Why do we look so much like apes?

[ViaCrucis]

With smart remarks like that you just may join them soon.

Comments like this demonstrate disinterest in any actual conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Keachian]

I gave scripture above proving that God appears as a man. I feel no obligation to 'explain' why He might appear in other ways at other times. What difference does it make if He appears as man......or as an eagle or the blowing wind through the trees if He so chooses?

Then why is him appearing as a man the special default one?

 

[Assyrian]

One thing that would convince me is if the Bible actually stated it.

Sorry there is no promise in the bible that it will provide passages to clear up every scientific mistake you make interpreting the bible. There is no passage explain the earth really does go round the sun, no passage the early church could quote to flat earthers like Cosmas to say the earth really was a sphere. If people believed the earth really was sitting on literal pillars over a watery abyss, there is nothing in the bible to contradict it. The only evidence God has provided to teach us about the universe he created is the universe he created.

Until the Reformation every Christian believe and most of the church still do, that bread is literally transformed into Christ's body during braking of bread. There is nothing in scripture to contradict this or say no it really stay just bread, it is a symbol. Interestingly, protestant denominations began to turn from the literal interpretation of 'this is my body' around the time Galileo overturned Aristotelian physics of substance and accidents used by Aquinas to explain transubstantiation, that it was only the outward accidents, the appearance of bread that remained, the true substance was transformed.

Or if the Bible had stories about "people" before people.

Actually Medieval Rabbis thought there were a few passages that said that, Deut 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations. When were these thousand generations? Because it stretches back way past the genealogies.

I am sure one could twist the Bible a little and make it fit into evolution. I see the steps such as first there were fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals and man as the Bible says were the steps of creation being used as a piece of theistic evolution.

Actually TEs I know don't try to read science into the bible, that is much more a creationist approach. If you try to read science into you understanding of scripture, not only will the seeming meaning of scripture keep changing, but we miss what God was actually talking about.

But there are two things that just completely stop this thinking for me. The Bible says that creatures after their creation reproduced according to their kind.

Actually the bible doesn't say that at all

This is flat out against any evolutionary process. now maybe, just maybe after they reproduced according to their kind they would change, but I see no Biblical evidence of that.

Actually a lot of creationist think kinds did exactly that, that the number of 'created kinds' is a lot less than the number of species we see now, and that te created kinds developed into these different species. Personally, I think the word kind simply means different sorts of animals and if the sorts of animals the first humans named developed into further sorts, then these are 'kinds' of animals too and are covered by the biblical term. Creating animals after their kinds simply means creating the different sorts of animals, that includes the newer sorts too 'all thing were created by him'. It doesn't matter if animals evolved into all the different species we see now and find through the fossil record, they were all created by God according to their kind. You could also say as Genesis does, that they were all produced by the earth according to their kind at God's command. Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds.

Second thing that stops me is that the Bible says God breathed into man His spirit. No matter what scientists find, no matter what any of the worlds "smartest" people would ever say, even religious people, ape can not evolve into a spiritual being. Again, maybe, just maybe, ape developed into a manlike creature and then God breathed into him, but I can not see the sequence being that way as stated in the Bible.

But your sequence is one of the most common metaphors in the bible God as a potter making us from clay, you can still have God taking an evolved hominid describe his creation in the potter metaphor and God breathing his spirit in to him, or into them as 'Adam' is not only the Hebrew word for man, it also means mankind. It doesn't actually say God breath his spirit into Adam, it was the breath of life he breathed into Adam's nostrils, but that the breath of life is common to all the animals too. It does talk of God's special care in the creation mankind above any other animals, it may even speak of God creating us in him image as the other creation account describes it, but there is nothing in the passage to contradict evolution. If this really was God's own spirit he breathed into us, then it doesn't contradict science because science tells us nothing about God or the spirit he breathed into mankind.

And if we have to "read bewteen the lines" to understand evolution is being used then that means we have to distort or add to the word of God.

That is why we don't.

I have not taken this lightly, trust me. I have questioned all of it before but nothing ever leaves me with evolution being the way. I left a question a couple pages back but no one has commented on it yet.

Where? The NASA Gorilla question?

Heck, it is still traumatic. Maybe there is evolution, they were hairy too.

I googled
are bald men more evolved?
And it seems a lot of bald men think so, unfortunately the first hit I got was Elmer Fudd.

 

[Assyrian]

Or it could be that these are all extinct apes. If it wasn't for the internet and better bookkeeping skills I would bet that 300 years from now someone would have found this evidence NASA - Gorillas in the Midst of Extinction and said that these were highly developed homo apemanians and was the missing link but only by using the same flawed data and biased theories that they came up with the other specimens. How do we know for sure that these were not just apes??????

You mean if we had no other hominid fossils only extinct gorillas? They would certainly be recognised as a relative, a closer cousin than monkeys because they have features that are more similar to us than monkeys. If they were able to pull DNA from the remains they would see the gorilla DNA was closer to human than monkey too. I don't think they would be hailed as direct ancestor because there are too many features that are distinctly gorilla, but you need to remember palaeontologists are very happy with cousins as transitional fossils, they don't need to be direct ancestors.

Anyone have comments on what I posted earlier? Why are there so many gaps?

You see the most rapid evolutionary changes in small populations. As well as having very distinct adaptation pressures, it is easy to lose genes just by the statistical luck of the draw, and new genes can spread quickly through a small population. So the biggest changes happen in small isolated population which leave very few fossils, while the populations with the largest numbers spread across the largest areas who leave the most fossils, remain relatively unchanged, until the country cousins move back and take over. Which is what Darwin said he expected (he didn't talk about genes though). We shouldn't expect large number of transitional fossils, we should expect some, and in all the major areas evolution says are linked. Which is what we have found.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Comments like this demonstrate disinterest in any actual conversation.

-CryptoLutheran

As it concerns conversation with those of your ilk..............good.

I would rather talk to honest seekers or win a tender hearted sinner to the Lord than talk to those who are so steeped in lies that they cannot be reasoned with.

 

[SkyWriting]

You see the most rapid evolutionary changes in small populations.

And just how does DNA mutate rapidly and effectively among a tiny number of individuals without snuffing out the survivors in its luck of the draw blind blundering way?

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry there is no promise in the bible that it will provide passages to clear up every scientific mistake you make interpreting the bible. There is no passage explain the earth really does go round the sun <snip>

The earth doesn't "really" go around the sun. The two masses orbit each other in a perfect balance.
And the center point is not the center point of the sun either.

I'm sorry but your claim that the sun is stationary is wrong(er) still.
The sun is speeding through the cosmos.
At no point will your perspective be scientifically accurate enough
to be perfectly correct. I'll be happy to nit-pick on you all day
if you insist on such trivia.


I suggest you use the human perspective
that the most intelligent people in the universe all use.
The earth is stationary and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Why does the red color appear at the horizon during sunset?

 

[SkyWriting]

...but there is nothing in the passage to contradict evolution.

Other passages tell the story about what is will happen and what is important and basic:

2 Peter 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

The strongest/fittest will survive?
"How blessed are those who are humble, because it is they who will inherit the earth!


Species must to adapt to the environment?

1 Timothy 5:16 If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

The Bible reads in COMPLETE DENIAL of natural selection.
Not that it doesn't exist, but that it is an abhorrence to God and must be fought, tooth and nail.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

SkyWriting: How does caring for widows and orphans disprove natural selection?

I would rather talk to honest seekers or win a tender hearted sinner to the Lord than talk to those who are so steeped in lies that they cannot be reasoned with.

I know the feeling.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

SkyWriting;

The Bible reads in COMPLETE DENIAL of natural selection.

Not that it doesn't exist, but that it is an abhorrence to God and must be fought, tooth and nail.

Actually, what nature 'selects' are organisms ready for extinction. Just the opposite to what the dreamers tell us.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Actually, what nature 'selects' are organisms ready for extinction. Just the opposite to what the dreamers tell us.

So nature selections organisms for extinction by ... driving other organisms to extinction?

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting: How does caring for widows and orphans disprove natural selection?

At least you are reading thoroughly and catching any missteps. Good work.

 

[Assyrian]

And just how does DNA mutate rapidly and effectively among a tiny number of individuals without snuffing out the survivors in its luck of the draw blind blundering way?

The DNA doesn't mutate any more rapidly, it just spreads through a small population more rapidly. That is small population too, not tiny, you do get species that have survived very tight bottlenecks, but then again as you say a lot more won't. You need a population of a few thousand to be out of danger. But this is a lot smaller than the sort of numbers you get in larger populations like the estimate 60 to100 million bison before Bill Cody arrived.

Harmful mutations still have an uphill struggle against natural selection, but neutral mutations can get fixed in a population simply because each gene in an organism has a 50:50 chance of getting passed on to an offspring. It is a coin toss. Even if a gene make up half the population, the chances are it won't be 50% the next generation. Toss a coin ten times and you don't always get 5 heads and five tails, you will often get 4&6, 6&4, 3&7, 7&3. Now the gene represented by the 3 or 4 is starting off with a disadvantage. A few bad runs like that and it can disappear. That is just neutral genes. Beneficial genes have the coin toss loaded in their favour (if that isn't mixing metaphors). But this happen much faster in a small population. Toss a coin a million times and the results will be very close to 500,000 each. You will still get genes disappearing that way, but it is an awful lot slower.

 

[Assyrian]

The earth doesn't "really" go around the sun. The two masses orbit each other in a perfect balance.
And the center point is not the center point of the sun either.

No, but the centre point is inside the sun, 449 km from the centre of a star whose diameter is 1.49 million km. The earth really does go round the sun, the sun just wobbles.

I'm sorry but your claim that the sun is stationary is wrong(er) still.
The sun is speeding through the cosmos.

So is the rest of the solar system. You can still discuss the movements and mechanics of the planets going around the sun, while they all circle the centre of the galaxy and the galaxy moves around the galactic cluster. How about you address my point that for 1500 years the church understood the bible as saying the sun went round the earth, but the church had to deal with their interpretation being wrong without God providing a verse saying the earth really does go round the sun (or if you want that earth and sun all go round the centre of the galaxy)

At no point will your perspective be scientifically accurate enough
to be perfectly correct. I'll be happy to nit-pick on you all day
if you insist on such trivia.

I am not looking for science, trivia or otherwise from the bible. Creationists do, so did the geocentrists. The problem isn't finding new scientific trivia from the bible but having to abandon old ideas we believed the bible taught that science has shown wrong. Because while science keeps changing, it never goes back to an idea it has shown wrong. We have never gone back to a flat earth or geocentrism. And the bible never corrected those mistakes itself from scripture. God expects us to learn about the universe for ourselves, which we do through science.

I suggest you use the human perspective
that the most intelligent people in the universe all use.
The earth is stationary and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Why does the red color appear at the horizon during sunset?

Because the earth isn't stationary and if we are talking about what is physically happening to the earth and sun, what is actually doing the moving, then it is the earth rotating as it orbits the sun, not the sun hurrying to set. If we are talking about something else, like red sunsets, then it is quite reasonable to use terms that have remained in idiomatic use after we learned the sun wasn't actually rising or going down.

 

[Assyrian]

Other passages tell the story about what is will happen and what is important and basic:

2 Peter 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

The strongest/fittest will survive?
"How blessed are those who are humble, because it is they who will inherit the earth!


Species must to adapt to the environment?

1 Timothy 5:16 If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

The Bible reads in COMPLETE DENIAL of natural selection.
Not that it doesn't exist, but that it is an abhorrence to God and must be fought, tooth and nail.

I think you misunderstand the word fit. It doesn't mean going to the gym and pumping weights, it means suited to the environment.

 

[Reminisce]

Just accept it: We are an upright-walking, talking species of ape and no amount of religion in the world can hide that fact.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Just accept it: We are an upright-walking, talking species of ape and no amount of religion in the world can hide that fact.

You don't catch on slowly, friend. You don't catch on at all.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," Gen. 1;26-27

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image..."

Just how hard is it for you to grasp that the Holy Spirit inspired this expressive language on purpose so that there would be no mistaking what he was talking about? You're telling us that you can't make the obvious connection? Or is it that you WON'T make the obvious connection?

So was the Spirit talking about this:

or this...

Now, tell the readers what the genetic connection is between apes and man. Give us the formula of that connection and just how it happened in technical biological terms. Since we can do that as it regards lions & tigers, horses & donkeys, etc. it should be easy for you.

 

[Incariol]

You don't catch on slowly, friend. You don't catch on at all.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," Gen. 1;26-27

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image..."

Just how hard is it for you to grasp that the Holy Spirit inspired this expressive language on purpose so that there would be no mistaking what he was talking about? You're telling us that you can't make the obvious connection? Or is it that you WON'T make the obvious connection?

So was the Spirit talking about this:

or this...

Now, tell the readers what the genetic connection is between apes and man. Give us the formula of that connection and just how it happened in technical biological terms. Since we can do that as it regards lions & tigers, horses & donkeys, etc. it should be easy for you.

Humans are apes. That is the genetic connection, we are also Primates, Eutheria, Chordates, vertebrates and mammals.

Simple enough? Hominoidea are apes. We are Hominoidea. So we are apes.

Reminisce is not "failing to catch on". Since you are the one that we are having to explain basic biology to, you might want to hold back on those sort of remarks.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Humans are apes. That is the genetic connection, we are also Primates, Eutheria, Chordates, vertebrates and mammals.

Simple enough? Hominoidea are apes. We are Hominoidea. So we are apes.

Reminisce is not "failing to catch on". Since you are the one that we are having to explain basic biology to, you might want to hold back on those sort of remarks.

Stupid remark to a retired biology teacher. Good grief.

Nope, that doesn't do it and it isn't what I asked for. I didn't ask for some not-so-clever chart makers imagination. I asked for direct genetic information that reveals the formula for the transformation.

For instance: horses with donkeys = mules (a hybrid by the way)

Horses - 32 pairs of chromosomes
donkeys 31 pairs of chromosomes

They can mate but the offspring cannot reproduce.

So give the genetic reason why humans cannot mate with apes & produce successful offspring which can likewise reproduce a viable offspring which can, in turn, reproduce.

Explain it as easily as this:

This person has downs syndrome because of chromosome 21. Easily understood and easily explainable. So do the same with humans as it applies with the necessary genetics to reproduce an ape-type-human. Better yet, explain the genetic formula that led to the division between man and ape at the time when they diverged from the so-called common ancestor.

Now you quit playing games with me and give a direct, factual answer. No more artwork or imaginative charts.

Good luck.

 

[Keachian]

So was the Spirit talking about this:

or this...

Neither, God doesn't have a physical image apart from that of Christ