HUmans are a species of ape and so was Jesus if you are a believer - does that mean God is ape-like too?

Question

Humans did not come from apes. No qualified person in the scientific community has ever made that claim, including Darwin. All apes and humans are desceneded from a single proto-ape species that lived millions of years ago and no longer exists. Thus humans can be said to be closely related to the other apes, but we are certainly not descended from them. Actually, we are apes, no less so than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. Whether or not you choose to subscribe to evolutionary theory, there is no doubt that all human beings, including Jesus Christ himself, are classified, both genetically and morphologically as an ape species

Answer 1

Yes , but he can jump faster than a common monkey. Like the one which Arnorld Zwawagner killed with a missile , God is so fast and he keep jumping from one secrad place to another each and all the time. But he does not have a tail.

Answer 2

This question often crops up among evolution disbelievers. And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates, it ignores the fact that evolutionists have a ready answer to it.

First, evolutionists strongly deny the idea that men came from the apes. They insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.

Secondly, evolution does not propose that all members of a type evolved into another type, but that only a small group of individuals, genetically isolated from the others, evolved, leaving the others to remain the same.

A perceptive person will recognize that both of these points are nothing more than story telling. The hypothetical ape-like ancestor does not exist, and there is no evidence that it ever did. The "peripheral isolates" claim may sound reasonable, and there are recent examples of isolated groups acquiring new traits through adaptation, but none of any group acquired new suites of functioning genes through random mutation, such as production of either an ape or a man from an ape-like ancestor would require.

Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Or, why don't we have the required intermediate forms? How can such change happen? The claim that transitional individuals were few in number, and thus unlikely to be fossilized and discovered, rings hollow. The fact is, we don't have them! The evolution claims are only stories. In their story, man and apes diverged from the imaginary ancestor some seven million years ago. Surely some would be fossilized.

We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation. The best alteration science has observed has produced only novel recombinations -- most deteriorate the genetic information and thus harm the offspring. Many mutations are fatal. Evolution requires trillions of innovative mutations to produce man from lower forms, and at least millions to produce man or apes from an ape-like ancestor. None have been observed.

Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better.

Answer 3

If you planted an apple tree would you expect to get a willow tree? or if you plant a carrot seed would you expect a Pumpkin? No everything reproduces in it's own kind Apes produce Apes still to this day dogs get dogs cows get cows frogs are reproducing frogs,rabbits reproduce as rabbits not woolves get the picture God made the Apes and humans not vice versa! God is not apelike neither are the apes Godlike no and my ancestors are and were all human thank you, if you want to be an ape then so be it,if you can that is,but I doubt you will be able to, even though you may want to, so as to discredit the true God you will never be able to even though you really may want to, no offence meant but come on be serious, this truly is laughable, I keep even hearing and seing people saying about how there is proof that evolution has been proven yet to this day there I have never seen this so called flawed proof, yes there have been more theories but No proff! Zero, Nada, if there were any smudge of any type of lead that might lead people to be able to really say that it would have been snached years ago as proof, but there isn't any that's why people had to invent some and that has been shown up, there have been a few things found which may have seemed as proof as some would have said, but those were found to be fake no , no Proof!!!!!!!

Answer 4

Humans are not "species of ape," we are simply descendants and derivatives therof. There is no god so that point is moot. Apes are our ancestors, but there was much much more evolution happening long before an ape became an ape. That people are still having a difficult time understanding and accepting evolution is absolutely sad and laughable at the same time. Wake up and read a book people. be well, Jack

Answer 5

Most full on Christians would disagree with you. They would say they don't believe in evolution, so they don't believe that Jesus was an ape. (That might upset some people, you realize?)
If you believe in evolution, then you generally don't believe in the divine creation of the earth. Although I do, both.
I have some beliefs in evolution, and I am a Christian. I have no real problems believing both theories.
I have a deep interest in Anthropology, and archealogy, paleantology etc, and I also have deep spirital beliefs, some Christian, some Budhist, and some of my own making.
In either case, Jesus was not an ape, just as you and I aren't apes.

Answer 6

Who makes the classifications - men do. When they assume that we evolved but have no concrete proof but the missing link which is still missing. We are similar to apes, just like apes and other animals are similar because we live and share the same environment, come of man, we both breathe oxygen, drink water, eat fruits and meat, obviously we would share the same characteristics. The difference comes about with intelligence which cannot be evolved, how do you calculate or test the evolution of intelligence and how have man become more intelligent. We define intelligence maybe by the technology that we have over time but we still have the same basic intelligence just that we are testing and finding out more about our surroundings (nature) but it is always there.

Answer 7

i'm able to comfortably settle for that darwin could have been incorrect, had I been born in 1840 i could probable have self assurance much extra... yet darwin, wallace, gould, miller, yet another miller, watson, crick, mendel, dobazanski, and endless hundreds of different scientists all simultaeneously being incorrect relating to the extraordinary comparable subject remember? That i detect no longer ordinary to swallow... You your self pronounced that faith and technological understanding can bypass hand in hand, why can no longer this be one occasion? "once you're a supporter of evolution, are you a minimum of keen to locate the possibility that it may no longer relatively be real?" specific, ask every person who is conscious the clinical technique and what it quite is that technological understanding is desperate out to do and you gets a reliable unanimous "specific!" if einstien did no longer entertain the possibility that newton replaced into incorrect he might have in no way arise with relativity "Has evolution, in this specific edge, been shown yet, or it quite relies upon empirical data and conjecture" close... it quite is consistent with empirical data and logical inference. conjecture is basically as sturdy as hypothesis... and hypothesis/conjecture on my own does not make for sturdy technological understanding "except the reasoning at the back of that denial is built on a reliable, cogent, coherent philosophical beginning up." close returned... you may choose a reliable, cogent (extraordinary use of logical terminology BTW) and coherent clinical beginning up, as a results of fact: A) we are speaking approximately technological understanding... in case you have been speaking approximately proving god or some thing then specific, this could be the case and B) technological understanding is inductive, philosophy is often deductive. and no deductive argument could be reliable/cogent (purely valid/sound)

Answer 8

you begin with a false statement and the rest of your question and commentary is tainted because of that.

Humans and apes have some similarities but humans were created in the image of God, by a direct creative act of God, fully human, fully formed, fully "evolved".

to say God would be ape-like is like saying Michelangelo would have had to be made out of granite.

God bless!

Answer 9

Your question is faulty as far as logic is constrained. Humans are not an ape species. Any statement to the opposite is merely an hypothesis.

Answer 10

God made man.
Man says man is related to apes.
man is stupid.
man is human, not ape.