Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The confusion is assuming humans came from chimps or today's ape. This is incorrect. Primates share enough genetically to show we have a common starting point.
Sorry, the terminology should be set straight. I was using "ape" incorrectly. From wikipedia:
Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under the current classification system there are two families of hominoids:
• the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 12 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the "lesser apes"
• the family Hominidae consisting of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, collectively known as the "great apes".
You may be a descendant of an ape, but I'm not. My ancestors are Adam and Eve.
Sooner, this is the very type of thinking that I have seen from numerous religious people, and I fear that it is with a lack of knowledge of evolution that you scoff at it. What I have been trying to get at is that there is a common misconception of evolution that pervades the churches and is so often taught at home, that young kids growing up aren't able to distinguish from.
To give you a better idea of what I'm getting at, the impression I see of those who don't agree with evolution tends to be that after millions of years one day an ape will birth a man. For a better representation this seems to be the argument from the creationist side.
APE -> MAN
To be quite honest with you, I agree, I did not descend from ape in the manner that you are speaking. Now, it's hard for me to bring up a picture of what evolution is like because it is non linear. I will do my best though to represent what it is really like.
PILOPITHECUS -> PRONCONSUL -> DRYOPITHECUS -> OREOPITHECUS -> RAMAPITHECUS -> AUSTRALOPETHICUS -> PARANTHROPIS -> ADVANCED AUSTRALOPITHECUS -> HOMO ERECTUS -> EARLY HOMO SAPIEN -> SOLO MAN -> RHODESIAN MAN -> NEANDERTHAL MAN -> CRO-MAGNON MAN -> MODERN MAN
Now be honest, how many of these could you have named off the top of your head? Sometimes it's better to look at it going backwards than forwards it may help you understand it a little better. But, as I said evolution is non-linear so it is difficult to put the progression I showed as them all being descendants of man. In other words, think of it like a family tree at a much slower pace. Some parts of the family branch off, do not have kids and that particular branch of the family tree stops. Meanwhile, other parts of the family tree continue to have kids who keep the family name going and from Super Great Grandpa Billy Bob Smith you currently have Robert Smith the newest born. Is this starting to make sense?
Anywho.. I believe things (animals, plants etc) do evolve. I still believe in Jesus and God. I truly don't have a problem with it reconciling the two. I understand that my belief in God is less about hard scientific facts and more about a faith whereas evolution has some scientific validity. Again... I have zero problems with that.
Before I go I have to comment on the following quote from above:
"And evolutionists don't like the idea that the supernatural powers of God eliminate their theory."
That just reads backwards to me... I've always thought of it this way:
"And hard line literal relgious folks don't like the idea that the natural law of evolution eliminates their God".
At least I've heard it that way more than the other way.
Considering that the scientific method is to either prove or disprove a hypothesis I'm pretty sure if the "Evolutionary Theory" was disproven then all would be o.k. I don't picture scientists in white coats jumping out of windows.
You stand behind Richard Dawkins, then you believe in what he says or claims. If not them you don't.
It all comes down to literal interpretation. If you're a literalist, then you have to somehow accept both creation stories in genesis and the Adam and rib thing.
It should be noted that the catholic church has a teaching document entitled The Gift of Scripture where it's said, “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision”. From the 2005 article in the London Times: They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.” As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
And what did Hitler use as his excuse for violence and justification for what he did? It was the mechanism of evolution called survival of the fittest.
Knowing facts is not a sign of intelligence. It only denotes a good memory.
Knowing how to USE facts is different. Sometimes we confuse the two.
Person A may know all there is to know about oil, Person B knows how to use oil, sell oil and profit from oil. He even knows how to tell when the oil in his car needs changing.
Which is the most intelligent? The one that has memorized and can quote scripture, or the one that understands what Man needs and tries to do something about it?
All three. So do you have all three? Or would you say your an expert on the last one?
When has science been wrong that the scientists didn't accept it..
Science can never be wrong because they have rules that admit there are no absolutes. Even though they will claim that evolution is a true fact like gravity or electricity (Dawkins quote). These things we can experience, evolution you cannot experience. Bad comparison.
Umm, excuse me for such ignorance. How did I mix up that chimp with an ape?? Silly me....
I thought we came from cows? After all we often use their tissue for heart valves. I wonder why chimp tissue won't work?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After all we often use their tissue for heart valves. I wonder why chimp tissue won't work?
