Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Astrophile]

On evolution charts, such as the one I showed you with Richard Dawkins, there is no "connected sequence between me and my 20-greats-grandmother".

The dots will either represent a new species, or a new genus, or both.

Either way -- drawing a line between a genus and its various species (micro), or drawing a line between a genus and another genus (macro) -- it's still a game of connect-the-dots.

But drawing a line from me to my dad to my grandfather and so on for twenty generations (micro) is taking my point too far.

The connected sequence between that links modern humans (Homo sapiens) with, for example, Homo erectus or Australopithecus afarensis is the same as the sequence that links me with my 20-greats-grandmother extended over about 100,000 generations instead of 22. The fact that I don't know all the links between either between me and my Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis ancestors, or between me and my 20-greats-grandmother, doesn't mean that those links didn't exist or that they were not represented by real living hominins.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, to both questions.

Thank you for an honest answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

The connected sequence between that links modern humans (Homo sapiens) with, for example, Homo erectus or Australopithecus afarensis is the same as the sequence that links me with my 20-greats-grandmother extended over about 100,000 generations instead of 22. The fact that I don't know all the links between either between me and my Homo erectus and Austalopithecus afarensis ancestors, or between me and my 20-greats-grandmother, doesn't mean that those links didn't exist or that they were not represented by real living hominins.

But your "20 greats" have a paper trail that can be followed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But your "20 greats" have a paper trail that can be followed.

Homos don't, and need solid lines to gloss over the potholes.

They oftentimes don't and they don't.

(Why did I put always first? That makes no sense)

 

[returntosender]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

In your opinion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In your opinion.

It's not really an opinion...

 

[driewerf]

That's because, in academia's mind, there was a time when they weren't missing.

That's why I call macroevolution a game of connect-the-dots.

Just draw a line from Dot A to Dot B and make it look nice and smooth.

Really?

Look at this picture:

View attachment 337796

See those nice, smooth, blue lines connecting the dots?

At least we have dots to connect. And we continue to add dots to our impressive pile of dots. With each fossil dug up, with each genome sequenced, with each metabolic pathway unraveled, there could pop up a dot that brings the whole set of connections down. Yet, after 200 years all dots fit nicely.
You on the other hand have still not even grasped the simple rule of debunking the Theory of Evolution: know thy enemy.
The only thing that creationists display is their ignorance and their incapability of processing even he tiniest piece of new information.

 

[driewerf]

Only if you ignore the missing parts and pretend they were there at one point in history.

You may phantasize as much as you want about what the missing parts will reveal. Until today all present parts fit the evolutionary model perfectly.
We might "ignore" the missing parts; you guys ignore the present ones.

 

[Astrid]

At least we have dots to connect. And we continue to add dots to our impressive pile of dots. With each fossil dug up, with each genome sequenced, with each metabolic pathway unraveled, there could pop up a dot that brings the whole set of connections down. Yet, after 200 years all dots fit nicely.
You on the other hand have still not even grasped the simple rule of debunking the Theory of Evolution: know thy enemy.
The only thing that creationists display is their ignorance and their incapability of processing even he tiniest piece of new information.

That's far from the only thing displayed.

Oblivious to "the enemy" being themselves is
one such.

 

[AV1611VET]

You on the other hand have still not even grasped the simple rule of debunking the Theory of Evolution: know thy enemy.

Piece of cake.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created ...

Evolution debunked.

Now ... if you want me to debunk evolution according to your rules, that's not going to happen.

That is a task reserved for Jesus, when He comes back again.

Until He does though, evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation Period.

 

[AV1611VET]

You may phantasize as much as you want about what the missing parts will reveal.

I'm not really interested.

They were grossly malformed human beings.

Until today all present parts fit the evolutionary model perfectly.

After how much chiseling to make them fit?

We might "ignore" the missing parts; you guys ignore the present ones.

You show me any "missing link hominid" on earth, and I'll tell you the same thing.

He was a human being, just like you and I.

One even wrote Psalm 38.

 

[driewerf]

Now ... if you want me to debunk evolution according to your rules, that's not going to happen.

Do you remember this post?

My Day One Challenge

Even if science didn't exist when the universe and world began, we can still use science to look back at the world and its history.What history? The earth was created without a history. Whether you believe it was created in 4004 BC or 4,543,000,000 BC; it was created without a history.

www.christianforums.com

Good fences make good friends, or as the late (and still so inspiring!) Stephen Jay Gould said, religion and science are Not Overlapping Magisteria. NOMA. Fine. Let religion squabble about the nature of the soul, the difference between Purgatory and Hell, the question whether someone can be safed by good works or by grace alone. Let the spiritual be religion’s Magisterium.

Science’s job is to describe and explain the physical. The material, the real world. And science has strict rules when dealing with the physical: empirical evidence is the ultimate arbiter. Not authority, not revelation, not disbelieve. Empirical evidence.

You guys want to debate the question of “Once Saved Always Saved”. Good. Fine. But the moment you cross the fence and make statements about the physical world, you enter science’s realm and play by science’s rules.

The Flood? A physical event, hence where is the empirical evidence?
The changing of water into wine at the Wedding of Cana? A very material thing, hence you play by science’s rules.

The Creation Week? Again, a statement about the material Universe. You enter Science’s playground so again empirical evidence shall be the only accepted argument.

If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want to stick with these rules, then don’t cross the fence. Stay in your safe space or echo chamber, aka your church, mosque, synagogue or Sunday School.

Good fences make good friends, or at least, they clarify the rules by which the discussions are to be held.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

lol the thread title: "Just for final clarification" it would be amazing if adding that line to a thread meant it was actually true. Sadly truth works out to need more than just someone say "Just for final clarification"

 

[driewerf]

Piece of cake.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created ...

Evolution debunked.

Fail. An empty statement. In fact, with a little bit of redaction, Seventh fisher of Men's post can be applied here:
Sadly truth works out to need more than just someone say "debunked"
(The green part has been redacted)

Now ... if you want me to debunk evolution according to your rules, that's not going to happen.

These are the only ones that apply. See my post above.

That is a task reserved for Jesus, when He comes back again.

Until He does though, evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation Period.

And Jesus will do what? Dig up fossils, sequence genomes - which one? Lay bare some metabolic pathway?

And somehow you know, before the research is done the outcome? Then you can tell right now. Or you don't know, hence you don't know the ToE will be invalidated.

 

[Larniavc]

In your opinion.

It’s not an opinion. The facts demonstrate it to be true.

 

[Larniavc]

lol the thread title: "Just for final clarification" it would be amazing if adding that line to a thread meant it was actually true. Sadly truth works out to need more than just someone say "Just for final clarification"

Have you looked at the evidence with an open mind?

 

[returntosender]

Have you looked at the evidence with an open mind?

No, i don't need to

 

[Astrid]

lol the thread title: "Just for final clarification" it would be amazing if adding that line to a thread meant it was actually true. Sadly truth works out to need more than just someone say "Just for final clarification"

And,
" the Bible says it, that settles it"?

 

[AV1611VET]

And Jesus will do what? Dig up fossils, sequence genomes - which one? Lay bare some metabolic pathway?

Maybe take us back in time and let us see Him speak the universe into existence.

Then bring us forward to the time of Moses and watch Him turn citizens into [what you would call] a Cro-magnon or Neanderthal, or some other hominid.

Then you could watch them have children with the same defects as their parents -- and whole societies of these "hominids" being created.

Remember what He said about their children?

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Then he could bring us forward to the near present time and show us paleoarchaeologists digging these guys up and calling them "missing links."

Who knows?

Maybe He will twist Satan's arm and make him admit that he is the father of evolution, and not Charles Darwin; and that he just used Charles Darwin as a scribe.

Dunno.

 

[AV1611VET]

And "the Bible says it, that settles it"?

Cops use that when people break the law.

"The law says it, that settles it."

So do judges.

Anyone who blows a stop sign is going to get a taste of that.

Do you sit in math class and say, "Wait! Wait! Five plus four equal nine!? Let's discuss this!"