[_ Old Earth _] Monkeys can't breed human beings

[Heidi]

I got news for those who try to contradict the bible, the "wisdom" of the world is foolishness in God's sight."

And foolish it is. It's an embarrassment to the scientific world that it's taken 150 years for them to see that monkeys can't breed human beings. That's exactly what scientists are claiming when they say that humans are the descendants of apes or monkeys (they don't even know for sure because that notion is still imaginary) because mating and breeding between ancestors is what produces descendants.

Their impossible theory also neglects to explain how the male or female was created. Which animal was first? The male or female? :o Whichever one scientists claim is first, how did the other one get there? How did a male animal mutate into a female animal? Just more luck? :

Where did the gene for a uterus pop up in a male? Out of thin air? Or did a male gene just change once into a uterus, then change back into the male gene? :

So sorry, guys, but human explanations for the origin of man and animals are far more irrational, bizarre, and impossible than anything in the bible. Unbelievable. :roll:

 

[Slevin]

I got news for those who try to contradict the bible, the "wisdom" of the world is foolishness in God's sight."

Right.

And foolish it is. It's an embarrassment to the scientific world that it's taken 150 years for them to see that monkeys can't breed human beings. That's exactly what scientists are claiming when they say that humans are the descendants of apes or monkeys (they don't even know for sure because that notion is still imaginary) because mating and breeding between ancestors is what produces descendants.

You have no idea what you're talking about. That is not what "the scientific world" is saying.

Their impossible theory also neglects to explain how the male or female was created. Which animal was first? The male or female? :o Whichever one scientists claim is first, how did the other one get there? How did a male animal mutate into a female animal? Just more luck? :

Male and female are not different animals.

Where did the gene for a uterus pop up in a male? Out of thin air? Or did a male gene just change once into a uterus, then change back into the male gene? :

What?

So sorry, guys, but human explanations for the origin of man and animals are far more irrational, bizarre, and impossible than anything in the bible. Unbelievable. :roll:

Until you actually present an accurate description of what the scientific explanations for the origin of man and animals are, you have no right to label them as irrational, bizarre and impossible.

The only unbelievable thing is how you can think that we actually think the stuff you're typing in this OP.

 

[Barbarian]

It points out the obvious. The enemy of science is not religion.

It's ignorance.

 

[Heidi]

Until you actually present an accurate description of what the scientific explanations for the origin of man and animals are, you have no right to label them as irrational, bizarre and impossible.

The only unbelievable thing is how you can think that we actually think the stuff you're typing in this OP.

You didn't anwer one single question.

How did any female animal get on earth?

So how do scientists claim that man descended from the ape? Perhaps through the toenails of their ancestors? :o Do you know that mating and breeding between ancestors is what produces descendants? Or not? :o

 

[Slevin]

How did any female animal get on earth?

The way any female is produced, through sexual procreation.

So how do scientists claim that man descended from the ape?

They don't.

Perhaps through the toenails of their ancestors? :o Do you know that mating and breeding between ancestors is what produces descendants? Or not? :o

Yes, but I also know what scientists say and you do not.

 

[Heidi]

Yes, but I also know what scientists say and you do not.

It appears that I know a lot more about evolution than you do. Evolutionists do indeed claim that humans descended from the ape, which is of course, as impossible as it is is bizarre. ;-)

 

[Slevin]

It appears that I know a lot more about evolution than you do. Evolutionists do indeed claim that humans descended from the ape, which is of course, as impossible as it is is bizarre. ;-)

No, they don't.

 

[blunthitta4life]

It appears that I know a lot more about evolution than you do. Evolutionists do indeed claim that humans descended from the ape, which is of course, as impossible as it is is bizarre.

Actually these "evolutionists" claim that we desecended from a common ancestor, which is very different from what you said.

And actually you don't know much about evolution from your previous statements. The internet isn't a good place to learn about evolution if you only go to Christian websites about evolution. I wouldn't want to learn about the holocaust from a neonazi website.

Their impossible theory also neglects to explain how the male or female was created. Which animal was first? The male or female? Whichever one scientists claim is first, how did the other one get there? How did a male animal mutate into a female animal? Just more luck?

Accoridng to the evidence neither male nor female was first. Organisms produced asexually for most of the time life has been on earth, sexual repoduction is fairly new. However, scientists are uncertain on how sexual reproduction came to be.

Where did the gene for a uterus pop up in a male? Out of thin air? Or did a male gene just change once into a uterus, then change back into the male gene?

If you actually knew any biology then you would know that many organisms have both female and male sex organs. Mutations would easily solve your question, however like I said, we don't know the exact method.

By the way, just because we don't know how exactly every mutation came to be doesnt mean evolution is any less correct. So don't try to pull that crap. I could use the same logic on the bible and "prove" it wrong.

 

[Heidi]

If you actually knew any biology then you would know that many organisms have both female and male sex organs. Mutations would easily solve your question, however like I said, we don't know the exact method.

By the way, just because we don't know how exactly every mutation came to be doesnt mean evolution is any less correct. So don't try to pull that crap. I could use the same logic on the bible and "prove" it wrong.

Sorry but you are in error. Firstly, they don't know who this common ancestor is so it's an imaginary belief.

Secondly, evolutionists claim that humans came directly from the wombs of half-men, half-beasts called transitional species. They do not realize that no animal, fictious, or otherwise can produce a human being as a descendant. Only humans can breed humans. That means that zebras, giraffes, elephants, monkeys, lions, tigers, and bears, cannot produce humans descendants. But unfortunately, it will probably take "sceitnsist who call themselves intelligent a long time to understand that. :roll:

 

[blunthitta4life]

Sorry but you are in error. Firstly, they don't know who this common ancestor is so it's an imaginary belief.

You didn't even read what I posted. Stop using logical fallacies to push your agenda.

Secondly, evolutionists claim that humans came directly from the wombs of half-men, half-beasts called transitional species.

Provide a source claiming what these "evolutionists" claim please. I happen to do undergraduate research in genetics and microbiology so I am very much aware of what "evolutionists" claim so you are going to have to do a better job.

Do you really want to understand how evolution works or do you already have your mind made up?

 

[Slevin]

Sorry but you are in error. Firstly, they don't know who this common ancestor is so it's an imaginary belief.

Non sequitur. Not knowing doesn't make it an imaginary belief.

Secondly, evolutionists claim that humans came directly from the wombs of half-men, half-beasts called transitional species.

No, they don't. You have created an ignorant straw-man of evolutionary theory.

They do not realize that no animal, fictious, or otherwise can produce a human being as a descendant.

They do realise, and in fact they know more about it than you do. That is why they don't claim that an animal produced a human.

 

[Orion]

For the love of all that's holy, Christian people, . . . . PLEASE stop posting things that aren't true at all, claiming that it is what your opponents believe. You make yourself look rather foolish and it embarrasses your side.
For what it's worth, I don't agree with the entirety of the evolutionary process, but I am not going to pull out bad info thinking that it will turn the minds of evolutionists. All it does is make them laugh at the lack of education of those who are against it. :roll:

 

[Newkid00]

Heidi you know nothing about evolution. You look like an idiot pulling out information out of thin air and saying its true. Just stop before you embarrass yourself more.

 

[dancing queen]

Lets be honest, no one can prove evolution, and no one can prove God. I find it amazing that some people on this forum think they will be able to disprove evolution when scientist who spends their whole lives researching it still can't prove it did or didn't happen.

 

[Slevin]

Lets be honest, no one can prove evolution, and no one can prove God. I find it amazing that some people on this forum think they will be able to disprove evolution when scientist who spends their whole lives researching it still can't prove it did or didn't happen.

What do you mean by proof?

 

[Barbarian]

The deadliest consequence of that kind of thing was summed up well over a thousand years ago, by St. Augustine:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn. De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim

 

[dancing queen]

By proof I mean there is no evidence that can be shown to prove that evolution is true with no doubts. There are lots of pieces of evidence which may suggest it is a possible (or even mostly likely if that's what you believe) explanation.

In the same way there is nothing I can do or show anyone to prove God exists, to show an unbeliever that he is for real. God has proved Himself to me, but to an unbeliever this is rubbish. In this world there may be signs for the existence of God but there is nothing to make it 100%, that is why it is called faith.

 

[Slevin]

By proof I mean there is no evidence that can be shown to prove that evolution is true with no doubts.

And there never will be?

In the same way there is nothing I can do or show anyone to prove God exists, to show an unbeliever that he is for real. God has proved Himself to me, but to an unbeliever this is rubbish. In this world there may be signs for the existence of God but there is nothing to make it 100%, that is why it is called faith.

No, it is not the same way.

 

[dancing queen]

OK, prove to everyone on this forum that God exists. The evidence you put forward can not require opinion etc. to be excepted as proof of God.

 

[Slevin]

OK, prove to everyone on this forum that God exists. The evidence you put forward can not require opinion etc. to be excepted as proof of God.

I don't believe in God.