In the novel Planet of the Apes, Ulysse takes a space journey and arrives at a planet populated by intelligent apes. If evolution were true, then these apes would have evolved into humans. But since they didn't evolution is false.
And to those people who will say he was on Earth the whole time, the book is different from the movie. But my point still stands: even if apes had taken over Earth they'd have had to evolve into something stronger than people, and so would have had to become people somewhere along the way, thus losing their ape-like qualities. Since they still look like apes, evolution is false and creationism is true.
Therefore, Planet of the Apes proves creationism. Anybody who says it doesn't is just denying the Divine Word.
2007-08-03 06:45:10 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
And "One Million BC" proves that man walked with Dinosaurs and that cave women were HOT!
2007-08-03 07:11:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have less than no understanding of evolution... you've been tainted by something, somebody
I'm not going to drone on forever about this... simply put... planet of the apes makes perfect sense in the world as we know it. Evolution does not require an entire population to evolve into something - by definition, only a segment evolves, and being more "fit", they survive while the others die off...
Also, an ape could develop a higher intelligence without changing its physical appearance... as will be demonstrated when we start making animals significantly smarter (we're working on that ya know ;))
You seem to be pulling premises out of nowhere... probably some non-science christian science website
2007-08-03 13:53:54 · answer #2 · answered by vérité 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I explain Planet of the Apes as a movie. Believe it or not it is not a scientific study.
But to go along with you for a moment. If another species does end up "taking over the Earth" and the human race goes away - then that is exactly what Evolution talks about. And the new species would not have to turn into humans and would not necessarily have to be better than humans. They would just have to be more adaptable and would have to breed more than humans do.
But, hopefully, this question was just a joke.
2007-08-03 13:50:07 · answer #3 · answered by Alan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow!!! this is the first time I've heard of "Planet of the Apes" being called "the divine word". Besides the obvious comments about science fiction not always being accurate, there is no scientific reason that apes would have to evolve into something "stronger" than humans, they would just have to survive better and be more adaptable.
2007-08-03 13:53:19 · answer #4 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I like science fiction to. But useing fiction books like "Planet of the Apes" and "the Bible" to try to prove a scientific point is both foolish and useless. Chew on this: The type of primate we evolved from is as different from the primates we see today as they are from eachother. In this book, it shows how evolution DID continue with the other apes making them more intelligent and walk upright, while still keeping much of their throw-back appearances. Also, the apes and monkeys we have today are the evolved forms of their ancestors too. They are suited well to their environments and have not needed to change much to survive. Like sharks and crocodiles, their same physical structures have endured mostly unchanged because they haven't needed to change, only diversified after reaching a good stage, just like us. With humans, you see the same basic structures just different colors and slightly different shapes. When evolution produces a successful species, it hangs around for a while. Simple.
2007-08-03 14:05:49 · answer #5 · answered by RealRachel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UHm- 'Planet of the Apes' is a Science FICTION story..
Having a hard time telling that from reality???
2007-08-03 13:54:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What???? Humans are not the only possible end point you know. In fact, if monkeys did evolve into humans, THAT would disprove evolution.
2007-08-03 13:49:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like this all books must be based on fact philosophy. But then we need to figure out how books that contradict work.
2007-08-03 13:49:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Dude, it's a movie. Hollywood is not known for their knowledge of science.
2007-08-03 13:50:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow! basing your theory on a movie makes no sense to me.....
Do you expect to be taken seriously in here?
2007-08-03 13:49:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋