Do you believe in Darwins theory of evlution or do you believe in the bibcal cre

[shernajwine]

- but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??

Because macro evolution has not been proven and that's because evolution cannot turn a monkey into a human. There is no proof that one species evolved into another species. There is sketchy evidence and theory and speculation but only evolution by natural selection which acts on random mutations have proven anything and it has only proven variation WITHIN a species.

[amyrouse]

And what i meant is that - yes i understand us and primates came from a common ancestor - but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??

Its called Convergent Evolution.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/convergent_evolution.htm


As for the "humans evolving from monkeys" argument, I get so exasperated when I come across it.  Please please read this article if you honestly believe that evolution consists of humans evolving from monkeys.  Evolution is honestly too rich a topic to be explained away by a simple one-liner.

http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-to-human-evolution.html


For everyone else, evolution is not contrary to religion.  Please actually take the time to read about it before you dismiss it.

[Falconer02]

Falconer02 - You're right - there isn't any proof. But its not that far-fetched given our current ability to do some of the same things.

The key word here is current. Perhaps I'm missing something you said, but I think it is pretty far fetched to think that the early ancients had the same type of tech we have today considering we didn't know anything about basic bacteria till the 1600's. I highly doubt something that so ideal and amazing would be lost in time.

yes i understand us and primates came from a common ancestor - but if we evolved into such a higher life form - why didn't they evolve the same way??

I highly suggest reading Amy's links. You'll walk away much more knowledgeable on the subject!

[shernajwine]

For everyone else, evolution is not contrary to religion.  Please actually take the time to read about it before you dismiss it.

Well for one thing, I have read extensively about evolution so my dismissal cannot be blamed on ignorance.

Secondly here is a quote from an evolutionist:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G. Richard Bozarth, 'The Meaning of Evolution', American Atheist 20 September, 1979, p. 30.

I would add to this for the Jewish sake, that although you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, your religion believes in a Messiah if I'm not mistaken, and the need for that Messiah is solidified in the OT....under this pretense ANY Messiah would be rendered unnecessary and pointless thereby undermining the entire faith.

Evolution does not support the idea that God works behind the scenes. Evolution states that material matter is the creative power along with natural laws.

The Bible says those who reject the truth, “worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1)”. Worshiping creation is the natural result of evolution. Carl Sagan said that evolution’s natural conclusion is atheism, but in his book ‘Cosmos’, Sagan stated:

    “Our ancestors worshiped the Sun, and they were far from foolish. And yet the Sun is an ordinary, even a mediocre star. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars? “

God said that men would worship what is created instead of giving glory to the Creator; Sagan said that it is not foolish to worship the sun and stars......
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml

Logical conclusion, believing in evolution contradicts belief in the God of the bible.

[cnoel]

I feel as evolution goes.  You could compare the world to an apple.
In the beginning it was just a seed that blossomed into a flower
Then turned into a red delicious apple and just hung there on the tree with the rest of them
Some left the branch of life others just hung around until they became rotten to the core
They then fell from the tree.
Like the world
It was created by God and has grown and changed time over time
It is just too bad Man kind may not survive.
Evolution evolves like the story about the frog put in cold water then placed on the burner.  He is too far gone before he realizes he is boiling to death and can not jump out of the pot.
Mankind lives so much in immunizations, sanitary everything that when the wind blows they need to run to the doctors to protect them from the natural effects of mother nature and the changing of the times.

[shernajwine]

As for the "humans evolving from monkeys" argument, I get so exasperated when I come across it.  Please please read this article if you honestly believe that evolution consists of humans evolving from monkeys.  Evolution is honestly too rich a topic to be explained away by a simple one-liner.

http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-to-human-evolution.html

On the last line of the page you linked too was this statement

In the years since Darwin and Huxley, a wide variety of fossil forms ("hominids") have of course come to light, providing just the sort of series that one might expect to see if ape to human evolution had actually occurred.

I imagine from your comment that you think people are misunderstanding evolution when they make the comment that apes evolved into humans....but this statement on your link seems to support the idea. Also, I would hate to see anyone taking that statement at face value and assuming that these hominids in the fossil record actually prove a direct human ancestor....because they don't. Evolutionists assert human evolution as fact but admit that there is no substantial proof for it.

Evolutionist and Harvard professor Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that "Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...."[101] In the September 2005 issue of National Geographic, Joel Achenbach asserted that human evolution is a "fact" but he also candidly admitted that the field of paleoanthropology "has again become a rather glorious mess."[102][103] In the same National Geographic article Harvard paleoanthropologist Dan Lieberman states, "We're not doing a very good job of being honest about what we don't know...".[103]