. God said: "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass," then we read: "earth brought forth grass," we read that a "kind, whose seed". So there is a strong association between "kind" and "seed" or the ability to reproduce itself.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

This is almost like a puzzle or a riddle. We have a 3400 year old document and today we have modern Science that can help us to solve the puzzle and try to make an attempt to understand what a kind is. Because we have to look at context to try and figure out the meaning of the word "kind". It is not our job to tell you want the meaning of the word "KIND". You are responsible to discover the truth for yourself and it is up to you to figure out the meaning of the word.

 

[AdamSK]

The Bible has the genealogies or what they call the generations. The DNA confirms that the generations in the Bible are accurate and true.

The Bible gave Abraham as the father of all Jews. The DNA evidence points to significantly less than the entire Jewish population sharing the same patrilineal ancestor. So how does the DNA evidence confirm the Bible?

Can you specify which DNA findings in what percentages would have confirmed the Biblical account and which DNA findings would have contradicted the account?

 

[stephen583]

There were human creatures, other than Adam's descendants that inhabited the earth. What is my proof ? The Bible. The whole Genesis narrative makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless there were non-Adamic people at the time Caine was cursed and banished by God. Who were the people of Nod where Caine found a wife ? Where did they come from ?

In order to make their speculative theory work, some Bible scholars erroneously suggest they must also have been descendants of Adam, perhaps later descendants. That assertion however doesn't make any sense from a biblical standpoint. Caine was cursed by God, so it logically follows any of Adams descendants, no matter how distant, or removed would have had to recognize Caine, and would have abided by God's decision to cast him out. There's no way Cain could have remained with them or taken a wife. That clearly wasn't the case.

In addition, this theory reverses the narrative in Genesis. 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. 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 ?

What about the story of Noah ? Noah sent a dove out from the ark, and it returned with a olive twig plucked off a tree. Where did the olive twig come from, if the entire surface of the world had been covered by water ? Noah would have immediately and intuitively recognized the flood was not a global, but a regional event. He also would have realized somewhere out there the primordial non-Adamic people Caine found refuge with had probably survived the flood. In Noah's mind, the flood and all its' associated death was completely pointless, because one of his sons ventured out into that world, just as Caine did, and the whole process of corruption was just going to repeat itself over again.

Hence, Noah plants a vineyard and becomes a falling down drunk. What other explanation is there ? Was Noah merely suffering form PTSD ? I don't think so. He faithfully did everything God had instructed him to do. He had no reason other than what I've described to have suffered such a debilitating mental breakdown. Does this fall into the category of conjecture ? Sure it does. Is it any less speculative or unbiblical than Caine marrying one of the descendants of Adam, or Adam's descendants having relations with angels ? Duuh ?!

 

[stephen583]

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth. which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind, and God saw that it was good " (Genesis 1:21 KJV).

Are there dinosaurs in the Bible ? I believe there are. The thing about the KJV is that it was written hundreds of years ago. I believe sometime around the 16th or 17th Century. If you look at the original Hebrew, the words "great whales" appears as "the terrible sea creatures" or "sea monsters". In various other renditions of the Bible, these phrases replace the words "great whales" which was a 17th century extrapolation based on what they knew about marine biology, which wasn't much..

Of course we know today there's nothing "terrible" or "monstrous" about great whales. They are some of the most benign creature on the planet. So what is Genesis 1:21 talking about, if not great whales ? Could it be referring to prehistoric aquatic reptiles, like plesiosaurs and kronosaurus ? Google pictures of these prehistoric marine predators, and tell me whether you think they don't look a whole lot more terrible and monstrous than a great whale !

I also find it interesting "winged fowl" are mentioned in the same creative narrative as having been brought forth from the water in this same verse, (Genesis 1:21). Is the Bible referring to modern birds ? That wouldn't hardly be scientifically correct, would it ? Modern birds would not exist for hundreds of millions of years.

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 !

 

[TruthfullySpeaking]

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

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

 

[46AND2]

We can take a look at what the Bible says. This passage is the first use of the word: "kind". We have herbs, grass and fruit. The key word here is seed. So a kind is something that is able to reproduce itself. According to Collins DNA is the Language of Life and the Language of God. God said: "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass," then we read: "earth brought forth grass," we read that a "kind, whose seed". So there is a strong association between "kind" and "seed" or the ability to reproduce itself.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

This is almost like a puzzle or a riddle. We have a 3400 year old document and today we have modern Science that can help us to solve the puzzle and try to make an attempt to understand what a kind is. Because we have to look at context to try and figure out the meaning of the word "kind". It is not our job to tell you want the meaning of the word "KIND". You are responsible to discover the truth for yourself and it is up to you to figure out the meaning of the word.

As usual, that doesn't come close to answering my questions.

 

[46AND2]

We can take a look at what the Bible says. This passage is the first use of the word: "kind". We have herbs, grass and fruit. The key word here is seed. So a kind is something that is able to reproduce itself. According to Collins DNA is the Language of Life and the Language of God. God said: "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass," then we read: "earth brought forth grass," we read that a "kind, whose seed". So there is a strong association between "kind" and "seed" or the ability to reproduce itself.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

This is almost like a puzzle or a riddle. We have a 3400 year old document and today we have modern Science that can help us to solve the puzzle and try to make an attempt to understand what a kind is. Because we have to look at context to try and figure out the meaning of the word "kind". It is not our job to tell you want the meaning of the word "KIND". You are responsible to discover the truth for yourself and it is up to you to figure out the meaning of the word.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

However, scientists do also tend to use well known paraphyletic taxons in general discussions which only confuses the matter more.

To check out the proper taxons, this Tree of Life Web page is a good resource:

http://tolweb.org/Catarrhini/16293