when christians ask: if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys, why do they imply that monkeys?

Question

in the far away past were like nowadays monkeys???

kpxx...just stay tuned and you will know where i get this from

Answer 1

If you can imagine a Muslim boot stomping on your face every minute of every day of your life, you can imagine what it is like to be an infidel ruled by Muslims. This, to Muslims, is tolerance and peaceful co-existance. Their victims dare not disagree on pain of death.

Historically the victims of Muslim intolerance initially fell into one of two categories: Christians and Jews (People of the Book) and miscellaneous other infidels. People of the Book could avoid death or slavery and surreptitiously practice their faith if they paid protection money to their Muslim masters and allowed themselves to be humiliated by them. All others would have to convert to Islam or be slain or enslaved. That imperative was relaxed in the 13th century when it became clear to Muslim rulers that exterminating the entire Hindu population of India was impractical. Muslim subjects who were not People of the Book were allowed to become dhimmis (protected subject peoples) under the following conditions:

"Those who agree to pay jizyah are to be treated as zimmîs who are allowed to live and work for the Islamic state under the following 20 disabilities: (1) they are not to build any new places of worship; (2) they are not to repair any old places of worship which have been destroyed by the Muslims; (3) they are not to prevent Muslim travellers from staying in their places of worship; (4) they are to entertain for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their homes, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill; (5) they are not to harbour any hostility towards the Islamic state, or give any aid and comfort to hostile elements; (6) they are not to prevent any one of them from getting converted to Islam; (7) they have to show respect towards every Muslim; (8) they have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; (9) they are not to dress like Muslims; (10) they are not to name themselves with Muslim names; (11) they are not to ride on horses with saddle and bridle; (12) they are not to possess arms; (13) they are not to wear signet rings or seals on their fingers; (14) they are not to sell or drink liquor openly; (15) they are to wear a distinctive dress which shows their inferior status, and which separates them from the Muslims; (16) they are not to propagate their customs and usages amongst the Muslims; (17) they are not to build their houses in the neighbourhood of Muslims; (18) they are not to bring their dead near the graveyards of the Muslims; (19) they are not to observe their religious practices publicly, or mourn their dead loudly; and (20) they are not to buy Muslim slaves."

Saudi sheikh Marzouq Salem al-Ghamdi concisely summarized the current consensus viewpoint of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence in a television sermon he delivered in 2002:

"If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet -- there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay the jizya (tolerance tax) to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are ... that they do not renovate a church or monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes ... that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress or speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim ... If they violate these conditions, they have not protection."

There is a fiction retailed by Muslims and their infidel apologists to the effect that Jews were well-treated by their Muslim masters and that the two groups once lived together in peace and harmony. Bernard Lewis, a distinguished Orientalist, in 1968 took exception to that lie.

"The golden age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam. The myth was invented in 19th-century Europe as a reproach to Christians -- and then taken up by Muslims in our time as a reproach to Jews ... European travellers to the East in the age of liberalism and emancipation are almost unanimous in deploring the degraded and precarious position of Jews in Muslim countries, and the dangers and humiliations to which they were subject. Jewish scholars, acquainted with the history of Islam and with the current situation in Islamic lands, can have had no illusions on this score. Vambery [1904] is unambiguous: "I do not know any more miserable, helpless, and pitiful individual on God's earth than the Jahudi in those countries."

The conditions of dhimmitude spelled out in Sharia law are the minimum required for protection. At various times and places infidel subjects have been subjected to even greater abuses at the direction of local Muslim rulers. Islam specifies that infidel subjects must be humiliated and utterly subdued. Muslims in the past have been ingeniously cruel in finding new ways to make that so. The history and nature of Muslim intolerance is described in painful detail in "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance -- How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims" edited by Robert Spencer.

Answer 2

The greater question is: Why do scientists advance their own philosophical ideas as truth and will not even address those who point out very reasonable and logical flaws in that philosophy? Why do they believe they are so much smarter than everyone else? Be very careful to put that much faith in someone who merely went to college for a few years, that does not make everything they say true. Case and point, all scientists used to claim that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and that some objects fell faster than others. All of these ideas are seen as silly today. With an open mind, read some of the "clever" points mentioned on this website (1) supporting a young earth.

Answer 3

I am a Christian and even I know that if a certain type of monkey evolved that type of monkey would no longer be here. Other monkeys that are a different type would still be here. No one has been able to show me a leap from animal consciousness to human conscience. A monkey does not know in it its heart what is right and what is wrong. If a monkey takes my bananna it does not know that it is a thief. They also do not have the ability to ponder No one can show in a fossil record evolution of the mind.

Answer 4

well first of all they need to know we did not evolve from monkeys: Both humans and monkeys evolved from another animal that lived a long time ago.

and if they ask why we do not see it happening now??

well we have seen natural selection occur in only a few years but since evolution began 3.5 billion years ago it obviously takes a while.

Answer 5

You are the one who implies here..... You imply *we*, Christians do not know just what you are talking about..... *We* do...... we are NOT uneducated people.... rofl...... get a grip, and get over yourself....... geeeeee...... And a monkey is a monkey no matter what it looked liked then or now...... they either are or are not monkeys..... and we are NOT monkeys, in any way, shape or form...... again I say, do NOT assume your assumption that implys what *we* think or know....... How is that for a straight up answer ?????? go in peace.... God bless

Answer 6

Every single thing involved in any argument that they try to present is based on complete lack of knowledge as to what the theory of evolution says. They will scrape the bottom of any pathetic argument barrel looking for things to throw into the argument.

Answer 7

really? and where did you get this? When I hear from different Educated Christians, such as those with Doctorate Degrees, They seem to use the term " Primate Ancestors"

Answer 8

I quote on the old show Different Strokes:


"what you talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

Answer 9

Because they have no idea what evolution really means, or have any idea on any more sublte underpinnings (like the common ancestor, common knowledge to atheists, and I guess not-so-common to Christians)

Answer 10

I think what they mean is, why do we not see them evolving now, why is the process not been recorded or seen lately

Answer 11

Because they don't know about evolution and they really don't want to know. Not all of course.