Why do you think that all the fossils found, and had been called the fossils of ape-men....is not true? Like, why do you think it impossible for apes to have evolvd into humans?
2007-09-19 14:34:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Here is my idea of what happened i believe that God made the universe but started life when we think it began with single cell organisms then evealution took over and thats what his plan was.Please don't anone bash me this is just what i believe in. Creationism+Evelution=Today.
2007-09-19 14:45:31 · answer #1 · answered by Luxure 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
First because there is no evidence that indicates they did. Fossils of extinct apes are just fossils of extinct apes. Not a single transitional form has ever been found or will be. All the fossils we have are either 100% human or 100% ape.
Evolutionists back a hundred years ago fully believed we would see all the stages of evolution in the fossil record. And that would make sense if animals were evolving into new animals. Instead after digging up legions of fossils all we every find is fully formed species that just went extinct or actually still exist today.
Evolution really is just a modern myth, and that is becoming painfully more clear everyday for those holding on to those beliefs. Honestly take a look at what they really have. Ape bones! This doesn't prove anything about the theory of evolution, just proves there are extinct apes.
2007-09-19 21:39:17 · answer #2 · answered by mikearion 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
1. The Creation and Flood are two very important parts of the Bible. If you take away those the Bible looks silly.
2. There is a difference between fact and interpretation. Evolutionists interpret fossils one way, Creationists interpret them another way. We both have the same hardware, but different operating systems.
3. DNA is very complex and specified. It is similar to a computer program. Even the worst programs have programmers.
4. Mutations have limits. Can the game 'minesweeper' evolve into the game 'Starcraft?'
5. Plants and animals must be buried quickly in order to be fossilized. A global flood would do that. Millions of years of settling dust would not.
6. Many of the ape-men fossils have either been misidentified or made up. Some people would knowingly lie to protect their world view.
The battle of evolution vs. creation is not about science and religion. It is about two conflicting paradigms that compete daily for the minds and souls of all mankind. It is no different than the conflict between the geocentric and heliocentric paradigms that took place hundreds of years ago.
2007-09-22 08:26:56 · answer #3 · answered by kdanley 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
An anthropoid fossil does not suggest it is a biological ancestor to humans; it's merely a fossil. The fossil record and Geological Column are severely misinterpreted by Evolutionists. Proponents of evolution assume that the chimpanzee is the closest relative to humans, yet the DNA of a cockroach is even closer; and there is no known "evolutionary ancestor" to the chimpanzee. Explain all of that.
Think of it this way... let's say that tomorrow there is an extinction level event precipitated by a cosmo-cataclysm. 90% of life is entombed beneath alluvium mud due to an accompanied polar shift and inertia where the oceanic seas displace out of their basins and overrun the continents. Fossils are formed in mud.
Now let's say that 12,000 years passes and a sophisticated global technoculture has emerged from the descendents of a handful of original post-catastrophic survivors. The population of the earth is now about 4.5 billion. Scientists have discovered the fossils of creatures buried in the ground, and they are attempting to piece together a scenario of what happened.
Firstly, in a shallow recently laid strata they uncover the fossils of a Toy Poodle. In deeper older strata they discover the fossils of a Chihuahua. In a yet deeper and even older strata they unearth the fossils of Beagle. Yet deeper in strata much older they bring forth the fossils of a German Shepard. And finally in even far more older and deeper strata they uncover the fossils of a Great Dane.
The scientists note that these creatures appear to be genetically related. In fact they conclude that they are evolutionary relatives, or cousins, from the same species variety. It is so clear… the Toy Poodle “evolved” from the Chihuahua… the Chihuahua “evolved” from the Beagle… the Beagle “evolved” from the German Shepard… and the German Shepard “evolved” from the Great Dane… how obvious!
Do you see the error of this whole evolutionary assumption?
The prime error is the assumption that a deeper stratum connotes an older age. This simply isn’t true. The stratification and layering process due to hydraulics “naturally” will organize suspended material and particles in an agitated water medium based off viscosity and weight, creating stratum. The heavier the element, then lower in the medium it will suspend. The lighter the element, then higher in the medium it will suspend. This also explains why the lighter and smaller creature, the Toy Poodle, was found closer to the surface, while the heavier and larger creature, the Great Dane, was found furthest down in the stratum.
In reality, all these creatures were “contemporaneous” having lived side-by-side to each other. They did not “evolve” from one another. The Theory of Evolution is severe misinterpretation of the data.
Additionally, in terms of "origins" all life has the same ingredients in their distinct DNA chains and makeup, it's just that the arrangement and intensity of the ingredients in the DNA formulaic receipes vary. Similar DNA ingredients are just the building blocks of all life and nothing more.
It's like the ingredients to bake a cake and a loaf of bread are exactly the "same", but each "recipe" dictates different and varying amounts of the "same ingredients": a cake requires more sugar, more milk and less yeast; bread requires less sugar, less milk and more yeast. Hence, to draw the conclusion that the cake "evolved" from the loaf of bread, or visa versa, based on similar (DNA) ingredients is an entirely erroneous conclusion.
2007-09-21 01:01:46 · answer #4 · answered by . 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. We have no fossil record, however, of either group of African great apes, possibly because bones do not fossilize in rain forest environments~ from wikepedia
what I don't get is the question debate itself. It's like Christians are picking fights with scientists and as long as they can prove that scientists don't know everything about reality, which they don't claim to, then their religion is correct. What kind of logic is that? some kinda insecurity issue maybe, afraid that science is out to squash religions. Nope, their just out their measuring stuff, cataloguing stuff. Minding their own business. No crusade. Just curious and efficient investigation.
2007-09-20 04:47:40 · answer #5 · answered by willmin 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As a Native American, lover of anthropology and a believer in creationism, I used to struggle with this one. I used to doubt the existance of God. Now my beliefs are that fossils are real. I don't believe that these are our decendants, that we evolved from that. I believe that God created us as we are. I don't have the answer to fossils and the scientific record and the theory of evolution but I believe that God created all of it.
2007-09-21 22:30:47 · answer #6 · answered by Mandy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, Science always dismisses Religion and Religion always dismisses Science. I don't see why the two can't just get along.
Albert Einstein once said: "Religion without Science is blind. Science without Religion is lame".
2007-09-22 14:18:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Others have answered your question in such a way that I would simply be repeating what they have said. For that reason, I pose a question for you, or anyone:
Why has no one tried to crack all of this genetic code, and organized this information in such a way that it is easier to access?
I want to know how that genetic code was formed, and why it codes the way it does, I truly believe that is where the answer to many of our questions will be.
2007-09-19 22:01:16 · answer #8 · answered by Katie 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
For one thing in order for it to be evolution two types of the progressional apes cannot have existed at the same time. Which was exactly what was proven earlier this year!
2007-09-19 21:46:08 · answer #9 · answered by Tere S 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The Bible states that God originally created man in His own image and I can't agree that the image of God is that of an ape.
2007-09-19 21:44:13 · answer #10 · answered by David H 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋