I have a serious question about Monkeys. Do you think we evolved from them?

Question

They tried to teach my son that we evolved from monkeys so I quickly enrolled him in a Christian Acacdemy, where he'll actually learn some good, Christian Moral Values. He'll also learn that we was created by God, and not "evolved" from monkeys.

Answer 1

No, I do not think we evolved from monkeys. Monkeys are just as modern a creature as we are.

However, we both did come from a common ancestor which predated monkeys and humans. It was a primate, like monkeys and humans are, but not what we know today as a modern monkey.

And your son won't learn good morals. He will be made to follow a spoonfed list of morals given to him and discouraged from asking any of the real difficult questions about morality. If any of those questions come up, he'll be fed bumper sticker answers to them and told to be satisfied with that. He will have no chance to discuss issues with people from different cultures and he'll be told to apply all the round peg issues of life into the strict square hold morality of religion.

He won't learn about how the world really came about and he won't learn how to deal with the complexities of life except to hide behind the shield of an inflexible belief system.

Answer 2

Evolution can be divided into two parts, macro and micro. Micro evolution is a fact, where as macro evolution remains a theory due to debates on the exact steps of the evolutionary process. EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN we simply can’t trace the exact evolutionary steps of the of the 3 trillion plus species on earth. Considering there is no way that we can even prove if we have located all the species on earth, this may always remain a theory. We can prove though, beyond a doubt, that humans have evolved. We can trace it back conclusively 3.6 million years. 97% of all scientists accept evolution (so does the Catholic Church). Christians have spread lies about this excessively, they especially like to say evolution preaches that Humans evolved from monkeys. Evolution does not state that humans evolved from monkeys, that idea is completely absurd. Science states that monkeys and humans evolved from a shared forefather and are hence relatives, (all primates are) but we are in no way direct descendants of them.

Answer 3

Don't you think it'd have been good for your son to learn what others believe? That way he can understand other beliefs instead of just accepting what someone else hands him. He would become more tolerant.
If he turned out to not have good morals that'd have been your fault not the school's. It'd be your fault because as a parent you're supposed to teach your children what's right and wrong. Religion and such has little to do with morals, it's how someone is raised and what they were taught. So if he had gotten bad morals then I'm sorry but that'd be your fault.

Answer 4

Why are you asking if you've already made up your mind?

BTW, common ancestor, not "evolved from monkeys"

Answer 5

No, but I KNOW that we evolved from simian ancestors. By the way, the description of your question just made me even more atheist.

Answer 6

GOD created animals and man . monkeys are animals man is human.there is a difference.GOD created man to look after the animals.

Answer 7

Darwin is wrong.
Evolvement is not of the body but of the soul.

Life Comes From Life

Darwinism Extinct

Srila Prabhupada. This material world is a composition of three qualities--sattva, rajas and tamas (goodness, passion and ignorance)--which are working everywhere. These three qualities are present in various proportions in all species of life. For example, some trees produce nice fruit, while others are simply meant for fuel. This is due to the association of particular qualities of nature. Among animals also, these three qualities are present. The cow is in the quality of goodness, the lion in passion, and the monkey in ignorance. According to Darwin, Darwin's father is a monkey. [Laughter.] He has theorized foolishly.
Dr. Singh. Darwin has said that some species become extinct in the struggle for survival. Those which are capable of surviving will survive, but those which are not will become extinct. So he says survival and extinction go side by side.
Srila Prabhupada. Nothing is extinct. The monkey is not extinct. Darwin's immediate forefather, the monkey, is still existing.
Karandhara. Darwin said there must be a natural selection. But selection means choice. So who is choosing?
Srila Prabhupada. That must be a person. Who is allowing someone to survive and someone to be killed? There must be some authority with discretion to give such an order. That is our first proposition. Who that authority is, is explained in Bhagavad-gita. Krsna says, mayadhyaksena prakrtih: "Nature is working under My supervision." (Bg. 9.10)
Dr. Singh. Darwin also says that the different species were not created simultaneously, but evolved gradually.
Srila Prabhupada. Then what is his explanation for how the process of evolution began?
Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, "If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can't you create life biochemically in your laboratories?"

In the Future

Karandhara. They say they will create life in the future.
Srila Prabhupada. What future? When this crucial point is raised, they reply, "We shall do it in the future." Why in the future? That is nonsense. "Trust no future, however pleasant." If they are so advanced, they must demonstrate now how life can be created from chemicals. Otherwise what is the meaning of their advancement? They are talking nonsense.
Karandhara. They say that they are right on the verge of creating life.
Srila Prabhupada. That's only a different way of saying the same thing: "In the future." The scientists must admit that they still do not know the origin of life. Their claim that they will soon prove a chemical origin of life is something like paying someone with a postdated check. Suppose I give you a postdated check for ten thousand dollars but I actually have no money. What is the value of that check? Scientists are claiming that their science is wonderful, but when a practical example is wanted, they say they will provide it in the future. Suppose I say that I possess millions of dollars, and when you ask me for some money I say, "Yes, I will now give you a big postdated check. Is that all right?" If you are intelligent, you will reply, "At present give me at least five dollars in cash so I can see something tangible." Similarly, the scientists cannot produce even a single blade of grass in their laboratories, yet they are claiming that life is produced from chemicals. What is this nonsense? Is no one questioning this?
Karandhara. They say that life is produced by chemical laws.
Srila Prabhupada. As soon as there is a law, we must take into consideration that someone made the law. Despite all their so-called advancement, the scientists in their laboratories cannot produce even a blade of grass. What kind of scientists are they?
Dr. Singh. They say that in the ultimate analysis, everything came from matter. Living matter came from nonliving matter.
Srila Prabhupada. Then where is this living matter coming from now? Do the scientists say that life came from matter in the past but does not at the present? Where is the ant coming from now--from the dirt?

The Missing Link

Dr. Singh. in fact, there are several theories explaining how life originated from matter, how living matter came from the nonliving.
Srila Prabhupada. [casting Dr. Singh in the role of a materialistic scientist]. All right, scientist, why is life not coming from matter now? You rascal. Why isn't life coming from matter now? Actually such scientists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from matter, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our Krsna consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately? In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past--"began." Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense.
Karandhara. They say that life arose from matter in the past and that they will create life this way in the future.
Srila Prabhupada. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past?
Dr. Singh. They are assuming...
Srila Prabhupada. Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is their proof that a father can be a dead stone? Where is their proof? We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is Krsna. That also can be proven. But what evidence exists that a child is born of stone? They cannot actually prove that life comes from matter. They are leaving that aside for the future. [Laughter.]
Karandhara. The scientists say that they can now formulate acids, amino acids, that are almost like one-celled living organisms. They say that because these acids so closely resemble living beings, there must be just one missing link needed before they can create life.
Srila Prabhupada. Nonsense! Missing link. I'll challenge them to their face! [Laughter.] They are missing this challenge. The missing link is this challenge to their face.

Answer 8

nop human are not evolved from monkey

Answer 9

Tool.

Answer 10

Serious joke, is it? Can't you read, or do you truly know nothing about evolution?