If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

a reply to: Barcs

Then you're willing to be right also

Pasteur's experiment disproved empirically spontaneous generation

Genetic studies by Monsanto & all rich labs disproved scientifically linear regression

don't take their word for it if you're serious: find their protocol and see who's lying

actually Greg Mendel disproved linear regression before darwin too

And Newton disproved linear regression, and Archimedes..

Dawkins saying Adam & Eve were Africans does not cancel him saying they were monkeys, which they were not.

Zeno disproved radioactive dating

this religion of the state despite separation of church & state prohibiting public schools from discussing the origins of species theoretically is based mostly on necromancy: eg "adam was a monkey because bones"

it's leading to all sorts of things like med or psy or social darwinism

a reply to: wisvol

The first people (according to the evidence) are from africa.

The garden of eden is Iraq.

Is god trying to fool us?
I asked you earlier why the scientists are lying and you ignored the question.

Either the scientists are lying or the "god" is misleading.

Which is it?

a reply to: wisvol

I think you tend to assign the wrong meaning to a number of the words you use.

a reply to: wheresthebody

I share that impression, and think you're the deceived writer

let us agree on a judge: I like www.oxforddictionaries.com...

a reply to: wisvol

Serious question, is english your first language?

a reply to: wheresthebody

Yes, born & raised in Milwaukee, america in the eighties

a reply to: wisvol

good luck

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: wisvol

The first people (according to the evidence) are from africa.

The garden of eden is Iraq.

Is god trying to fool us?
I asked you earlier why the scientists are lying and you ignored the question.

Either the scientists are lying or the "god" is misleading.

Which is it?

In the Bible Man is made two times. First as man (he and she) in genesis 1. And than man is made as Adam and Eve in in genesis 2.

It is not mentioned where man was formed in Genesis Chapter 1.

Adam were formed from the dust on the ground prior to the garden of Eden. Eden was made after Adam was formed. Lord God put Adam in the garden of Eden. Adam was not formed in the garden of Eden either. It is not mentioned where Adam was formed.

What Genesis 1 and 2 imply is that man walked on Earth before Adam was formed from the dust on the ground. Eden was also formed after all living Things was formed by Earth (Genesis 1).

a reply to: spy66
Thank you.

So there isn't a specific place?
I'm not sure why but I thought Adam and Steve.. or Eve were done in Sumer.

I'm probably wrong tho.

a reply to: wisvol

Again, what does spontaneous generation and linear regression have to do with evolution?

Evolution is not linear, so what point are you trying to make with your generalizing one liner summaries of experiments that you still have not provided a link to or even explained?

Zeno disproved radioactive dating

citation needed again. Why are you so afraid to back your points up?

eg "adam was a monkey because bones"

Another fantastic strawman. No where in evolutionary theory is it suggested that the first human was a monkey. Your failure to understand basic concepts in evolution is baffling. Why not research the other side?

it's leading to all sorts of things like med or psy or social darwinism

More complete and utter BS. The science behind Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is completely unrelated to social darwinism.

a reply to: Barcs

Again, what does spontaneous generation and linear regression have to do with evolution?

nothing

hence, claiming science in saying that the origin of species would be other species, or soup, or explosions, as the state religion does, is fraudulent (because public funding of schools)

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: spy66
Thank you.

So there isn't a specific place?
I'm not sure why but I thought Adam and Steve.. or Eve were done in Sumer.

I'm probably wrong tho.

No, there is not really mentioned a specific Place where man was formed. Not in Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2.

There is no mention of man evolving from a different lifeform either. What Genesis 1 emply is that man was formed as its own kind, but in the image of God. No other lifeform was giving this specifics.

No other lifeform have Our specifics either. Not even Close.

There exists no data of when man became man from another lifeform. There is non. So i dont know why People have these stupid and meaningles arguments. Science cant prove when exact man evolved from a different lifeform.

a reply to: wheresthebody

Nope, his first language is the bible.

a reply to: spy66

No other lifeform was giving this specifics.

Thank you for pointing this out, it is indeed important to note that "other apes" can't seem to play harpsichord or write moby dick at all.

In fact, they couldn't even make a proper sentence in a million years.

originally posted by: wisvol
claiming science in saying that the origin of species would be other species, or soup, or explosions, as the state religion does, is fraudulent (because public funding of schools)

Another baseless statement that means nothing. Why do you refuse to back up your points when asked? Why can't you form a coherent sentence or make a logical point? It's not that difficult, but it's painfully obvious here that you do not understand evolution in the least, yet keep claiming it's wrong via misunderstandings.

Why is the origin of species from other species fraudulent? You keep making things up but offer no proof. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life, stop the lies already.

a reply to: Barcs

Why is the origin of species from other species fraudulent?

because to observe speciation you have to tweak the definition

I love the Katt Williams reference... So many of you are calling this guy ignorant(which he is) but then are giving a wrong or confusing definition of evolution. Evolution is new genetic traits added to a species(they come in all shapes and sizes). However, these new genetic traits are a function of time and random mutation, NOT survival. Too many people here think they know evolution as a species adapting for survival which is WRONG. The new genetic traits of a species are random, the most useful ones survive and the less useful one die out as a result of their environment.

There is also new evidence to suggest that some species of apes have entered the stone age. So they're a few 1000 years away from those cave drawings you people are talking about(if we don't kill them all first). Your whole thread is stupid.

I'm not a biologist, just a dude who picks up a book once in a while.