Origin of man... from Adam and Eve or do we believe in Monkey business?, lol?

Question

Had a heated debate on this topic, would like more feedback. My view is "God will come to earth and laugh at our scientists about their monkeying around and pretending we came from Apes", lol

Answer 1

Well I don't think that God is up in heaven laughing his *** off at the idiotic theories man has about how we got here but I do know that for others who think we came from monkeys, then I am definitely having a good laugh at your expense.
Ps...to theslayor....you're the one thinking way too much about the question. It's not about macro-evolution, how organisms evolve or how us, as people evolve....the question is quite simple: Did we descend from Adam and Eve, who were created by God or descend from monkeys who were created by, or wait....hmmm they were created by God as well. I guess we know the answer!

Answer 2

You really need to unpack your question a bit, because there are a lot of ignorant people out there on both sides of the issue who don't understand what they propose to believe in.

First, micro-evolution is a fact. You can see it in operation when looking at your children. They are not exact reproductions of their parents. The change is micro-evolution in action.

Second, macro-evolution is a theory. The theory states that one species can evolve into another species. This theory is what people are generally talking about in this debate BUT they incorrectly refer to the evidence supporting micro-evolution as supporting macro-evolution.

I don't have a "feeling" about evolution. I consider the facts and evaluate the possible explanations.

The one concept that macro-evolutionary theory cannot get around is the law of irreducible complexity. Said differently, there are certain organs whose function requires their current level of complexity to function. They are unable to evolve from a lesser organ. For example, the eyeball is too comlpex to develop from anything less complex. If you take away away single piece, it fails to function. Thus, before it "evolved" into its current state, the eyeball would have been a useless mass of flesh - not something that makes an organism superior to its predecessor. So the development of the eyeball runs counter to the functional assumptions that underlie the theory of macro-evolution.

If only people would read and think more before opening their mouth... Ah, well, on to world peace...

Answer 3

I am a monkey's uncle. I am the very proud desendent of an ape like creature that thought it was better to climb down out of the trees, walk upright, and steal meat from the lions, insead of being safe and hungry up in the trees. Creation is nothing more that a children's fairy tale.

The guy above is funny, quoting 20 and 40 year old texts to make his lame point. Why not read something more current or better yet go to a real university and get a real education.

Answer 4

Theories come and theories go. Numerous scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not, occur. Scientists have illustrated why the theory is unworkable in many professional books and journals; yet, because of media hype, news coverage, and "nature programs" often aired on TV, the public is largely unaware that scientists disagree sharply upon their diverse speculations. For every theory advanced by man, someone else has advanced facts to prove that theory wrong. Let us look briefly at what some of the scientists themselves say about the big bang theory.
"The French Mathematician, Lecompte de Nouy, examined the laws of probability that a single molecule of high dissymmetry could be formed by the action of chance. De Nouy found that, on an average, the time needed to form one such molecule of our terrestrial globe would be about 10 to the 253 power billions of years. "But," continued de Nouy, ironically, "let us admit that no matter how small the chance it could happen, one molecule could be created by such astronomical odds of chance. However, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. Thus we either admit the miracle or doubt the absolute truth of science" (Quoted in "Is Science Moving Toward Belief in God?" by Paul A. Fisher, The Wanderer, Nov. 7, 1985; cited in Kingdoms In Conflict, C. Colson, p. 66).
"Probably the strongest argument against a 'big bang' is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.], the theory is able to explain so little" (G. Burbidge, Was There Really A Big Bang in Nature?, 233:3640).
"This persistent weakness has haunted the big bang theory ever since the 1930's. It can probably be understood most easily by thinking of what happens when a bomb explodes. After detonation, fragments are thrown into the air, moving with essentially uniform motion. As is well known in physics, uniform motion is inert, capable in itself of doing nothing. It is only when the fragments of a bomb strike a target-a building for example-that anything happens... But in a big bang there are not targets at all, because the whole universe takes part in the explosion. There is nothing for the expanded material to hit against, and after sufficient expansion, the whole affair should go dead" (Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, 92, 1981, pp. 521, 523).
"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location or an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point. The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, 'is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. 'If we get infinity [when we calculate], how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms" (Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, 1984, p. 415).
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed" (W.H. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297).

Answer 5

Look, we're actually talking aobut two different things here.

How? and Why?

It is the realm of sceince to discover HOW things happen.

Science cannot tell us WHY (except to say, essentially, "because it's the way it happens").

Religion is an attempt to answer "Why?"

Pick your own answer for that one.

I don't have any feeling one way or the other about which answer to "Why?" you pick, although I'd recommend picking one that doesn't contradict the answers to "How?"

Answer 6

Who of us are descendants of Adam and Eve and who could be descendants of the giants that were here during the same time ?

Answer 7

Scientists have failed to explain how life comes from non-life. It's impossible for simple organisms to evolve into more complex organisms.

In the beginning if God created an ocean of protozoa and then left it alone. To this day it would still be an ocean of protozoa.

Answer 8

Monkey business

Answer 9

For me, it is God who has created us. Have a Merry Christmas!

Answer 10

We at no time ever believed that...just by saying that it makes you look very un-educated. Evolution is Fact my friend....you obviously know nothing about it.