You haven't investigated much if you actually think we evolved from monkeys. In fact, I can tell you haven't done a single Google search on the matter.

It's a good thing we have members such as yourself who actively try to "represent" a side they don't understand.

This post was edited by automaton on Jun 3 2010 09:15pm

No, God has given us eternal life no matter what. He just placed us in this game to determine if we would spend that life in hell or in heaven.

Bolded: Same exact thing can be said of lots of things, including the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, or numerous other scientific theories. While saying humans evolved from monkeys is a gross simplification of what the DToE claims, it is more or less apt, except for one problem; we have zero proof of any cross-species evolution ever having taken place. Yes, it occurs on a micro scale, we can see this quite easily enough; but micro processes do not always work the same way at a macro level. No proof = you're taking it on faith.

I suggest you do some research, because you clearly do not understand science, nor how many things science has only observations about, but absolutely no plausible explanation for. Here's some basic ones, from an article that is 5 years old: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?full=true

Your assertion makes it sound like you claim that God and religion have no affect on tangible objects, when in fact that could not be farther from the truth. At a minimum, there are chemical reactions that occur within our bodies when we actively seek guidance/comfort from God, that have real physical affects, but that is merely dumbing it down to a scientific level you might understand. It goes much farther and deeper than that.

we evolved from the same common ancestor as monkeys did guyswe didnt directly evolve from monkeys

This post was edited by The_faith on Jun 4 2010 12:06pm

I can only assume you meant "evidence" instead of "proof" since asking for a scientific proof (3, 4) is a pretty ridiculous demand (if you actually understand anything about science). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. That administrator wisdom must translate into scientific know-how, right? Wait --no.

Instances of speciation (as defined biologically):
1) ensatina salamander (ring species)
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
2) darwin's finches
3) house mice in Madeira
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6766/full/403158a0.html
4) Petroica multicolor campbelli
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Miller,+Hilary+C.+A+molecular+phylogeny+of+New+Zealands+Petroica+(Aves:+Petroicidae)+species+based+on+mitochondrial+DNA+sequences.&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
5) threespine stickleback
http://www.springerlink.com/content/31538w184027v730/

One instance should have been more than enough. And remember, I excluded fly and plant species (1) because I'm sure it's not what you're looking for (even though they are legitimate cases of speciation).Here's a link to a video (2) if you're illiterate (which I anticipate you are).


Schizophrenics also have physiological reactions to things they perceive to be real. What's your point?


How do you know?


1. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE
3. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
4. http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

This post was edited by automaton on Jun 4 2010 02:36pm

None of those examples are clearly evolving different species, as their own articles clearly state. If you're going to quote pseudo-science, at least make sure your facts are correct. In fact, it only further validates my original statement; we have ZERO proof that cross species evolution has occurred, only as much speculation as to the whole. It's people like you spreading this type of nonsense as fact that only further deludes your argument.

All you've done is added more speculation, congratulations, you've proved nothing! As far as comparing religion to schizophrenics, I could compare certain scientific theories under the same exact light, as there have been many in history that were later proved to be completely crackpot ideas. Additionally, if we compare "modern medicine" to that of 200 years ago, we'd call those people borderline witch doctors. For you to think that science today will be looked at as some crowning glory in 200 years is sheer ignorance (or stupidity). Science likes to conveniently decide what the definition of proof is to merely be some idea, but common sense says that's not enough. Observable proof is required, not speculation. Proof in the sense of either us seeing a species transform to a different species, or fossil records of it occurring. If all you have is an idea, your idea is no better than the ideas religion have given.

So once again; prove to me that it's real. Your summation saying how do I know is no better than me saying how do you know, because you're basing your faith in a theory on things that have not been proven, but merely on an idea that has only been proven and displayed on a micro level. And that's not even delving into more difficult theories to prove, such as the Big Bang theory, or Biogenesis, etc.

Oh, and creating more multis doesn't give your half baked arguments more authority.